Opinions of a Lutheran Desert Rat

2011 Christmas Eve Sermon

2011-12-24T15:55:00.000-08:00

Historianshave given the year of 1816 the title, “Year Without a Summer”. In New England that year, there was a persistent haze that filled thesky, which seemed to make the sun look dim. Snow storms persistedinto July and temperatures fluctuated wildly from seasonably hot tofreezing within just a day or two. Crops failed; food prices soared;and, it was part of the reason why some New England families lefttheir farms to move to the new and open frontier of the UpperMidwest.

Whatthose people in New England did not know, however. was that they werenot alone in this strange weather. The same thing was happening inNorthern Europe and in China. Weather patterns were disruptedworldwide that year and for a couple of years after. Of course,there was no Twitter or Facebook back then for people to realize thescope of the events that were happening to them.

Itwas not until fairly recently that scientists and historians realizedthat a huge volcanic eruption, the most powerful in 1,300 years,occurred in April, 1815 at Mount Tambora, Indonesia, disruptingweather worldwide for years. Those people in New England had neitherthe idea that an volcanic eruption, which began over a year beforeand on the other side of the planet, was affecting their lives sodramatically nor that their suffering connected them with othersaround the globe.

Weare connected tonight, not by an eruption of ash and volcanic gasesthat dim the sun's light; rather, by an eruption of God's gracethrough the birth of the Word of God made flesh, who is the lightshinning for all people. The temptation is, however, to reallynarrow our focus during Christmas and to forget the connections thatChrist's birth makes between us and our world. Of course we know inour heads that Christmas is an historical moment in the world, butour focus tends to be much closer to home during Christmas.

Allthe advertizing blitz of the half-century has successfully plantedthe expectation in our society that Christmas is primarily a familycentered holiday. Of course, being home with family is important andChristmas is a wonderful time to gather together. But in doing so wecannot forget that God is also gathering us into much largercommunity that stretches around the world and reaches throughouttime.

Evenas we look just at the recorded events of that first Christmas, wecannot escape how God through Jesus affected so many and gatheredthem from such diverse backgrounds. From Mary, far from home andvery pregnant, to a simple carpenter named Joseph and to shepherds inthe fields, they gathered along with the simple creatures of a astable.

Later,from the lands far to the east, the mysterious Magi, watchers of thesky and the signs that the sky reveals, are lead to the stable by astar so that they may give honor and praise to a newborn king. EvenKing Herod is called and gathered towards Jesus birth; yet, he reactsnot with faith but with the cowardly murder of innocent children in avain attempt to stop God from being born with us.

Andto this very night, the birth of this child is still affecting us andgathering us in ways of which we are often not aware. Here with ustonight are all the hopes and dreams of the prophets who gave theirlives to give voice to truth and hope throughout the centuries. Weare gathered with Christians in all parts of the world, many who arerisking their lives to take a peak into that manager with us. But weare also gathered as the saints who have gone before us, as thepilgrims still with us and as the souls who will be here long afterour time is gone – all gathered around this manager, by this oneevent, by this eruption of God's grace that gives light to the world.

Foryou see, Christmas is not about marking an historical event that islong past; it is not about remembering the birth of the Messiah, Godwith us, but experiencing it. Christmas, the birth of God in ourmidst, this eruption of God's grace, is happening now, even in ourday. As we gather around Scripture and hear the story of the Word ofGod made flesh in Jesus, we are called from our everyday lives toadore the Christ child with those shepherds of long ago. When werecite the Nicene Creed together that promises us that Jesus is thelight of the world who comes to judge the living and the dead, hislight reveals the full tyranny of human sin and death as we witness Herod in his cowardice trying to deny God's love and grace by themurder of children. And when in the Words of Institution we hear thepromise and invitation that in receiving his body and blood we arereceiving the forgiveness of our sins, we ponder with Mary all ofthese things in our hearts and we are moved to explode with gratitudeas did those Magi with their finest gifts. This is not history; itis our reality and it is our calling to bear witness to thisexplosion of grace that is entering and uniting the world in waysthat are still being revealed.

But,what is being revealed is not always clear. Christ born into theworld, the Word of God being born into each one of our lives, is notsomething that always comes free of conflict or pain. In fact,depending on the person and circumstances, the holidays can be timesthat seem to highlight our loneliness or that put further stress onfamily tensions. Jesus' presence may create conflict, angst, angeror even despair when his truth illuminates the reality of human sinand brokenness.

Butfor those struggling on this Christmas Eve, I challenge you toremember that whatever we are feeling at the moment, no matter howfinal our personal failures may seem to be, these things are not thereality about Christmas or about you. .

Christmasis about that eruption of God's grace that has not dimmed over theyears, but continues to brighten. It is about God restoring thatrelationship with humankind throughout the world and throughout timeby confronting sin and defeating it with the the embodiment of loveand grace, Jesus, born through Mary's womb this night and through thecross that he must soon bear. It is about God restoring thatrelationship with you, with me, with us. It is about a faith givento us that allows us to believe even before we can see how our livesare connected with God and with each other by this ongoing event –this eruption of love and grace beyond measure who at this veryminute is gathering and calling every one of us to step from darknessinto his light.

Nomatter where you find yourself this night – whether in joy, despairor somewhere in between – I remind you of the reality that is God'slove for you. I remind you of the erupting grace of God with us,Jesus Christ, who is affecting you in ways you may not perceive andwho unites you with an eternal community. And if, in the presentmoment, the circumstances and failures of life are keeping you fromseeing it, let us as people gathered right along with you, in all ofour weaknesses and failures, believe for you and with you. Know thatyou are not alone, but that God's eruption of grace and love inChrist Jesus continues for your, for us, for all.

Amen.

Happy 99th Birthday, Arizona!

2011-02-13T21:19:00.000-08:00

Ninety-nine years ago, early on Valentine's day morning, people throughout Arizona began the tasks of the new day, although most minds were preoccupied with the anticipation that a long, fifty year journey of being a territory was about to come to an end.

When the Phoenix telegraph office finally received the long awaited news, bells throughout the territory began to ring. Governor Hunt, true to his progressive roots, shunned the coach and motorcar and walked to the modest new capital building for his first speech.

And in Prescott, the site of Arizona's first territorial capital, the patrons of the Whiskey Row saloon district celebrated in the only way they knew how: by firing their sidearms into the ceiling where the bullet holes remain to this day.

Now, 99 years have passed since that first day of statehood and we look upon a very different world and a very different Arizona. Although exceedingly more numerous in population and more powerful in national politics, we do ask, “At what cost?” When we allow even more golf courses to be erected in the middle of a desert, when state of the art Spring Training facilities sit empty while another only marginally better facility is built and when we shun our own multicultural legacy and scapegoat an entire segment of our population for all of our shortcomings, we cannot help but wonder, “Have we sold our souls?” Yes, Arizona can now host Superbowls and national championship games galore; it is now the home of the nation's fifth largest city and largest state capital; however, when did we start measuring the greatness of our beautiful Arizona by these things?

Although I left Arizona over 12 years ago in order to answer the call to ordained ministry, I am still of Arizona. I live in Rockford, serve in Durand and my home always will be wherever Kathy and Ben are; and, I may remain in the Midwest for the rest of my days. Make no mistake, however; I am of Arizona.

For whatever reason God has given, my soul sings in the deafening silence of a desert sunset. I thrill at the harshness of a desert summer and of chilling mountain snow. I rejoice at the incredible variety of peoples and cultures that are part of the Grand Canyon State purely by grace; and, I despair in a possible future where such a variety is persecuted as a liability.

As Arizona begins its 100^th year as a sovereign state of the Union, I thank God for her past, her beauty and her unique place on this planet. At the same time, I mourn her loss of innocence and fear the greatness that the dreams and nightmares of others would thrust upon her.

Happy 99^th Birthday to The Copper State, The Valentine State and to the Grand Canyon State – the great State of Arizona!

“Ditat Deus” – God enriches, indeed.

Arizona. Kyrie Eleison.

2011-01-08T19:59:00.000-08:00

Arizona is a geographically diverse state from its deserts to it snow covered mountains and forests. As equally diverse are the different cultures in Arizona from Native Americans, descendants of Spanish settlers and descendants of settlers from the United States. Arizona has the fifth most populous city in America and the most populous state capital in America; at the same time, it has some of the most rural areas in the nation, some only accessible by helicopter or hiking. These differences are Arizona's strength and beauty.

Since people come from all over to make Arizona home, Arizona is also politically diverse. It was born during the progressive movement and had a majority of progressive leaders early in its history. The provisions for referendum and recall in its constitution, stumbling blocks that delayed Arizona's admission to the Union because such things were too radical for the day, are evidence of this; the modest capital building and the fact that there is no governor's mansion also are signs of its populous roots.

Even as Arizona's political affiliations began to change, however, even as a more rugged individualism began to assert itself in its political life, it was mostly a "live and let live" philosophy. When the oft labeled "hawk" Barry Goldwater passed away, it was telling that his funeral was marked by signs of love and respect by Native American communities and by the homosexual community for his advocacy our their behalf. He loved Arizona and its people more than his politics and his party, which use to be the standard for politicians.

Overlapping Arizona's history, however, is also a story of violence born by being the crossroads of the tragic histories for many peoples. After the Civil War, ex-soldiers traumatized by war along with criminals looking for easier and more lucrative victims flooded the region. It became a plague, a surreal ugliness even more vivid when contrasted to the breathtaking beauty of the land. It was an ugliness that we thought was part of our history; yet, it is with a cruel irony that Rep. Gifford represents the district that contains Tombstone, Arizona, which was the stage for Arizona's most famous and symbolic act of violence and incivility- until today.

It is an incivility that reaches from the nightmares of our past and continues its attempt to turn Arizona's greatest strength, its great diversity, into a contemptible weakness. It is an incivility born in the partisan back-rooms of political extremism, which always views the motives of our neighbors in the worst possible light and which holds loving our neighbor in contempt, let alone our enemies. It is an incivility that is a nationwide plague that through immigration both from within and without has made Arizona a crucible to distill the worst demons of our nature.

Lord, have mercy on us. May we someday abandon the ugliness, hatred and death that has mocked Arizona's great beauty. May we someday be worthy of this ancient land with a great newborn's heart. Lord, forgive us. Amen.

My Letter to Representative Donald A Manzullo

2010-06-15T14:07:00.001-07:00

My response probably only makes sense if you know the context and content of the letters that I am addressing. The following are the papers recently sent to me by our U.S. Representative from Northern Illinois, Don Manzullo. My response follows. I also apologize in advance that for some reason blogger is not allowing my paragraph formattings to publish correctly and it is all run together.

Letter from Manzullo page one

Letter from Manzullo page two

Letter from Manzullo to Gates page one

Letter from Manzullo to Gates page two

Letter from Manzullo to Gates signatures

June 15, 2010

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515-1316

Dear Representative Manzullo:

Thank you for your dedicated service to our nation and to you correspondence dated June 9, 2010, in which you express concern for recent U.S. Court and U.S. Department of Defense decisions concerning both the National Day of Prayer and the rescission of an invitation to the Reverend Doctor Franklin Graham. I deeply appreciate your thoughtfulness in keeping the religious leaders in your district informed; however, I do feel it necessary to express my profound disagreement with a couple of your interpretations and conclusions regarding these events.

First, in reference to the court decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb who ruled that the law designating a set national day of prayer is unconstitutional, you argue that such proclamations are historically established going all the way back to July 20, 1775. This argument leaves out some key facts; the most notable being is that such days of prayer were hotly debated by the Founding Fathers. In fact John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had an openly hostile debate on the floor of Congress concerning this very issue. This is but one of numerous instances that are historically documented concerning the struggles that the Founding Fathers endured in understanding the role of prayer, clergy and religion in the new federalist government.

The strongest evidence of this struggle is the Constitution itself, which makes no appeal or acknowledgment of God whatsoever even though many advocated passionately for such an inclusion in the Preamble. Therefore, even though there is precedent for a national day of prayer in the history of the United States, it is in no way a precedent without controversy and criticism dating back to the Founding Fathers. Therefore, the court ruling against the current law that establishes our current National Day of Prayer, a law that I believe was not enacted until 1952, is by no means that surprising, outrageous or itself without precedent.

Second, in reference to the decision by the U.S. Army to rescind an invitation to Rev. Dr. Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service, you argue that Rev. Graham should not be singled out for his personal views and his “type” of Christian belief. I respectfully disagree and also argue that such discrimination is, again, hardly without precedent. Many faithful Christians are openly critical of U.S. policies and of war in general. Very few of them have been invited to speak at such events.

While Rev. Dr. Franklin Graham is a very devoted man of faith, his openly hostile views towards homosexuals and Islam does raise significant concerns, not just for liberal political organizations, but for many who strive to be loyal to Christ. I am not saying that I think his invitation should have been rescinded, but I definitely understand why some thought that it was appropriate to do so.

In closing, I would like to express my concern that these rather superfluous issues have seemed to captivate the priorities of the U.S. Congress. Of course religious freedom is vital, but whether or not the U.S. Government has an official day dedicated for people to pray is irrelevant to this vital freedom. I cherish the freedom that allows me and others to worship and pray without fear, to establish our religious community without intimidation and to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without censorship. Whether or not the U.S. Government, which is neither a church nor a religious community, designates a day for everyone to pray is at best irrelevant, and at worse, counterproductive to the protection of this vital religious liberty.

Thank you for letting me express my opinions and concerns. I need to note that while I do speak as pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Durand, Illinois, please know that I do not speak for the lay leadership of this congregation or its individual members, who are free to agree or disagree with me in matters addressed in this letter.

Once again, thank you for your willingness to serve our great nation.

Sincerely,

Reverend Robert Lee Bennight

Minister of Word and Sacrament

Great Link

2010-05-03T18:07:00.001-07:00

Both Saint and Cynic blog author, Pastor Brant Clements, shared a link to this article from the ELCA and the Journal of Lutheran Ethics. Good stuff, but no punches are pulled.

http://saintandcynic.blogspot.com/2010/05/katie-bar-door.html#comment-form

Personally and Pastorally Conflicted: Confident in Christ

2010-04-26T19:52:00.001-07:00

2010 MAY PASTOR’S ARTICLE

I know that my articles are sometimes verbose and not read by everyone. I would ask that you please get through this one if you can because I believe that what I am sharing this month is particularly important for our ministry together. Actually, I have been stewing and working on it for almost a month now to the point that I am almost paralyzed by it as I obsess over every word and phrase. In order for Shannon to get The Traveler out by the first and for me to get going with other important pastoral duties, I have decided to simply publish what I have at the moment, incomplete as I feel that it may be. In fact, what follows is just a fraction of what I wanted to share with you, but hopefully I have included the most important parts of what needs to be said.

Kathy and I recently heard the news that a classmate, friend and pastoral colleague, Mary, had resigned as pastor of Shepherd of the Valley in Galt, California, which is near Sacramento. She had served this congregation as pastor for twelve years. A recent newspaper article about her departure reported that she was extremely popular in the congregation and in the community; similarly, Mary had no desire to leave Shepherd of the Valley. So, why did she resign?

In August 2009, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to alter celibacy requirements for homosexual clergy, allowing a congregation, only if a congregation wished to do so, to call ministers who were in life-long, monogamous, homosexual relationships. Congregations could also choose if they wished to recognize and endorse homosexual unions as part of their ministry.

As a result, Shepherd of the Valley recently completed the process of seceding from the ELCA; Mary who does not see disagreements around these issues to be the basis for schism, remained with the ELCA, which made her ineligible to remain as pastor.

Mary’s departure is but one example of the schism that has gripped our denomination. Within our Northern Illinois Synod, a least a dozen congregations are conflicted or pondering secession.

My attempt has to remain as neutral as possible, although I will freely admit that I may have failed in these attempts sometimes. My hope has been for study, debate and discernment, which has happened; I think this is one of the reasons why Trinity has endured very little dissension since August.

The departure of my friend, Mary, however, has brought me to the conclusion that perhaps the time for neutrality has ended. I fear I have clung to neutrality for too long for two reasons: First, I’m afraid of offending some dear friends for whom homosexuality is not merely a topic of discussion but an everyday reality of life; and, second, I am conflicted because my personal desires do not match my conscience and my sense of pastoral duty. As parishioners whom I serve, however, I think it is time for you to know exactly where I stand both personally and pastorally.

Personally, I want to be able to whole heartedly and without reservation endorse homosexual unions and to make them recognized as part of the wider ministry of the church on par with, although separate than, marriage. I want to, and I will, rejoice with my friends when they find someone who loves them and who wishes to share their lives with them. I desire to be and will strive to continue to be supportive of those I know in homosexual unions, most of which have lasted longer than many marriages.

Pastorally, however, I cannot endorse or preside over homosexual unions because I simply cannot in good conscience find Scriptural support for them directly or indirectly. While I may desire it to be otherwise, my desire does not excuse me from being captive to the Word of God. Therefore, I will not, either as pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Durand or as a pastor of the wider denomination preside over homosexual unions and must counsel that condoning homosexual acts is not supported by Scripture.

I know many of my colleagues disagree and some friends may be disappointed or even angry; actually, it makes me angry and disappointed; however, anger and disappointment aside, I simply cannot do otherwise and still feel that I am being true to what I know to be right.

With this being said, I, in no way, endorse any of the propaganda that much of the anti-homosexual “reform” and “renewal” groups have been selling. These groups tend to blame the current schism on those who promote the “homosexual agenda”, which they believe includes almost every Churchwide leader of the ECLA. While I, too, have my issues with the ELCA leadership, I completely reject this superstition of some type of homosexual plot.

The roots of this schism are long, deep and are not caused by the “homosexual agenda”; rather, the homosexual agenda is a natural consequence of a greater sin which is that Christians for decades if not centuries have subjugated homosexuals to a steady diet of Law that never leads to the Gospel. The decisions by the Churchwide Assembly were not a rejection of the Law, but rather the poisonous fruit of Law previously misapplied. Lutherans understand the Word to come to us as both Law and Gospel, but only in that the Law leads to Gospel. The Law condemns us, all of us, so that we can come to know our need for and total reliance upon God’s grace.

I argue that while the Law has been very much revealed to people who are homosexual, grace has also been very much hidden for no other reason than many see, either intentionally or subconsciously, homosexual sins as worse sins than others and that those committing them are not worthy of God’s grace. No wonder so many homosexuals have left the church or have simply been lead to the conclusion that sexual orientation is not subject to judgment by the Law because they know, like all Lutherans should, Law that leads us only to the cross and never to the Gospel is not a true Law at all, but human legalism that enslaves the conscience for no other reason than the continuation of a subjective cultural morality.

Also, embracing sedition under the blanket claim that the ELCA has rejected Scriptural and Confessional authority is completely misleading and hypocritical. The ELCA may have a Scriptural interpretation that is in error, but this is completely different that rejecting Scripture. This controversial decision, as flawed as it may be, does not deny the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the Ecumenical Creeds, the Lutheran Confessions, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the authority of Holy Scripture or this congregations adherence to its interpretation of Holy Scripture in regards to homosexuality. Therefore, the decisions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly are not sufficient to justify sedition and secession from the ELCA.

It also needs to be said because it is so often overlooked that violence against someone, either physically or by speech, because of that person’s sexual orientation is unacceptable. For this reason, the increasing use of phrases such as “that’s so gay”, “faggot” and other derogatory terms, which I have overheard in church settings, especially among our youth, is as unacceptable as any racial slur; they can attest that such incidents do not go by without admonishment.

While I hope that this article has helped clarify my personal convictions on this issue, I truly hope it does not lead to quell discussion, study and continuing discernment. I simply thought that the time had come in light of our upcoming Annual Congregation Meeting for me to make my positions known for the sake of honesty, clarity and truth.

May our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen us in truth, correct us in error and unite us in forgiveness when we struggle to distinguish between the two.

Your Friend in Christ,

Pastor Lee.

My Letter to Arizona Governor Brewer Regarding Pending Immigration Legislation

2010-04-19T16:41:00.000-07:00

Dear Governor Brewer:

Before going into ordained ministry as a Lutheran pastor, I was an Arizona DPS officer for nearly 7 years (1991-98) stationed in Yuma and in Tucson. I am also a 3rd generation Arizona native and my parents still live in Arizona.

I know that immigration is a hot topic right now and that there is a bill for you to sign regarding increased local enforcement. Although I know law enforcement has changed in 12 years, I would like to share one of my experiences.

For brevity, I will not go into the details, but it was a death notification situation where one sister was born a U.S. citizen and the other was not and was here illegally. When the husband of the illegal sister died in an automobile collision, she was afraid to even claim her husband's body or talk to us because she was afraid that she would be deported and separated from her children. She had a job and home as did her husband. I believe she was using her sister's social security number (without her knowledge) and was not using public aid for fear, of course, of being deported. It was not until we were able to talk to the legal sister that we were able to determine why the illegal sister was afraid of us. This happened in the mid 1990s. How much more complicated and less humane would this scenario have been if state law enforcement officers had to enforce immigrations laws in this situation that basically makes it illegal for this woman to breathe air on this side of the border?

I know that much of the law enforcement community is pushing for passage of this bill; I know the recent and tragic murder of a local rancher along the border have passions enraged; and, I know that the state is financially crippled and the illegal immigration has become completely out of control. However, I fear that in our passion for safety and security we are not seeing the complications and abuses that such responsibilities and power thrust upon our local law enforcement agencies will create.

As a fellow Republican who is a member of the party born out of standing up for those who are oppressed, as a native of Arizona that is a state with a great diversity of terrains, cultures and peoples and as a Christian minister who is captive to the Word of God that tells us aliens and foreigners should be treated as citizens among us, I implore you to veto this bill.

I know that it will bring heavy criticism upon you and that it may cost you the Governor's office in the next election; however, it is the right thing to do. Although the motives of those promoting this bill may be good, the bill itself is not and will lead to more suffering and ultimately more opportunities for violent and organized criminals to use poor and desperate families on both sides of the border as human camouflage for their illegal and violent activities.

I will be praying for you as you bear the weight of this great responsibility. Thank you for your public service to the People of the Great State of Arizona. God's guidance and blessing be with you.

Sincerely,

Rev. Robert Lee Bennight

"With malice towards none, with charity for all..."

2010-03-04T21:06:00.000-08:00

If you look up at the platform above Lincoln, you will see John Wilkes Booth, his future assassin, listening to his inaugural speech. Some of his fellow conspirators are also in the photograph.

Today marks the 145 the anniversary of one of the most important events in American history. It is not the date of a famous battle or a landmark piece of legislation. It is not the birthday of any famous leader, at least none of which I am aware. Rather, it is an anniversary of a speech. No, it is not Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, but it is a speech of Lincoln. Although not an obscure speech, I doubt if more than twenty-five percent of Americans are aware of it. The speech to which I refer is Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, a speech that many scholars both liberal and conservative have hailed as an “almost sacred text”.

With the Civil War nearly over, the people gathered on that rainy day of March 4, 1865, expecting Lincoln to give a victory speech. They wanted to hear that in their righteousness God had fought on their side and had brought them to victory. They wanted vengeance on their enemies and they could sense that soon they would have the power to exact it.

Instead, Lincoln called for charity and forgiveness, reminding the nation that even though a military victory may soon be in their future, God was not on their side. While the Confederacy was fighting to maintaining the sovereignty of the American states, while the North was fighting to preserve the Union, God’s will was present in the least powerful people of them all: slaves. As right as the South may have been in wanting to defend their home states, as right as the North may have been wanting to preserve the integrity of the Union, Lincoln had come to a sobering conclusion: God did not care one bit about the Northern and Southern causes; rather, God’s cause was that of the powerless, the widow, the orphan and the oppressed caught between two fighting ideologies that were destroying each other.

What the speech revealed about Lincoln as a person was his ability to grow, change and even repent. It is almost a foreign concept in American politics today. To even suggest that perhaps we have been wrong, to admit that we are weak even when militarily strong, to propose that God’s providence does not always translate into God’s endorsement, is often attacked as unpatriotic or anti-American. But this kind of national humility, this sense of national honor over against unquestioned nationalism, this charity for all, is exactly what Lincoln was calling the nation to embrace. May we, by God’s grace, find the wisdom to finally embrace it.

Fellow countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it-- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

--- Abraham Lincoln.

A GREAT POST

2010-03-01T19:19:00.000-08:00

A great post from Pastor Brant Clements!

http://saintandcynic.blogspot.com/2010/03/universalist-heresy.html

Own Up to It CORE: You Left the ELCA.

2010-02-18T20:35:00.000-08:00

It seems as if Lutheran CORE (COalition for REnewal) made an official announcement that it will be sponsoring a new denomination named, "North American Lutheran Church" (NALC). Two things immediately strike me, and neither one has to do with the issues that were the catalysts to this separation.

First: In its press release regarding the formation of another Lutheran body, Lutheran Core states, again, that members and member churches of CORE are not leaving the ELCA but that the ELCA has left them. I am not so sure why it is so important to the leadership of CORE to continually announce this. If CORE's focus is no longer to reform the ELCA then what difference does it make if CORE left the ELCA or if the ELCA has left CORE?

But since it has been brought up, again, I challenge this erroneous notion that the ELCA left the faithful Christians of CORE. I think, and this is just my assumption, that the reason for claiming that the ELCA has left CORE is to express that CORE is on the correct side of the whole invisible verses visible understanding of the true church.

For those who are not Lutheran, this doctrine basically states that the true church of Jesus Christ is not found in buildings and denominational hierarchies, which are signs of the visible church. The invisible church is wherever the faithful are gathered around the Gospel purely preached, the sacraments administered rightly and the people sent out in faith to follow and bear witness to Christ. The visible church can, and hopefully does as much as possible, overlap the invisible church, but does not necessarily do so. During the Reformation, when parts of the church had to function without the Roman hierarchy, it was an important truth to emphasize that it is faith in Christ, not a line of religious leaders, that truly defines Christ's Church.

And, it very well may be necessary for CORE to do so today; I'm not making a commentary on that in this post. But this whole "ELCA left us" propaganda to announce the formation of a new Lutheran denomination has also been referenced in some past comments and commentaries linking it with Luther's stand against Pope Leo X. The big difference is, off course, Luther did not leave Rome; Rome kicked him out. Rome literally did leave Luther by giving him an ultimatum to renounce what he knew to be Christian truths or to be excommunicated. No such demand has been given to Lutheran CORE. No congregation is being forced out or being condemned as outside Christ's means of grace because of positions that do not conform to the changes that came from the Churchwide Assembly last August.

Therefore, with all respect to the leaders of Lutheran CORE, CORE has left the ELCA. And perhaps history will judge this to be the correct and faithful response, but the leaders of CORE are not correct in maintaining that somehow their culpability for a schism of the visible church of the ELCA was not initiated by CORE. In fact, if the leaders of CORE truly believe that their positions are correct and that forming a new Lutheran denomination in North America is the next logical step, they should have the confidence to claim responsibility for the separation instead of claiming the martyr's role of having the ELCA leave them.

Second: The argument that CORE has been forced out of the ELCA because it forces faithful Christians to be in communion with a heterodox denomination that denies the plain sense understanding of Scripture is illogical. CORE has consistently claimed that the ELCA leadership and the Churchwide Assemblies do not represent the beliefs of a majority of Lutherans or Lutheran congregations in the ELCA. Well, if a majority of Lutherans and Lutheran congregations do not agree with the ELCA leadership, then this means that the leaders of Lutheran CORE are advocating for an exodus from a denomination in which a majority of the people and congregations agree with their positions. Is it not Lutheran CORE, then, who is placing more importance upon the externals of the visible church than the core elements of the invisible church that truly unites the body of Christ in faith?

Plus, I have never seen Lutherans more energized or showing more interest in the issues confronting the church that they are right now. If people are finally energized to take action, and a majority of the people in the ELCA are in agreement with the positions of Lutheran CORE, then it makes no sense to leave the ELCA now and form a new denomination. The vote changing clergy standards passed by one single vote. Given all the concern and disapproval being expressed from various parts of the ELCA, is it not a definite possibility that this one vote decision could be reversed at the next Churchwide Assembly and that reform in the ELCA structure sympathetic to Lutheran CORE's values could be initiated? But since CORE has decided to sponsor a new denomination and will be wooing like-minded people and congregations out of the ELCA, then there will be no opposition to the very policies that Lutheran CORE wishes to challenge in a church body that supposedly, right now, has a majority that is sympathetic to those very same concerns.

As I stated earlier, history may prove that what the leadership of Lutheran CORE has initiated to be a bold, faithful decision that will better the mission of the Gospel. But from my position, right now, all Lutheran CORE or the North American Lutheran Church seems to be is another meaningless acronym with its own ax to grind. I suspect that a majority of Lutherans feel caught between the extremes right now just like a majority of Americans do between Kieth Oberman's self-righteous rants and Bill O'Riley's "no-spin" spins. Even when one side or the other is right, the obnoxiousness of it all makes many of us wish that they would both just shut up.

2010 Article for Trinity's Lenten Devotional Booklet

2010-02-15T06:51:00.000-08:00

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
⁴what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?

- Psalm 8:3-4

I love all things Star Trek, which began on television in the late 1960s and chronicles the adventures of the crew of the Starship Enterprise. The fundamental premise of Star Trek is that humanity, when on the brink of its own demise, begins to work together, moving beyond old hatreds of race, nationalities and religion to evolve in technology and science. The result is the eradication of poverty, war and environmental decay, and the mastery of spaceflight.

Star Trek promotes a hopeful view of our future that has actually affected our present. The inventors of the medical CAT scan, the MP3 player and Apple Computers all credit inspiration for their designs from fictional technology they first saw on Star Trek. Even NASA gave a nod to Star Trek when it named the fist space shuttle prototype, U.S.S. Enterprise.

So, you may be asking yourself, “Why all of the talk of Star Trek in a Lenten devotional book?” Because, as much as I love Star Trek and the positive vision and influence that it has, it has one fundamental flaw: it has no idea what to do with God, or more accurately, humanity’s relationship with God. Star Trek envisions humanity bettering itself through its own ability and strength and its trust and belief in technology and reason. The Star Trek future struggles with a positive vision of faith, religion and God, mostly viewing them like the human appendix: we know it does something; in the past it may have done more, but we really don’t know how much use it is today or if it is beginning to do more harm than good and should be removed.

As Lutheran Christians, we do not share this positive potential of humanity to work out our own salvation. While the ideals that embody Star Trek are worthy goals for our work, our ability to embrace or work towards these ideals do not come from us or from our potential to evolve into something better; rather, these things come only from outside of us, from the faith given to us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If humanity does achieve such a lofty future as that embodied in Star Trek, it will not be because of the greatness of human potential that has overcome ancient problems and superstitions; rather, it will be by a people transformed in faith.

The first step in this transformation is something that the Star Trek world really never embraces: repentance. Repentance is the suppression of belief in the superiority of our own abilities and the acceptance of our complete reliance upon God’s grace. And while this is our first step, it is a step first initiated in us by God’s Law that leads us to the helplessness of the cross and by God’s Gospel in Jesus Christ who creates hope and new life by embracing our helplessness. In other words, repentance is our work only because it was first God’s gift.

The season of Lent is a season of repentance. Ash Wednesday calls us to embrace the reality of our condition: we are dust and without God that is all we will ever be. Sin has destroyed our future and our relationship with God and each other; they are destroyed far beyond human ability to fix or evolve. It reminds us that, as Christians, we are called daily to remember this reality, not so that we wallow in despair, but so that we can embrace and work towards the future God is creating in the resurrected Christ, a future infinitely more wondrous than what even Star Trek can dream.

Pastor Lee

Checks, Balances and Cell Phones.

2009-10-07T11:10:00.000-07:00

With all of the focus on the possibility of a Federal Government takeover of the healthcare industry, another more subtle but also more dangerous threat to the American federalist system is being implemented almost unchecked. What is the subject of this great threat? Cell phones.

The Federal Government is about to pass a law banning all texting while driving. Of course, who could be against such a ban? Texting while driving is beyond stupid and it should be banned by every state in the Union; and, that is just the point: it should be banned by every STATE in the Union, not the Federal Government.

The Federal Government usually exerts authority over the states, legitimately or illegitimately, through one of two ways: through the power of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution or through the purse strings.

The Interstate Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to regulate the means of commerce with other nations and between the states. Its intent is to ensure that regulations of goods and services between the states are fair and uniform, and that the United States has one trade policy with foreign governments rather than fifty separate ones.

The Interstate Commerce Clause, however, has been systematically expanded so that it gives the Federal Government license to exert primary regulatory jurisdiction over anything that even looks in the direction of a state border. Like with federally mandated speed limits in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Federal Government interprets its explicitly enumerated power to regular interstate commerce to implicitly extend to regulation of all means of intrastate transportation as well.

Even though the Federal Government often assumes and acts as if this specific power to regulate interstate commerce is all but ubiquitous, it does not want this assumption to be tested often in court; therefore, rather than directly assert jurisdiction, it does so in a backhanded way through the withholding of federal funds to those states that don’t bow to the Federal will. It gives the illusion that states still have sovereignty and that their 10^th Amendment powers have not been illegally usurped by the Federal Government, while at the same time giving the Federal Government such financial influence that states cannot afford to exercise their 10^th Amendment powers if their wishes are against those in Washington.

Like with bans on texting while driving, the Federal Government mostly wields this power regarding issues that most sane people cannot in good conscious dispute. Of course people should not text while driving; over course people should wear seatbelts; and, of course people should wear helmets while riding a motorcycle. How can anyone possibly argue against such things? Who cares if the Federal Government compels compliance with these common sense issues by withholding Federal funding to the states?

From the view of the issues involved, there is nothing wrong with it; however, from the view of the stability and integrity of a constitutional democracy and a federalist republic, such usurpations by the Federal Government violates the heart of U.S. Constitutional law by manipulating its letter and by overriding essential checks and balances that protect the integrity and sovereignty of the states and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, I believe that the Supreme Court in the past has played into the “Constitutionality” of this “coup de states” instead of stopping it. (I am not lawyer, so I invite any who know Constitutional and Supreme Court rulings better than I do to comment; however, I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court has ruled that such Federal financial manipulations are “Constitutionally” legal.)

At least with the health care debate, a credible argument can be made that the healthcare industry is one beyond the bounds of any single state and that the Federal Government is the only entity with the power to regulate such an industry so that it is fair and equitable throughout the Union. (A credible argument can be made although it is not one I necessarily buy). But this current ban on cell phone use is just the Federal Government exerting power for power’s sake, becoming like a drug dealer that arbitrarily controls the drug price and supply to his customers through exploiting the captive need that their addiction creates.

About the only good thing that came out of the disgraceful administration of Governor Edward Meacham in Arizona was the direct challenge to such Federal bullying. After years off having to drive ridiculously slow and dangerous speeds for hours through straight, desert freeways, Arizona became the first state to raise its speed limit from 55 MPH. The Federal Government knew that such a national speed limit no longer had the peoples’ support as a necessary evil in saving fuel or in promoting traffic safety, at least in most of the western states. A legal challenge to the Federal authority to regulate speed limits under the powers of the Interstate Commerce Clause and by state addiction to Federal funds was immanent, so states were given the “privilege” to exercise their rights to set their own speed limits.

Because we are talking about speed limits and cell phone texting, the issue may seem a bit trivial on the surface; however, the precedents that are being set are fair reaching, dangerous and can tear at the fabric of the American Union since there are two very real possibilities for the future of an unchecked Federal Government: One: that the states will continue to de-evolve into nothing more than extensions of the Federal Government; that they will simply be another layer of a bloated bureaucracy that functions to ensure that the Federal will is done instead of being a check and balance to ensure that the Federal will has not been twisted by an unfettered Federal appetite for power. Two: many of the most influential states will begin to realize that the expense of supporting an unfettered federal government is actually costing more than what is received in return.

While the first scenario seems the most likely to me, the second is not beyond the realm of possibility. Just a decade ago, talk of the Union itself being in danger of disintegrating would be thought of as ludicrous; however, bad economies and bad wars tend make the ludicrous a bit more credible.

For example, California is currently the eighth largest economy in the world all by itself; yet, for every dollar the citizens of California send to Washington D.C., only about 75 cents comes back for use within its own borders; meanwhile, a handful of other states, and the District of Columbia, get two to five times the federal tax revenue back than what their citizens contribute. Yet, even as California’s tax resources are hemorrhaging eastward, the poverty rate in California is climbing, education funding is dropping like a stone and the eighth largest economy in the world is paying its workers with IOUs. With such pressures from without and from within, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Californians may start questioning what was once unquestionable, especially in a state that still has a strong sense of sovereign identity with the land size, population and natural resources to back it up.

We need to call the Federal Government’s bluff. Do we really think that the Federal Government will allow the highway system in this country to fall into disrepair because a state government will not ban texting while driving? Of course it won’t because it can’t. It is too dependent upon keeping the states fat, dumb and addicted so that the second scenario outlined above never happens.

Don’t get me wrong, no one should be texting while driving: PERIOD! But, ultimately, more dangerous than texting while driving is a Federal ban on it. It cannot be supported constitutionally; and, no matter how well intentioned the ban might be, it cannot justify the dismantling of the delicate and precious system of checks and balances that keeps this Union of American states from dissolving into the single-minded tyranny of The American State.

from Lee's blog:

Opinions of a Lutheran Desert Rat

Police and Public: We All Swim in the Same Pool

2009-09-04T14:33:00.001-07:00

Rockford has been shaken this past couple of weeks with a fatal police shooting that occurred inside a church and daycare facility. Mark Anthony Barmore was the man shot and killed. Mr. Barmore was black and the two officers involved are white

Other controversial circumstances involving Mr. Barmore’s death are that he was apparently shot in the back and in a classroom full of daycare children. The police claim Mr. Barmore was struggling with one of the officers for control of the officer’s gun. Some witnesses claim that Mr. Barmore was surrendering. Therefore, this tragic incident has made Rockford the focus of civil rights activists and the media. Mr. Barmore’s funeral yesterday was attended by Rev. Jesse Jackson. Also, the investigation of this incident has been turned over to an outside state agency and it is entirely possible that the Feds may get involved.

The fact that Mr. Barmore was shot in the back and in the presence of so many children is enough for some to prejudge the officers’ actions as unjustified, including many of the area’s clergy. Given my background, this kind of places me at odds with my peers and my former peers.

I was not present when Mr. Barmore died, so I am in no position to judge whether or not the officers’ actions were justified in this incident; however, as a former law enforcement officer and as a former certified firearms instructor for that department, I am more than familiar with the general guidelines regarding the escalation of force and the use of lethal force common to most police departments. Because of this knowledge, there are certain things that I feel that those who have already prejudged these officers have not considered.

First, trying to control or predict where a suspect is going to flee is extremely difficult if not impossible in most cases. When a suspect attempts to evade the police, officers have to make a split second decision as to whether or not to pursue. The basic question is, “What is the best response for public safety?” If a suspect has a known history of violence, then it is completely proper and consistent with standard police procedures to pursue, especially if there is reason to believe that children might be at risk.

Second, if a suspect is struggling for an officer’s weapon, police are trained to respond with lethal force since police being overpowered and shot with their own weapon is not at all uncommon. If I recall correctly – it has been more than ten years, after all – one of the F.A.T.S scenarios was a suspect trying to reach for an officer’s gun. (F.A.T.S. is like a giant video game where the instructor gets to control the outcome of certain “shoot” and “no shoot” scenarios). One of the scenario endings was that the suspect overpowered the other officer and within a split second of obtaining the weapon shot the officer at close range. When an officer failed this scenario, we counseled him or her to consider this a use of lethal force scenario.

Third, if another officer does use lethal force in order to stop a suspect from obtaining another officer’s weapon, it is very possible that the suspect could be shot in the back or side. If the officer believes that the other officer is in imminent danger of being overpowered, he or she does not have to wait for the suspect to actually obtain control of the weapon, turn and point it because by then it could be too late.

Fourth, the presence of children would, in my opinion, make it more likely that police would use lethal force in such situations. The absolute last thing you want to have happen is for a fleeing, desperate and potentially violent suspect to obtain a deadly weapon that could be used against children.

My last point goes back to the larger issue of race. Of course race played a role in this incident, but not in the superficial way upon which we usually focus. Police have to make split second judgment calls that often do not allow time for analytical debates. They have to work in a racist society usually in areas that are the most devastated by that racism. Systemic racism puts the burden of poverty disproportionately upon one race of people and thus disproportionately concentrates racial populations in certain areas. The seeds of crime are planted disproportionately because of this, not because one race or another has a greater predisposition to commit crimes, but because racism has disproportionately placed the burden of crime and poverty upon oppressed races. It is in this racist world that the police officer must make these split second decisions.

Of course, this situation is about race in some way. It may turn out that it is about the overt personal prejudices of the individual officers. It could be that the police misperceived the actual threat of the situation. If could be that the witnesses misperceived the actual threat of the situation. We all, suspects, police, witnesses and members of the general public, perceive the truth of situations based upon past experiences. We all have the propensity to prejudge. But to automatically prejudge the actions of the police as racist without a full investigation is like blaming a scuba diver for getting the fish wet. We are all in this pool together.

May those who grieve Mr. Barmore’s death be comforted in God’s infinite grace. From the tragedy of his death, from the death of the thousands of law enforcement officers in our nation’s history, from those who have had to pay with their lives for the foolishness of human sin and racism, may we begin to dream of a society where incidents such as this one will only be known in history books.

A VOICE FROM THE PAST

2009-08-27T13:43:00.000-07:00

Pastor’s Article for

THE TRAVELER

September, 2009

God and His holy angels sorrow over the wretchedness which is among us. For the sake of God’s mercy, for the sake of your souls’ salvation, for the sake of us, your brethren, change your mind, dear brethren; acknowledge your sin and return to the congregation and let us work united in the same vineyard for our souls’ salvation. God, hear this our sincere prayer for His great mercy’s sake. Amen.[1]

Given the events and decisions this past month at the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), these words could be easily attributed to one of the factions alive in our time. Actually, these words were not taken from any statement published by Lutheran CORE, Word Alone, Lutherans Concerned, Good Soil or even the ELCA itself. These words were addressed from one faction to another within this congregation of Trinity back in September of 1871.

The specific issues themselves have long been relegated to the history books. In spite of calls for repentance and unity from all sides, this congregation did split into what we now call Rock Run Norwegian Lutheran Church (south) and Rock Run Norwegian Lutheran Church (north). As decades went by, this division faded and a reunited ministry developed into a town chapel that eventually was renamed Trinity Lutheran Church. Today, members of Trinity still maintain the cemeteries of the two Rock Run congregations; the only visible signs of a schism that tore this congregation to its foundation.

While the fallout over the 2009 Churchwide Assembly is still to come, many feel that the ELCA has been torn to its foundation. For those of you who do not know, the 2009 Churchwide Assembly approved several controversial ministry changes, which I paraphrase as follows:

1. It affirmed that local congregations have the power to decide for themselves as to whether or not to allow ceremonies endorsing homosexual unions as part of its ministry.

2. It rescinded a ministry standard that made it mandatory for all homosexuals to be celibate in order to be ordained, although they do have to be “chaste” within a life-long, monogamous union just as heterosexuals have to be chaste within the bounds of marriage.

3. It affirmed that local congregations could decide for themselves whether or not to call non-celibate homosexuals as pastors and rostered leaders.

The Congregation Council of Trinity in 2004 after the prescribed sexuality study issued a statement that Trinity was not in favor of changing standards regarding celibacy for homosexuals or for endorsing homosexual unions; however, it also stated that if the ELCA did make such changes that Trinity would remain part of the ELCA as long as Trinity was not forced to endorse homosexual unions or call non-celibate homosexual clergy. A copy of this statement is printed in this newsletter.

Without commenting on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the various positions on this issue, I do think that what happened was a good thing in that it brings to light a schism that has remained hidden under the cover of the status quo. Like an abscessed wound, it had scabbed over on the surface while all the while it had been festering underneath. This wound has been with us and untreated for some time; perhaps even to the very merger of the ELCA.

How this wound is now to be healed is hard to say. But what I do hope is that we allow time, which is what every wound needs to heal. It is not going to go away overnight. It will have to be re-cleaned and re-dressed many times over the next months and years because the wound is so deep. There will be a scar; but it will fade over time; it will heal.

Allowing for this time to heal means that we must not make hasty decisions or avoid making just ones. We need to be engaged even more in study and prayer. We need to assume the best of our neighbor’s intentions even if he or she has a position opposed to our own. We need to understand those who differ from us; and, we need to understand ourselves. We need to evaluate if our own initial positions are based in Scripture, which comes to us as Law and Gospel, or if our positions are based upon our emotional reactions and personal desires.

I know that an initial reaction by some factions has been to call on ELCA congregations to withhold mission support. I implore us not to do this. We in the Northern Illinois Synod are blessed with gifted leaders in Bishop Gary Wollersheim and in the synod staff. Without discounting the significance of these issues regarding homosexuality, they are not the sum of the church’s ministry, especially not at the synodical level. The Northern Illinois Synod thorough its ministries have financially supported the Durand Ecumenical Council in its ministries and have helped us at Trinity when times were difficult. Let us be there for them in these difficult times. Not supporting our synods will do nothing to change the decisions that were made, but it will negatively affect the mutual ministries that we do together for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Although events this past week may have torn the ELCA to its foundation, we cannot forget that under the broken foundation of human institutions is the cross of Jesus Christ, who does not meet us in the glorious heights of what we, by our own might, have built but in the rubble of our structures that could not stand the crushing weight of human sin. Here, at the cross, is where we begin anew. Therefore, if I may be permitted to alter the words from our past just a bit…

For the sake of God’s mercy, for the sake of our souls’ salvation, for the sake of us, your brethren, let us pray for a united and true mind, dear brethren; acknowledge our sin and return to the congregation and let us work united in the same vineyard for our souls’ salvation. God, hear this our sincere prayer for His great mercy’s sake. Amen.

Your Friend in Christ,

Pastor Lee

[1] Taken from the Minutes of the Congregation Meetings of Rock Run Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church (1851-1935); translated from the handwritten Norwegian by Pastor Donald L. Berg, Decorah, Iowa, 1986.

Blood, Cheers, Tears and a Lost Tooth

2009-08-21T23:11:00.000-07:00

Today, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the legislative body of the largest Lutheran denomination in America, made the historic decision to allow those in monogamous, life-long, same sex unions, to be ordained, consecrated and rostered leaders of congregations that choose to call them..

This post is not to debate the “right” or “wrong” of this decision and it is not really to explain all of the different nuisances of what this decision means which all of us ELCA clergy will have to do in the parishes in which we serve. Rather, this post is more personal and emotional than pastoral.

I’m tired and weary.

I’m am tired and weary of beating this issue to death with study after study, debate after debate, only to get the same result that we cannot come to a faithful consensus. Doesn’t the definition of insanity have something to do with engaging in the same behavior over and over and expecting different results? Did we really think that somehow there would be some major shift in consensus about this issue from the last assembly? Would it not have been more honest at the last Churchwide Assembly to confess that we had reached an impasse on this issue and, instead of simply engaging in more meaningless rhetoric and shallow votes, to truly sit down with each other and honestly evaluate to what degree we were going to be able to remain in mission together and to what degree we would have to go our separate ways?

I’m tired of “liberals” talking of how we have “progressed” and vilifying those who do not hold the same enlightened point of view as narrow-minded, hypocritical homophobes. I’m tired of “conservatives” who think that those who dare consider that perhaps traditional understandings regarding homosexuality need to be reevaluated are Bible-hating socialists. I’m tired of how all of us have seemed to forget Luther’s command to see the actions and motives of our neighbor in the best possible light.

I’m tired of the Holy Spirit getting the credit (blame) for a completely flawed process just because the outcome was to a particular liking. Forgive me for being crass, but the Holy Spirit is blamed for a great deal of sinful excrement that only by the grace of God was able to nourish a flower in spite of the stench. Just because things “work out” does not mean that the process of getting there was not a sinful mess.

I am tired of having to choose between “mourning” and “celebrating” based upon subjective interpretations about the rightness and wrongness of what was decided. While it is understandable that those who have been disfranchised should celebrate what happened today, as a denomination we should be neither celebrating nor mourning. We should be confessing our sin as manifested in our inability to reflect our true unity in Christ beyond simple, winner-take-all, majority votes.

I admire those who were part of this Churchwide Assembly and our Churchwide leadership. It doesn’t change the fact, however, that you had an impossible task to do; or, that ultimately, all that was done was to create a two-tiered roster where some can be called to be pastors in one place but not in another. Is this really unity? No, it’s not; and, it is a lie to pretend it is.

Still, even in the wake of today’s events, moments of God’s wonder, creation and humor still surface. As I picked-up my son, Ben, this afternoon, a little trail of blood was on his lip and he was excited to show me his freshly detached tooth – his first of his baby teeth to go.

Perhaps history will look back on this day – blood, cheers, tears and all - and define this day as the one where the unity of American Lutherans lost one of its baby teeth. What grows in its place will be a bit painful as it breaks the surface, it won’t quite look like what was lost, but it will be stronger and more permanent as it grow and matures.

From Blog:

Opinions of a Lutheran Desert Rat

www.oldr.blogspot.com

THE TRAVELER AUGUST 2009 PASTOR'S ARTICLE

2009-07-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

I must admit that I have been procrastinating as I approach this month’s article. The 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the national governing body of our denomination, will be meeting in Minneapolis from August 17-23, 2009. Although there are many important decisions to be made at this assembly, the headlines both within the ELCA and the secular media will deal mainly with highly controversial issues around human sexuality.

I have been procrastinating for one major reason that has nothing to do with debate and differing opinions, but out of fear that the events that will unfold will shine a light of truth on us as a denomination for which I do not think we are prepared. So much energy and time has gone into the noble efforts by so many to frame a process of discernment about these controversial issues that were intended to make all sides feel heard, included and represented, that I fear we are not seeing the elephant sitting right in the middle of our denominational living room.

That elephant that we are not willing to see is failure. We have failed to reach a consensus and we have failed to make all sides feel heard and included. This is not an accusing failure at one person, side or faction, but a communal failure that we all share. With all of the best of intentions, I argue that we stand now more divided than ever with growing extremes of opinions and a shrinking middle ground of tolerance. Those in the extremes see themselves as the underdogs fighting for truth and see those in the other extreme as, at best, misguided.

We have failed to see that we are not merely a denomination facing schism, but that we are a denomination in schism. True, we have maintained common ecclesial structures, and I pray will continue to do so, and we have given each other lip-service – sincere lip-service, but lip-service nonetheless – that there is a way to avoid schism if we all just talk and listen more. What we have failed to understand is that many on the extremes only want to talk more out of the long-shot hope that others might listen and change their minds. Few on the extremes have ever accepted the possibility that it might be their minds that are changed, which is a possibility that must be accepted by both extremes for true discernment to ever happen.

Another reason for my procrastination is how this issue touches so many in so many different ways. One of the discoveries I have made from being on Facebook is the wide diversity of friendships I am blessed to have. I have friends who are self-proclaimed Communists and friends who are so conservative that Rush Limbaugh’s ties are a bit too racy. I have friends who think Obama is the savior of America and others that see him as the anti-Christ. I have friends who hunt and are proud carnivores and friends who are so vegan they will not eat anything that casts a shadow. I also have many friends who are homosexual, some in faithful and chaste unions lasting years, and I have friends who in good and faithful conscience see these unions as inherently sinful. I know that whatever is decided at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, people for whom I deeply care will be affected in profound ways.

We have two extremes that are not going to budge in their Biblical and Confessional interpretations regarding human sexuality. One extreme wants the ELCA to recognize monogamous, life-long unions between homosexual couples and to allow the ordination of those in such unions. The other extreme does not want such unions to be recognized and for prohibitions against non-celibate clergy outside of marriage, both homosexual and heterosexual, to be strictly enforced. Both are powerful, well-organized and in some cases have even started their own intra-denominational associations and publishers. Although both will claim to cherish unity, neither will cherish it to the point of capitulating truth and justice, which of course their respective sides represent. This is schism.

One reality that we, as a congregation, need to recognize and confess as well is that we, too, have deep divisions on this issue. Although the culture and history of our congregation and the area in which we live heavily reflects one ideological understanding, there is a significant diversity of opinion among us. Within Trinity, families struggle with these issues in different ways and will continue to do so. At the local level, however, we do have an advantage that the Churchwide level does not. We know each other well beyond the context of issues of human sexuality; in fact, many of us have relationships with people where we do not even know or care about what their views on human sexuality are. This does much to draw us closer to each other and away from the rhetoric and judgment that comes from the extremes. Still, even at the local level, repercussions are possible.

The solution that will be pushed at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly in an attempt to mitigate these repercussions within the ELCA is the “both-and” option. What this means is that basically local synods and congregations would be able to decide whether or not to offer some form of blessing for same-sex couples and to ordain pastors who are in life-long, monogamous, same-sex unions. Proponents of this option are clearly trying to create a way for all sides to live together harmoniously so that people can hold true to their consciences while also allowing for a diversity of ministry contexts. Loosely paraphrased, “the ‘both-and’ option saves us from the tyranny of the ‘either-or’.”

Although thoughtfully and faithfully proposed, I am opposed to this solution because I think it is turning a blind eye to the tyranny that is implicit in the “both-and”. It sounds dangerously to me like “separate, but equal” of the segregated South. “Separate, but equal” was promoted as a way to keep racial harmony when all it did was agitate racial tensions. I do not think a two-tiered pastorate, where someone is a pastor here and not a pastor there, or homosexual unions that are celebrated here and rejected there, will bring peace between the extremes; rather, it will only exacerbate it and will further hurt Lutheran unity like a deeply imbedded piece of glass continually renewing an old cut once thought to be healed.

Either prohibitions against homosexual-unions and ministers is wrong, antiquated and should be relegated to the history of erroneous Biblical interpretations as has been Biblical justifications for slavery and persecutions against scientists for advocating gravity and a round earth; or, Biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior have the same authority as those prohibitions against adultery. If it is the former, allowing a group of people to be singled out and denied full inclusion in the church is inherently sinful and should not be tolerated in any form. If it is the latter, allowing people who are actively and un-repentantly engaged in destructive and sinful behavior should not be condoned or unchallenged. Knowingly accepting part of an injustice so that we can be secure that we are partially right is not acting in faith but in fear, fear that we will make a mistake and fear that we will not survive if we make the tough call one way or another.

Luther once said to “sin boldy”. This does not mean that we go out and just flaunt our debauchery; rather, it is a reminder that the freedom we have in Christ is to act in faith. We do not need to fear the tough choices. We do not need to fear making a mistake beyond the consequences of the actual mistake because our future is secure in Christ; our unity in faith, even if not in ecclesial structures, is in Christ. We, as the ELCA, can make this call without fear, even if it is a decision that will cost us, even if it is a decision that will expose schism and even if we end up making the wrong call and later find ourselves on the wrong side of history. It will not be the last time that any of us will have to repent for a decision that has been made boldly and faithful and is later revealed through the focused lens of history to be shortsighted and sinful. Christ, by his work on the cross, gave us freedom to act – not recklessly, but boldly – and to accept the consequences of these actions because our united future is in him. We do not need to enter into lukewarm compromises that we know at least in part are wrong simply out of fear of a schism that is actually already upon us. Rather, we can stand firmly in faith and make the tough choices; and, if it is a mistake, at least it will be one to be remembered.

When I was a student a Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, one of my student jobs was to transport seminary faculty to and from the local airports; therefore, I spent a great deal of time with the now late Rev. Dr. Tim Lull, then the President of PLTS. Even back then, issues of human sexuality were very divisive. During one of our long commutes together, Dr. Lull and I talked about the divisive nature of these issues and if the ELCA would survive them. Dr. Lull kind of laughed dismissively and said something like, “Oh, Lutherans will always be around during these times.”

At the time, I really did not grasp the implication of his statement, but during this potentially history making summer, it emerges clearly. Lutherans are a reforming movement within the Church catholic; and, as such, will be on the edge of many controversial changes and movements. Lutherans, historically, have pushed the envelope, sometimes too far. But Lutherans have done so out of an insatiable desire to know Christ more deeply and to be guided by the truth of the Gospel as revealed in the Scriptures and not enslaved to superstition or to the fickleness of popular opinion. In so doing, profound advances have been made as well as tragic mistakes. Such will be the decisions that we make in our time about human sexuality; and in these advances and mistakes, Christ is still the common future for saints and sinners alike.

Your Friend in Christ,

Pastor Lee

National Idolatry Is Not Patriotic

2009-06-26T21:15:00.000-07:00

This month's pastor's article from The Traveler, the newsletter of Trinity Lutheran Church in Durand. Reprinted on Pastor Lee's blog - "Opinions of a Lutheran Desert Rat".

As most of you know, summer is my favorite time of year and the 4^th of July is one of my favorite holidays, probably because it is one of the most relaxing. There are not as many expectations about what has to be done other than to relax and enjoy the day.

Of course, the first 4^th of July was not restful at all but was the culmination of much discernment, courage, prayer and faith as the representatives of the American Colonies dared to challenge the most powerful military empire known in the history of the world to that point. Also, it was a miracle that this group of rebels, some of them slaveholders, would agree to craft a document such as the Declaration of Independence, which continues to this day to inspire the expansion of personal freedom and liberty.

I wonder, did those slave-holding men truly understand what legacy they were bringing to America and to the world? Did they understand that the conflict and struggle that they began would go far beyond the immediate war for national independence? Did they foresee that even today we would be struggling with what it means “that all men are created equal”? Could they have known that even beyond the implied sexist shortcomings of this famous statement, men and women would find new hope for themselves and their children? Perhaps there was something of the divine at work in those early days of July in 1776 that transcended human limitations of language, context and vision. Perhaps, as one professor in the usually anti-establishment community of Berkeley, California commented, the Declaration of Independence is an “almost sacred text.”

But as I write this statement, I also acknowledge the temptation that underlies such a proclamation. The danger is where we place the “sacredness” and to whom we attribute it. It is tempting to idealize American history and those in it to almost “sacred men”, which is simply not the case. They were flawed, sinful human beings just like you or me.

People are sometimes accused, however, of being “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” if we dare talk about the imperfections of the Founding Fathers or dare explore that American history has had significant periods where altruism and justice were sacrificed for hatred and greed, that there have been many moments where actions have not been rooted in those sacred words.

Failure to recognize the limitations and failures of our past is not true patriotism; rather, it is national idolatry. In other words, the temptation is to believe that something is good because American says and wants it is be good; therefore, anything that challenges this must be “anti-American” or “unpatriotic.” True patriotism, however, recognizes that the blessings we enjoy as Americans do not come from the intrinsic “goodness” of America itself; rather, they come through the grace of God, who has given America the freedom to choose the good and who has even brought about good in spite of our own shortcomings and unworthiness. It was not about the perfect Christian faith of our founding fathers, which documentation overwhelmingly shows it was far from perfect and even nonexistent for some; rather, it was about God’s faithfulness to them and often times in spite of them, in spite of us.

On July 3, 1863, one day before Independence Day, was the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War and what turned out to be deadliest day of battle ever on American soil. Part of the reason why the casualties were so high was because General Robert E. Lee decided to attack right at the center of the Union lines in an attempt to deliver a quick “knock-out” punch. (If had been successful, there was nothing that stood between his army and Washington, D.C.) The Confederacy had done so remarkably well up to that point and against overwhelming odds that Lee himself later admitted, “I thought we were invincible.”

Sometimes, when things seem to be going so extremely well for so long, we are tempted to think that we are invincible. We can be deluded into thinking we can do no wrong. In the late 1980’s and 1990’s, the United States did so well economically and was almost unopposed globally after the fall of the Soviet Union, that perhaps we, too, fell into the same trap as General Lee.

Ever since September 11^th, 2001 and continuing through the current economic collapse, I think that part of the fear and dismay in our nation has been, “I thought we were invincible.” The malaise that has seemed to spread over the country, the anger that has pooled at the extreme poles of the political spectrum are both part of this dismay and fear as we come to grips with the reality that, indeed, we are not invincible. Actually, we never were.

Even after the devastating defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg, the Confederacy continued to battle and General Lee never lost his faith in God. In fact, it was probably his faith that gave him the courage and the fortitude to do what was probably his most courageous act of the entire Civil War: surrender. The sterility of the history books sometimes shields our memories about what America was like in the spring of 1865. Many of the war torn places in the United States were a hair’s breath away from complete anarchy. There was even fear by some in the North that power-hungry northern Generals might take advantage of this instability and stage a military coup. In the South, many wanted Lee to give the order for the Army of Northern Virginia to disband, take to the hills and fight a protracted guerrilla war that the Union could never completely stop. It would have meant fighting for generations. Instead, Lee surrendered and ordered his troops to go home. It was an act of faith in God to give up the fight in which he had staked everything; although no longer invincible, he was free to do what was right and not what the passions of his pride or the security for his personal future dictated.

I think that maybe we, in our time, are facing a similar lesson: we are not invincible. Thanks be to God that we are not, because as we are stripped of our invincibility we are better able to perceive and respond to the ways in which God has been faithful to us. We are beginning to rediscover that God is indeed working through us and even in spite of us. We are beginning to see that once our delusion of invincibility is stripped away that we have a God who is faithful to us even in our failures and vulnerabilities. We are beginning to rediscover that the work of those men in Philadelphia during that summer of 1776 - work done by gentlemen and scoundrels, saints and sinners alike – is not work to be idealized and worshiped as an something completed and done, but as an unfinished struggle in which we are all called to be engaged so that words and promises written on paper in the early summer of 1776 may indeed become a reality for all.

Adventures of the Mailbox.

2009-06-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

Because Trinity only has a part-time office manager, I often stop by the post office on my way into church in order to keep the mail from piling up. It is always an adventure. Fully one-half of what is in the box gets dumped immediately into the recycling bin in the post office lobby. Within the overwhelming amount of junk mail are magazines from every type of industry and cause imaginable.

Today, one of these junk magazines, Technologies for Worship Magazine, jumped out at me with the headline, "Are Your Wireless Mics Illegal?" Now, Trinity's nave holds about 150 people comfortably and about 200 squished; if you put chairs up in the narthex you can probably squeeze in 300. We do have wireless microphones, but actually it seems like people hear me better if I just project; therefore, the illegality of our wireless microphones really does not bug me a whole lot - no, that is not true - I really do not give a rats rug at all.

The fact that a magazine, especially one titled as a "worship" magazine, would devote a whole cover story to the issue does peak my curiosity. As expected, upon opening up the magazine, I discovered the magazine actually has nothing to do with worship of God; rather, it is a technology magazine for creating concert experiences with overtones of Christian rhetoric. Other articles in this issue related to how to keep your concert stage and hall, (often referred to erroneously as the "sanctuary"), with top-notch audio and visual technologies in this time of economic uncertainties.

Other parts of the magazine dealt with a contest for the pithiest statement on a church sign, why drums do not need wireless microphones and a host of advertisements from vendors just waiting to sell us "must have" electronic equipment that would wipe out the entire ministry budget of Trinity for a year.

Some of the most intriguing advertisements were about special effects technologies. One company promises that we can "enhance the worship experience" with the right special effects and lighting; another promises that we can incorporate fog machines and sound effects.

Well, Trinity is not going to be getting any fog machines anytime soon. We do have a fledgling audio visual committee that is committed to projecting much of the Scriptural text, liturgy and announcements in order to help save paper in bulletins and to help visitors unfamiliar with Lutheran liturgy; however, it is a tool, nothing more. The cross and altar will remain the center of focus.

Plus, there is no human-made thing, product or idea that can "enhance the worship experience." These things may play on our emotions and draw our attention more fully toward (or away) from what God is doing, but they add nothing to what Christ has done for us on the cross. Ah, yes, Christ; do we remember him? How about that pesky cross? I did not read every single word in this magazine; however, it is more than telling that a magazine on worship technology never once explained how this would help us be disciples of Christ or how these "enhancements" would help us pick up our cross and follow him.

There is nothing wrong with uplifting music, good lighting and legal microphones; however, none of these things "enhance" worship. Christ, by his death on the cross, by the true presence in the sacraments given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sin, needs no enhancement; rather, such gifts of grace call for a grateful response form us outside the "sanctuary" and in the daily ministry to which each of us, ordained and laity, are called. Such grace calls us to find ways to "enhance" the kingdom of God in world around us and to witness to the true "special effect" of the living Gospel.

Word, bread, wine and water - these are the only special effects that God provides and the only things we truly need.

More loyalty to toothpaste: Protestants have less "brand loyalty" to their denominations

2009-06-09T10:59:00.000-07:00

More loyalty to toothpaste: Protestants have less "brand loyalty" to their denominations

The title of this article, which was printed in the April issue of "The Lutheran", really says it all. If this was an indication of a new age of ecumenism, this could be received as good news; however, the ambivalence towards one's own denomination indicates a new age of apathy rather than ecumenism.

True ecumenical partnerships are strongest when all parties are strong in their own idenity and work together so that the differences contrast harmonously for the sake of the Gospel. This is different than what is often passed off as ecumenism, which is deemphasizing differences and denominational indentities until we get down to what we all have in common. If we are all basically "Christians", then why should we care what our denomination is? The title of this article indicates that many people have aked this question and have come up with the answer, "It doesn't".

Self-denomination type churches like Saddleback and Willow Creek thrive in this denominationless Christianity that is growing in popularity. It plays on the consumer mindset of our American society, packaging "faith" in convienent, ready to sell, and individual doses priced so that it does not cost us all that much. "Bible-based" messages are often tangents from one line of Scripture, taken out of context, but processed so that we can find our "purpose" and our "best life now". Does it even surpise or concern us anymore that Walmart has become a major, if not the major, distributer of "Christian" books? Education of the laity, which was a major goal of the Lutheran Reformation, has been left to the same department that stocks greeting cards and wrapping paper.

Lutherans have a difficult path ahead because the theology that makes us Lutheran does not fit in with the faith that our culture values. In an increasingly impersonal world where we know people across the world through an icon and a chatroom better than we know our neighbors next door, the free market demand for "doing church" leads us deeper into concert-type worship experiences where we expect to experience a "spirit-filled", "anointed", "uplifting" - insert whatever church buzz word you wish - service. If you are not getting what you want at your current church, then change to another where they offer a better product. After all, isn't the customer always right?

Yes, church membership is being viewed more and more by both church leaders and parishoners as a comsumer model similar to that of a customer's loyalty to a business or product brand. A popular Christian magazine reminded me of this with an ad that told me it understands that "church competion" is a major stress for pastors and that their product - I think it was some type of church management program - would give me the edge over the competition.

The "problem", however, with our "Christian" business model, with our "product", is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not something that can be bartered and traded on our terms. Scripture is not something that can be discected and parsed out to fix every problem from insomina to hangnails; rather, it reveals Jesus Christ and is the "womb", as Luther put it, in which the Gospel is born inside of us. Worship is not about us getting some warm and fuzzy feeling that we value, it is about receiving what God has provided: the Word and the means of God's grace in the sacraments, no matter whether receiving them makes us "feel" better or not. It is not about what we feel, it is about what God has given.

As Lutherans, our temptation is to see the "sucesses" of those religious organizations around us and think that somehow we do not measure up. Mainline denominational leaders are ringing a warning bells about the diminishing number of congregants and we are flailing every which way to find the right program or fix. Many of the fixes are made under misguided stereotypes such as, "teenagers want", "Generation X'rs want" and so forth. The falicy of these stereotypes are so numerous that they really need their own blog entry.

What is relevant here, however, is that most of these "fixes" lead us down the same road of abandoning tradition, abandoning the sacraments, abandoning the study of the heart of scripture for rote memorization of its letter and living a faith that ultimately leads us deeper into our own attempts at salvation through perfected morality than through the cross.

Before the benediction on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, the Seventh Sunday of Easter, I created a powerpoint presentation honoring veterans and Memorial Day. It was very moving with pictures and music. Many of the congregants after worship told me how meaningful worship was that day. To some of them, I said, "Yes, it was very moving to hear the Gospel and to gather around God's table to receive Jesus body and blood for the forgiveness of sin." The general response was, "Well, ...yes; but I was refering to the presentation."

Of course, I was intentionally being a bit obtuse because I knew exactly what they meant; however, this is just my point. God gives us so much all the time and we overlook it; worse than that, we have forgotten about it. We have forgotten that it is not about our brand loyalty, it is about a God who has been and is loyal to us. This is where we must start our ecumenical efforts, this is where we must start our evangelism. It is not about making the Gospel "relevant" to others; it is about us, as the body of Christ, witnessing and living to how the Gospel is relevant to everyone and that what God has provided, ultimately, sells itself.

Buy the way, I've used Crest since I was a kid...

Pobody's Nerfect

2009-06-09T07:12:00.001-07:00

I have been rather silent lately although I have quite a few “draft” posts over which I have been fretting. Part of my problem is that I have a hard time just publishing things without editing them over and over again. I hate it when I miss typos and such, which I do on a regular basis. Well, my new personal challenge is to just accept such imperfections and let one proofread suffice; therefore, let me begin to empty that draft folder.

An Easter to Remember

2009-04-12T22:10:00.000-07:00

I really have no opinion about anything in this post; rather, today was the most enjoyable of Easter Sundays and I just wanted to share it. I haven’t taken a great deal of time to edit and proof read, so please forgive the mistakes.

Easter for me began very early at 3:45 this morning. Although most parishes hold Easter Vigil on Saturday evening (if one is held at all), we at Trinity have gotten in the habit of holding it the early morning. Since Easter Vigils use to begin at sundown on Saturday (the beginning of the new day in the Biblical understanding) and go until sunrise with the first Easter celebration of Holy Communion, our early morning alternative seems to be a nice solution.

There were only four hearty souls this year that gathered outside the church at 5AM. At least two others and their families who usually attend could not because both are recovering from surgery. Still, our cozy group gathered around the new fire burning in the fire ring outside the church. From it the new Paschal (Easter) Candle was lit and we processed into the completely dark church that we left on Good Friday. From the Paschal Candle, we each lit our own candles as we heard the Easter proclamation that “this is the night” through which Christ becomes our Passover Lamb as frees us from the slavery of sin by the blood of his new covenant. As God once led his people by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, so does Christ, signified by the fire of the Paschal Candle, lead us through the darkness of death by illuminating our way with the light of life.

We then continued with the Biblical readings. There can be as few as four and as many as twelve readings from the Hebrew Scriptures at Easter Vigil; because of our time frame and setting, we used four readings. The first is always the story of creation as recorded in Genesis. Traditionally, psalms would be sung that reflect the nature of each reading; however, given our small size and lack of accompaniment at this service, we used familiar songs instead that we either loosely based on the psalm or that conveyed a similar message.. The first was “Morning Has Broken”. The second lesson was the story of the Israelites being led through the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army. The name of the second song escapes me at the moment. The third reading was from Isaiah 25. The song of response was “Joy to the World”. The fourth, and always the last, was the story of the deliverance from the fiery furnace recorded in Daniel. The song of response was “Earth and All Stars”. After every lesson and song there was also a time for silent and spoken prayer.

After the readings, we gathered around the baptismal font. There were no baptisms this year so we celebrated the affirmation of Holy Baptism, which on Easter Vigil always makes me remember the baptism of my son, Benjamin, which occurred during the Easter Vigil of 2004. We remembered the gift of Holy Baptism freely given through God’s grace; the water through which God by the power of the Holy Spirit unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection, and through which we die to our sinful selves and rise in Christ.

Normally, the service would continue immediately with the Litany of the Saints and the celebration of the first Eucharist; however, since our Vigil blended into the 6AM sunrise service, we paused for prayer and preparation until the 6AM worshipers joined us. (To me, if you are up at 6AM you might as well be up at 5AM, but many others don’t agree).

At six, I lead the Litany of Saints from the back of the nave, where we asked and thanked God for his mercy and thanked God for all those saints that have gone before us in faith.

After the Litany was concluded, the bell was rung for the first time since Maundy Thursday, the lights in the sanctuary and nave were turned on and we sang, “Jesus Christ is Risen Today”. The bell continued to ring throughout the song. As I reached my place near the altar and looked back towards the narthex and through the glass front doors, I could see the new fire still burning in the darkness. Through the east side windows (we have no stained glass because Trinity sits on a hill and has great views) the red glow of dawn could be seen.

The Gospel text this year was from Mark’s account of the resurrection. The appointed reading ends at the traditional end of Mark, which ends with the women fleeing from the tomb in terror. Other endings for Mark exist, but the earliest manuscripts have Mark ending right where Mark ended it: with the witnesses of the resurrection fleeing in fear.

I love Mark’s ending and the entire Gospel because it leaves so much up to us to finish. Obviously, the women overcame their fear and told somebody; however, as we are confronted with the empty tomb, how do we respond? My belief is that we don’t quite know what to do with the resurrection. After all, death we understand; however, the empty tomb doesn’t just require us to die, it requires us to live and in a new way than our sinful nature desires.

By the time we celebrated Holy Communion, the sun was streaming through the windows; perfect timing. About 50 came to the 6AM service.

Youth and adult volunteers had the Easter breakfast going by 7AM. They did a great job; in fact, it was so popular that they ran out of food. It was better than past years when there was way too much that seemed to go to waste.

Kathy and Ben arrived during the Easter breakfast. It has been the first time in a long time that all three of us have been able to be in the same church together on Easter Sunday. Actually, it was probably the first time since Ben has been born.

The 9AM service filled the church. It was so good to see people who I hadn’t seen for a while. A couple of our elderly who had hibernated for the winter were making their first public appearance since spring. Some had returned from wintering down south. It was also good to see some of the confirmation students actually SINGING. Who knew? Also, they volunteered to help during the service without being asked. It is a good group of young adults. One of our senior high students lead the singing of the Kyrie; she did such a good job that I think she has a permanent gig with us as long as she wants it.

Kathy preached at 9AM and I presided. She did just a good job and I really enjoyed us being able to work together. I began to fade as the early morning caught up with me, but I didn’t fall asleep at the altar; although, I was tempted. After a great job by the choir and our volunteer musicians, we received the Eucharist once more.

There is something sacred and quite powerful about presiding over Holy Communion, speaking the words of institution while looking out over the sea of faces. I had fleeting thoughts of gratitude about those who were there, especially those I had not seen in a while, as well as concern about those who were not there, wondering where they were. Mostly, however, as I said, it is powerful to preside at Holy Communion. It is no wonder that Luther stuttered and struggled through his first mass.

With no Sunday School on Easter Sunday, things actually wrapped up early. After coming home, Ben had fun with his Spiderman themed Easter basket. I took a nap, which is unusual for me and we all talked to Grandma, Grandpa and GG-ma back in Arizona.

I went back to the church at 7PM for our scheduled Easter Evening service. Last year, this was a big hit. Only about 15 people showed, but it was an intimate group and it was actually spiritually refreshing for me. This year, however, no one came; but, it allowed me time to straighten up my office and to enjoy the sun, which I had witnessed rising, now setting in the western sky.

Nothing overtly memorable happened today; however, it will be an Easter that I will remember.

Jesus Christ is Risen, Indeed!

Nothing Saved, Nothing Lost... Except Common Sense

2009-03-07T21:19:00.000-08:00

Although I am running the risk of being Don Quixote on a wind farm, I cannot help but comment about this biannual exercise of stupidity called “Daylight Savings Time”, a practice that does not give us one ray of additional daylight and actually wastes time. Still, proponents for it, and the media through imprecise rhetoric, continually talk about “gaining” more daylight.

There are claims that the idea of Daylight Savings Time goes back to Benjamin Franklin. This fact may or may not be true, but one thing is for sure: the circumstances were completely different from those of our day.

Benjamin Franklin did not live in an age of standardized time zones, which did not develop until the expansion of the railroads. Up until then, noon was when the sun was at its highest place in the sky wherever the town or city was. It was not possible to travel fast enough or far enough in one day for the relative position of the sun to noticeably change. Therefore, to intentionally set the clocks ahead so that everyone pretended that noon came when the sun was not quite at noon would have been a localized exercise and a type of lazy way of rescheduling daily life so that people would get things done earlier in the day.

With the advent of standardized time zones, the sun no longer dictates exactly when noon is. Depending on what side of the time zone you reside will dictate if noon is earlier or later than it actually is. Those on the eastern edge of a time zone will experience dawn, noon and sundown earlier than those on the western edge even though they get the same amount of daylight, with the exception of the unperceivable amount of daylight gained or lost as the angle of the earth slightly changes during the time between the eastern and western edges of the time zone.

Still, if you straddle the border between two time zones, the sun will not rise or set any earlier or later in each zone. No matter what the clock says six o’clock in one time zone and seven o’clock in another, it is still the same moment in time. Nothing is gained; nothing is lost.

As little sense that Daylight Savings Time may have been 200 years ago, it makes even less sense today because our clocks are no longer dictated by the sun but by time zones. The “time” today is independent of the position of the sun and is standardized for the coordinated ease of travel and communication. In order to let us keep the feel of a sun defined day, time zones change in one hour increments; however, in fact, they are all synchronized today. 4:38 PM in Chicago and 5:38 PM in New York is the exact same moment in time. The clock designations for that moment, whatever they might by or however they are defined, mean nothing. The moment in time remains unchanged.

All Daylight Savings Time does is to change standardized time zones so that they redefine the same moment in time. It is an illusion, a trick and a complete waste of time. Standardized time zones, which are tools to aid us to be more coordinated and productive, suddenly becomes the system whereby we become less standardized, less coordinated, at least in the short term, and less productive as calendar programs, travel schedules, overnight shift schedules have to be changed, developed and reinterpreted. Also, there is a sense of jetlag because our bodies know the truth: the moment in time has not changed, just what we are designating that moment has. All of this just so we can pretend to have created an extra hour of daylight.

Having grown up in Arizona, a state that does not currently have Daylight Savings Time and soundly rejected it after the one time it did, I am a firsthand witness to the fact that we did not feel deprived in the least of this “hour” we failed to “save”. It was a bit confusing having our neighboring states being the same time as us and then not, but that was their issue because our clocks never changed.

The one benefit that Daylight Savings Time use to have was that it was a good reminder to check your smoke detector batteries. Since the period of saving this nonexistent extra light has grown longer during these past couple of years, it is just a little over four months that we are not on Daylight Savings Time, so it is not a good reminder even for smoke detector batteries.

On the subject of the recent changes to Daylight Savings Time, it was suggested by the Bush Administration that this change would save energy. As of today, there is not one shred of data to suggest that any energy has been saved because of an increased period of Daylight Savings Time. Could it be that there is still the exact same amount of daylight no matter what we choose to make the clock read?

Make no mistake; we are not “losing” and hour tonight. It is a forced rescheduling of our lives so that everything starts an hour earlier. Forcing the change in the clock rather than in our schedule books, however, camouflages this fact and is more subversive in that it suckers us into thinking that we are actually “gaining” something.

So, set the clock to whatever you want tonight. The truth is that everything is now just an hour earlier tomorrow. The sun will rise and set at the same time it would have without Daylight Savings Time. In fact, let us set the clocks four hours ahead so that we can play outside until midnight (or at least what we pretend midnight to be).

ELCA Reaches the Obvious but Sobering Conclusion: There Is No Consensus

2009-02-21T19:39:00.000-08:00

Last Tuesday, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) gave us, ordained ministers, a twenty-four hour preview of the reports and recommendations made by the Task Force on Human Sexuality to the Churchwide Assembly convening this summer; the documents went public the next day. These reports and recommendations deal with the creation of a new Social Statement on Human Sexuality and alterations to the policy of mandated celibacy for rostered leaders who are homosexuals.

The rather lengthy documents were grounded in Lutheran theology and obviously the product of soul-wrenching prayer and discernment by members of the Task Force. The length of the document indicates the the enormity, and impossibility, of their task, as well as the conflict that still existed as the Task Force's work came to an end. Unfortunately, the reward for all their hard work is probably going to be complaints from the extreme factions, which are growing as those in the middle seems to be shrinking.

It also seems that the recent events within the Anglican Communion concerning these issues figured into some of the recommendations. Indeed, other national church bodies within the 66 million member Lutheran World Federation have already begun to express their concern to North American and European Lutherans about possible changes in these areas. Given that Lutherans in America and Europe are shrinking in numbers and that Lutherans in other parts of the world are growing at a rate faster than the losses, there is a very real possibility that Lutherans could be facing some similar troubles to those of the Anglican Communion.

Although the proposed actions by the Task Force may get the most attention, it is some of the conclusions that the Task Force expressed that influenced the recommendations that I find the most important and influential for how we move forward as a denomination.

It may seem so ridiculously simple that we might miss or dismiss the profound admission that the Task Force makes in its report, an admission that has revealed the elephant in the room that entered not long after the ELCA was formed out of its predecessor bodies in 1988. This ridiculously simple admission is this: There is no consensus and there is no indication that one will soon be coming.

Now, I have definite views on these issues; however, my views or any one person's views are not the issue because there is no where for the varying views to move forward in faith as things currently are. The recommendations, whether or not they are passed or not, really do not matter because whatever becomes the "official" policy and practices of the ELCA, it will reveal that schism in the ELCA is not merely a possibility, but that it is already here and has been here for quite a while now.

Schism is not what anyone wants, but it is what is and what must be confessed before the denomination, or what comes out of the denomination, can move forward. Both of the extremes, although not wanting schism, are willing to accept schism rather than forsake what each side knows to be the truth because these two truths cannot both be the truth together. The question now becomes, "To what degree can we remain united, honestly and with integrity, and at the same time accept the truth that there will be no consensus on these issues anytime soon?"

The ELCA has been driven to its knees and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, confession that we cannot come to a common understanding on our own and that our expectations for a magical compromise that is going to make each side and those in between happy is not a reasonable one, are probably the healthiest, loving and most honest conclusions that the Task Force could have made. Recognizing and confessing our total dependence on Christ actually shows the strength we have as Lutherans, even as it reveals the limitations of the ELCA.

What the Task Force has done is to hold a mirror up so that the ELCA can truly see itself. The wonderful diversity, the faithful witness to Christ, the history of the Church catholic and the Lutheran Reformation are familiar images looking back at us; however, we must also see a people who cannot see a common path ahead and who are deeply divided on which way to go, a people that may indeed have to go their own separate ways in faith that our paths will cross once again as we journey towards the future we all have in Christ.

America's Finest Moment

2009-01-20T07:23:00.000-08:00

The transfer of power from one President to another fascinates me greatly. Unprecedented in simplicity and scope, the peaceful transfer of power is so common that many inaugurations are simply routine and ignored by a majority of the population. (The historic implications of this upcoming inauguration notwithstanding). With the notable exception of the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln, the transfer of power from one President to the other has been overwhelmingly peaceful. Even the 2000 Presidential election with all of its voting irregularities was ultimately decided by the rule of law and not by rebellion. It is the greatest, ongoing achievement of our Republic.

Unlike a prime minister, the President is elected independently by the people and not from a coalition of compromising legislators. Such a strong executive office is closer to that of a ruling monarch, who must work closely with the legislature but who also has great freedom and independence from it. In spite of an winner-take-all election process that such a powerful office breeds, an election process that often serves only to focus the power of the worst partisan politics, both incoming and outgoing rivals seem to embrace the transition together with almost unquestioning grace.

We actually owe this modern day transfer of power to George Washington. The first and only President to be elected with 100% of the electoral vote (both times), Washington could have remained in office for as long as he wanted. He probably could have become the head of a constitutional monarchy if he had wished. George Washington's greatest achievement, however, was knowing when to give up power. Still relatively healthy and popular, Washington gave up the power of the Presidency after two terms, proving to the American people and the entire world that such a powerful office could transfer peacefully and at the will of the people.

Until F.D.R., no President ran for a third term in honor of the precedent that Washington had set. Because President Roosevelt thought that WWII and the Great Depression necessitated him staying in power, he made the decision to run four times. Despite his historical popularity, it was obvious that Americans continued to embrace the two term precedent since it is now law and not merely tradition.

With all of the nationalistic rhetoric that has stolen genuine patriotic honor, the inauguration of a new President is a treasure that reminds us that true power is often reflected in what we do not do and not by what we can do. It is a paradox that reflects the uniqueness of our federalist system and gives proof that great power and great humility can coexist and flourish together.

Not the Worst, But Darn Close...

2009-01-12T21:02:00.000-08:00

During the waning days of a President’s term in office, it has become a tradition for the press and political pundits to make predictions about the legacy of the outgoing President. I was a little bit too young for Johnson, Nixon and Ford; however, I clearly remember many judging Jimmy Carter to be the worst President ever. Although not many rank his Presidency near the top today, history overall has definitely not judged him as the worst. When Reagan left, I remember many saying that his legacy would be worse than Nixon’s; well, it seems that his legacy has actually held up pretty well over the years. Bush was the outgoing “wimp” who could not continue the huge momentum that he inherited from Reagan. When Clinton left office, only the second President to ever be impeached, many thought he would be labeled the worse; however, as history judges the relative prosperity and peace of that time period, Clinton seems to be judged in a fairly good light.

Now we come to the end of President Bush’s eight years in office and predictions about his legacy abound. Since the tragedy of 9-11 happened on his watch along with an historic and popular successor waiting in the wings, many predict Bush’s legacy to be pretty poor or even the worst. Part of this dramatic rhetoric can be attributed to all the emotion and passion that a presidential transition brings; however, as Bush’s last days come to a close, I truly wonder how much of this emotion and passion will stick with George W. Bush as his term fades into history.

Time usually restrains the extremes of our judgment and a time will come when historians will have the benefit of a more objective perspective on this first decade of the 21st Century; however, I have a real feeling that time and perspective may actually worsen the extreme judgments about Bush’s legacy, not mitigate them. Personally, I do not think that George Bush was the worst President ever; however, do think that his legacy will fight for a spot on the bottom rungs of presidential rankings.

President Bush may indeed share these bottom rungs with Presidents that are usually found on the bottom of historians’ rankings. The bottom five usually includes Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, James Buchannan and Franklin Pierce. Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge sometimes get honorable mentions on this list. Usually, James Buchannan and Andrew Johnson vie for the bottom two rungs, partially because they bookend President Lincoln, who most historians rank as the best or second to best President in American history. Anyone directly before or after Lincoln would have a disadvantage.

With that being said, even this disadvantage cannot mitigate historic fact. Andrew Johnson, President Lincoln’s successor who was actually a Southern Democrat disguised as a Republican, is the only other President to have been impeached. He came one vote from conviction and removal from office, which did nothing to stabilize a nation traumatized by four years of Civil War. President Johnson also revoked some of Lincoln’s lenient reconstruction terms for the Southern states as well as protections for the rights and security of freed slaves. He also repealed surrender terms orchestrated by General Grant and Sherman because he deemed them too lenient. He wanted General Lee, General Johnson and every significant Confederate officer and politicians to be tried for treason. President Johnson cared nothing for slaves; however, he hated Southern traitors more. Reconstruction sputtered and often failed under his watch, allowing racial hatred and retribution to thrive until African Americans were returned to a state of virtual slavery. President Johnson definitely deserves one of the bottom two rungs of Presidential legacies.

Then there is James Buchannan, Lincoln’s predecessor, who did absolutely nothing when the Southern states began to secede after the 1860 election. Back then, Presidential terms did not begin until March, which means Buchannan was still in office for nearly four months before Lincoln took office. He simply through up his hands, proclaimed the Union at an end, and just rode out the end of his term. Meanwhile, the Southern states had time to organize and supply themselves, which probably extended the length and magnitude of the war to such an extent that the Union, indeed, came within a hair’s width of descending into complete anarchy. Some historians argue that Buchannan’s actions and lake of actions were tantamount to treason. James Buchannan, therefore, definitely belongs on the very bottom rung of Presidential legacies.

I think the legacy of President Bush will show some similarities to those of Buchannan and Johnson. For example, until deciding to use some of the bailout money to keep automakers afloat, what has he even attempted during his remaining time in office to help address the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression? It seems like economic troops are mounting right under our noses as more and more jobs and small business become unnecessary casualties. Since a Democratic President and Democratic Congress will be coming to power, you would think that he would want to do something to vainly save his legacy or – here’s a thought – actually have faith in the economic philosophy of his own party and insist on working with Obama on an economic plan that reaches across party lines. Today, a President-elect takes office only two and a half months after the election (a change made courtesy of Buchannan’s legacy); however, two and a half months is a long time to sit and do nothing with a lingering financial collapse on the horizon.

Like President Johnson’s reconstruction policy, history will be harsh on President Bush’s foreign policy. He played right into the terrorists’ hands after 9-11 by sparking a regional conflict in Iraq that the world and even a good number of his fellow Republicans said was a mistake. In order to get the invasion of Iraq approved, he misled Congress, the people, and most tragically, the soldiers about the threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq, and then insulted our intelligence by saying that it was never really about the weapons of mass destruction but about stopping terrorists. We will be reaping the bitter fruits of his arrogance and ignorance for years to come.

Therefore, I think that President George W. Bush deserves the third rung from the bottom of the Presidential legacy ladder. Unlike Reagan, Carter, Clinton and even George Bush, Sr., I think Bush’s troubled legacy will last and he will be remembered as one of the worst Presidents of all times.

Bla - GO!

2008-12-22T08:38:00.000-08:00

Arizona has had its fair share of gubernatorial scandals. It is often said that the Secretary of State is the most powerful office in Arizona because so many of them eventually have to take over as governor. (Arizona has no Lieutenant Governor). Evan Mecham embarrassed the state by calling African-American children by racially derogatory names and perpetually having his foot so far down his mouth that his tonsils developed athlete’s foot. Fife Symington became embroiled in scandal and was eventually convicted on federal charges, resigned, received a new trial and then mercifully had the whole process stopped when he was pardoned by outgoing President Bill Clinton whose life he had saved from drowning years earlier. The New York Times and several Chicago politicians had often said that the residents of the Grand Canyon State had lost the ability to govern themselves. With all of Arizona’s past scandals and embarrassments, however, they pale in comparison to the current scandal created, and still being created, by Governor Blagojevich.

While Arizona’s past political fiascos were embarrassing, they were handled under the rule of law. Provisions for the referendum and recall in the state constitution, reflecting Arizona’s progressive roots and provisions that actually delayed Arizona’s entry into the Union over the objections of President Taft and many others in Congress, proved to be catalysts for citizen action. The recall petition of Evan Mecham led to more aggressive impeachment action in the legislature. The fact that he was elected by less than a majority vote prompted citizens to create a referendum mandating that a governor get 50.1% of the vote or else have a runoff election. The botched way that the Martin Luther King Holiday was handled by the Arizona Legislature, Governor Babbitt and Governor Mecham, led to Arizona being the only state in the Union to have a Martin Lutheran King Holiday enacted by a direct vote of the people and not by the legislature or by executive order.

With Blagojevich’s corruption, there seems to be more of a resigned dread of familiarity rather than a renewed urgency for reform. I once thought that the corruption of Illinois politics was a stereotype gone with the days of Al Capone; now, it seems to be a fundamental truth of Illinois politics rather than a stereotypical aberration.

Now, I know that Governor Blagojevich has not been convicted by a court of law, a fact that he has continually highlighted. Using this as an excuse to stay in office, however, makes his actions even more repugnant because the Governor cannot seem to distinguish his personal, Constitutional Rights with the privileges and responsibilities of being a governor.

The Governor’s Office is not his personal office. He has no right to hold this office that is absolutely protected until he has been found guilty by a civilian court of law. Should a police office remain on duty when indicted but not yet tried for murder? Should a pastor arrested for sexual abuse remain in the parish until trial? Should a treasurer remain in office after being arrested for embezzlement even though not yet found guilty? The ability to conduct the office is independent of guilt or innocence; and, as a lawyer and former judge-advocate general, Governor Blagojevich should know this.

Illinois even has provisions for him to stay in office while turning power over to the Lieutenant Governor while he fights these charges; yet, somehow, Governor Blagojevich sees this as an unacceptable solution. It highlights to me that the Governor will fight “to his last breath,” not for the people or Illinois, but for his own political career. Until he is able – or until it is even possible – for the Governor to clear his name, he needs to recognize that his last breath to act effectively as Governor has already been drawn and that he should concentrate on performing CPR if he ever hopes to resurrect his gubernatorial effectiveness.

I truly hope that the outrageous and damning statements and actions by Governor Blagojevich can be explained past the juvenile excuse that they were taken out of context; yet, the people of Illinois should not have to pay while the Governor defends his political honor. If he is the victim of false accusations and mudslinging, he should fight it; however, the people of Illinois should not be penalized because the Governor became dirty, rightly or otherwise, by playing in Chicago’s political mud.

Brain Cramps are Subsiding

2008-12-02T22:07:00.000-08:00

I have been a bit silent the past few weeks. Sometimes the creative well is dry and sometimes too many of life’s demands take precedence. Both of those have been true for me during this dry spell; however, the biggest reason this time is a cramped brain overloaded with so many things about which to ponder. It has been a memorial two months, both nationally and personally, with a great deal of events and feelings to digest. Well, my brain cramp has begun to loosen and is ready to once again put thoughts to paper or, more accurately, to binary bits.

The first thing bubbling to the surface is the outcome of the Presidential election. If you have read any of my previous entries, you know that I predicted that John McCain would win by a wide margin. Obviously, that did not occur. I thought the Obama was still one election away from becoming President and that the majority of American’s would vote based on their sense of security, which we did; however, it was economic security and not homeland security that turned out to be the overwhelming factor. I also thought that the Palin gimmick would be more affective that it was, for which I am thankful that it did not.

I did not hide the fact that I liked both candidates and I am encouraged that they seem willing to work together. I was disappointed by both of them as the campaigns progressed because their mutual promises to run “civil” campaigns based on this issues were quickly abandoned; however, they both probably ran campaigns as civil as their respective parities would let them, and their respective victory and concession speeches seemed to confirm that both men had a high respect for the other.

I thought McCain’s finest moment in the campaign was his concession speech. This was the man, the “maverick” if you will, for whom the majority of Arizonans voted. This was the man I wished would have, or could have, come out more during the campaign.

McCain’s worst moment had to be the pick of Sarah Palin. I attribute this serious lack of judgment to the vocal “religious right” which has hijacked the Republican Party during the past decade. He was not very popular with this group and he probably thought he needed to shore up this support. Liberman was an obvious choice. A “maverick” move would have been to pick a moderate running mate from the other party. Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona and pending Chief of Homeland Security, comes to mind. Of course, with the overwhelming influence and control of our two major parties, this could have never happened.

An Obama presidency does indeed bring a sense of hope for the future and I think he will, indeed, do a good job. In fact, although I did vote for McCain, I think Obama is already revealing himself as the one most able to lead during this time; not that McCain could not have, but Obama seems to have that intangible quality of inspiring optimism that FDR and Reagan possessed.

The concerns I have about Obama is really not about Obama, but the expectations that are being put on him. Do the American people have enough patience and intelligence to understand that things will not change overnight?

The sanctification and vilification of Obama and McCain respectively, especially by many in my own pastoral profession, also concern me. All the people who voted for McCain were not voting for fear and hate as some of my colleagues have implied and Obama is not the embodiment of all hope and salvation for the future. These absolutes do a disservice and misrepresent the motives of one man and place unrealistic expectations on the other to the point that he cannot be human.

As I wrote last summer, I am glad and hopeful about the future because we truly did have two men of great character, both of whom answered the call to public service, who were willing to have their lives forever changed by running for the most powerful office (at least for now) in the world. May God’s wisdom and grace guide President Obama’s endeavors and ours as well.

Traveler Article

2008-09-29T18:39:00.000-07:00

An Article from

"THE TRAVELER"

The Newsletter of Trinity Lutheran Church in Durand

OCTOBER 2008 PASTOR’S MESSAGE

If you look at the bulletin board in my office, you will see a pennant from Yuma High School, which I acquired during my 20 year class reunion. Yuma’s mascot is one of a kind; Yuma High is the home of the “Criminals”. Of course, there is a story behind this. 100 years ago, Yuma High originally had to meet in the old abandoned territorial prison; however, the school got its name when Yuma beat a heavily favored Phoenix school in football. Accusing the Yuma High team of cheating, the Phoenix team demeaned the Yuma team and its prison campus by saying, “They are nothing but a bunch of criminals.” For years, Yuma High tried to distance itself from being known as the “Criminals”. Eventually, however, the name was not only accepted, but was embraced. All attempts to change the name have been met with the protest of generations of “Criminals”. In fact, it is the only high school in the nation with a copyrighted mascot.

As Lutherans we actually have something in common with Yuma High. Luther never wanted to create another church, certainly not one with his name in the title. He believed and Lutherans still believe in the one holy catholic Church, unified by the rock of faith in Jesus Christ and not by the ecclesial structures of Rome or even the ecclesial structures of the “protesting” churches of his own land. The true Church, for Luther, is invisible in that it is united by a common faith in Jesus Christ and not by the buildings, structures and traditions of one group of Christians. To be called a “Lutheran” therefore, is the peak of irony for a man who relentlessly and uncompromisingly always pointed to Christ.

As time went on, however, the “Lutheran” label stuck and we are much more comfortable wearing it today. Jokes about green Jello, Garrison Keillor and lutefisk reflect a “Lutheran” culture that has developed over the past five centuries. As much as the Lutheran label has stuck, however, we must remember that being a “Lutheran” does not mean that we are part of another church. “The Lutheran Church” may be a phrase used to describe the ecclesial structures of certain groups of Lutherans; however, Lutherans are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Being a Lutheran means being part of a reforming movement within the church and not creating another entity separate from it.

I became a “Lutheran” during a very formative period in my life. My family of origin is not Lutheran, so all the cultural jokes between Swedes and Norwegians go over my head although Kathy has been trying to set me straight over the years. My parents came to become “Lutheran” after much prayer and soul searching. As a result, I remember my baptism because I was eleven when we entered the doors of Faith Lutheran in Yuma, and it was at Faith that my “Lutheran” identity developed.

Faith definitely did not have the resources to offer various extracurricular youth activities such as sports leagues that the Mormon or self-denominational churches around town had, and we did not have the large numbers of kids that the Roman Catholic parish down the street had. As a result, I attended some pretty fun events at other congregations even after coming to Faith; yet, I never thought of any other congregation as my church home. Even though it sometimes seemed boring, uninteresting, too complicated or in other ways did not measure up to the Christians around us who were more “with it” or more numerous, God found me at Faith Lutheran in Yuma and there still is a confidence in belonging to something that goes beyond my fickle tastes and sentiments.

In whatever ways Faith Lutheran in Yuma did or did not measure up, its mission was never about promoting what the congregation itself was doing or in what way it was done; rather, its mission was grounded in pointing to what God is doing and for whom God is doing it. The simple gift of God in the Word, incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ born to us through Holy Scripture and the authority upon which the sacraments as the means of God’s grace are so freely given to us, is what God was doing at Faith and is still doing wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name.

Many of us can probably remember some type of student body election during your childhood, which were not really elections at all but published popularity contests. Most often, it was not the person who would work the hardest or who had the best ideas who would be elected; rather, it was usually the one who was already popular or made wild promises like doing away with homework.

We live in a cultural where we often practice our faith like we vote in a student body election: it becomes about the form, not the substance. It is about how the gift is packaged and not about opening the gift. The greatest strength that Lutherans have to offer Christ’s Church, a strength that is so engrained in our Confessions that it seems to speak even often in spite of us, is the uncompromising commitment to proclaim how completely and totally we are dependent upon God’s grace given through Christ’s work on the cross. We are not the only Christians who understand and confess this; however, because of the times in which the Reformation was born, it is still the strongest “Lutheran” theme almost 500 years later.

Yet, we remember that our “Lutheran” identity is ironic because we are named after a man who preached that we should point to Christ and Christ alone. Indeed, it is a name that is historically unfortunate, but is ours today. We cannot escape being “Lutheran”, nor should we. We need to bear the name proudly and confidently because the reforming movement of the 16th Century is still alive and at work within Christ’s Church even to this day. We need to live in the gift of God’s grace so that the name “Lutheran” is one that gives honor to Christ and is an embarrassment to those who intended it as an insult.

Your Friend in Christ,

Pastor Lee

The Electoral College: it's not broke so don't fix it.

2008-09-19T10:28:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the 2000 election when Al Gore received a majority of the popular vote but still lost the election, there was talk about the abolishment of the Electoral College. The perception was that the Electoral College failed because the will of the majority, albeit a small majority, did not determine who would become President. I submit, however, that the Electoral College did not fail eight years ago but did exactly what it was designed to do.

The Electoral College was not an institution born out of the need to coordinate an election over long distances in 18th Century America as is often cited as an explanation for its creation. The Electoral College was part of the compromise between large and small states when the Union was formed as is the structure of Congress, with the Senate based only on the equality of state sovereignty and with the House of Representatives based only upon actual population.

Small states feared that their sovereignty would be lost in a union with more populous states. The populous states feared that being in a union where all states had equal power in national policy would enslave the majority of the population to the will of a small minority. In order to elect a President, some type of compromise had to be struck, which is the Electoral College. The more populous states still have the most say in electing the President; however, the popular votes in the smaller states have greater power to influence a close election than do the popular votes in the larger states.

If we take the least populous state in the Union, Wyoming, with three electoral votes (one for each representative and senator) and use it as the standard for the power of each individual vote in determining the state’s electoral votes, we can see the advantage the Electoral College gives to individual voters in smaller states. As a whole, Wyoming only accounts for .56% of the electoral votes. In contrast, California with 55 electoral votes accounts for 10.22% of the Electoral votes. When comparing the individual voter in both states, however, the average voter in California only has 26% as much influence on how those electoral votes are allocated. In other words, it takes approximately four California voters to have the same influence over their states electoral votes in order to equal one Wyoming voter’s influence over the electoral votes of that state.

In a hypothetical situation where Wyoming and California are swing states, for every new voter you gain in Wyoming you would have to gain four in California to have the same impact in turning the electoral votes of that state. The result is that more populous states still get the most attention; however, smaller states still warrant at least some attention because of how much easier it is to affect the electoral votes of smaller states.

States with rapid population declines are also favored over states with rapid population increases because electoral votes are only reapportioned every ten years. This is why the residents of California as the largest state in the Union have votes slightly more influential than residents of Texas, simply because Texas is growing at a more rapid rate.

So, why should smaller states have this much influence over national elections? Why should the individual votes of California voters be worth so much less than those of Wyoming voters? To answer this question we need to understand the mentality upon which this Union was created. Those who created the Constitution viewed the will of each state, as one individual sovereign entity, to be just as important, if not more, than the will of each individual voter or the majority of voters. (We also need to remember that early in the nation’s history, state legislatures had much more control over the appointment of senators and electoral votes). Those who founded the United States as a Constitutional Democracy, (or Democratic Republic if you wish), were concerned with the will of the majority, but they were also fearful of the potential tyranny of the majority.

Eight years after the 2000 election, the Electoral College still exists, although another close election might renew calls for it termination. If it is eventually abolished, it will not be because it is a broken or outdated institution; rather, it will be because the American people have changed their fundamental assumptions about the nature of our Union.

The importance of state sovereignty is not an issue for most American’s today; in fact, if you asked the average social studies student, I bet most do not even know what a “sovereign” state means. The Federal Government use to be seen as the Union between equal states formed to do things that they could not do alone. The mentality today is that the Federal Government is the parent responsible for keeping 50 children in line. Authority and sovereignty have coalesced at the Federal level. If the Electoral College is doomed, then it will be because of this shift in mentality of the American people rather than a flaw in the system itself.

Personally, I think the abolishment of the Electoral College would be a huge mistake. Although we occasionally have a President who does not get a majority of the votes, that is not such a bad thing. It is a reminder that the majority does not have absolute control over our government. It is a check against out of control mob mentality. It also requires that Presidential candidates address all parts of our country and not just those with the most people. Lastly, it is a reminder that the United States is not simply a collection of various federal voting districts, but is compromised of 50 sovereign states, each with its own history, each with its own contributions and each with its own future, who have come together as equals for the mutual betterment of their citizens.

Forgive in the Shadow of the Cross

2008-09-11T21:12:00.000-07:00

In the Lutheran liturgical calendar, as it is for almost all of Western Christianity, September 14th is the festival of the Holy Cross. Actually, this is a bit of an unusual festival for Lutherans to observe because, in general, the lesser festivals are limited to people or events that directly impacted Christ’s life. The festival of the Holy Cross focuses on a thing, an instrument of torture and death that God in Jesus Christ used to conquer death.

Indeed, the cross is a victorious symbol of what Christ has done, but how often do we co-opt this victory for ourselves? How often does it become a symbol of pride for a “good” Christian American? When Ann Coulter does everything possible to make sure America sees her wearing it, do we cringe as she calls herself, as a Christian, a “perfected” Jew?

Since Holy Cross falls on a Sunday this year, there is also the option of using the regularly assigned Sunday texts instead of those appointed for observing the festival of the Holy Cross. The Gospel lesson for this week is from Matthew 18:21-35: the Parable of the Wicked Slave. It is a parable about a slave who was forgiven and freed from a debt that he could never pay only to use that freedom and forgiveness to ruthlessly collect on his outstanding loans. As a result, even though the slave was forgiven so freely by the king, he ended up imprisoned because of his own inability to forgive.

Without forgiveness, the cross becomes a piece of vane jewelry or a superstitious symbol; it is hijacked for political ideals and it becomes a perverted symbol of exclusion. The cross must always be seen through the lens of grace and the light of forgiveness. The cross reminds us of the ugly truth that we, captive to sin, cannot forgive as we have been forgiven, that we will always embrace the glory but not the call to die to ourselves in order to live a new life in Christ.

Beneath the gold plating, the cross is still, essentially, an instrument of death and destruction and a place where sin goes to die. The cross is also the place where Christ meets us, embraces it with us, dies with us, so that we can begin to live a life of forgiveness that we cannot live on our own. May that gold plating flake off just a bit to remind us that it is not the golden glory that saves us but the humble weakness that frees us from ourselves so that we can live a life of faith and forgiveness.

Like It or Not, Prepare for McCain

2008-09-07T05:45:00.000-07:00

Every election year I am reminded of what a diverse political group of friends that I have. As I read forwarded e-mails, Facebook commentaries and the general discussions of daily life, this diversity has become even more apparent.

For the record, I like both candidates and would be happy with either one of them being President. Ideally, I would like to see them work together after the election. I think McCain would be a great Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security in an Obama cabinet. I could see Obama as a great Secretary of State in a McCain cabinet. I’m sure politics will not let either of these scenarios happen, although this is an election of many firsts and surprises.

To the chagrin of many of my “blue state” friends, however, I predict that John McCain will be our next President (and long may he live after the Palin pick as a running mate. Here are some of my reasons for this prediction. Poll numbers were gathered from one of the following sources: Gallop, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC and RealClearPolitics.com.

1. McCain’s pick of Palin for a running mate was to win over disgruntled voters in his own party more than it was to win disgruntled Hillary voters. Huckabee could have done the same thing; however, Palin not only has helped secure the far right but has gotten Republicans stirred up and motivated in a way that neither Huckabee nor another right-winged Republican could have done.

2. The reason it was important for McCain to throw a bone to the far right of his own party is that there were some long-standing “red” (Republican) states that were not looking quite so red. Recent polls show their red hue deepening. McCain’s disapproval rating among his own party was cut in half after the Republican convention. Also Evangelical voter support for McCain increased to 66% from 57%.

3. Even though many of these “red” states are small, they add up. In fact, if the election was held today and the “toss-up” states were given to the candidate currently leading, the Electoral College vote would be 273-265 for Obama. In the states where a candidate’s lead is less than 1%, almost all have a Republican voting history. Virginia with 13 electoral votes has voted Republican in the last four elections. Colorado with 9 electoral votes has voted Republican in three of the last four elections. Ohio with 20 electoral votes has voted Republican in the last two elections. Nevada with 5 electoral votes as voted Republican in the last two elections. The only exception: New Hampshire with 4 electoral votes has voted Democrat in three of the past. If McCain were to turn either Colorado or New Hampshire, where Obama currently has a slight lead, he would win the Electoral College. Remember, Colorado has voted Republican in three of the last four elections.

4. In states where McCain has a lead of 1 to 10%, all of them have voted Republican in the last two elections and some have voted Republican in the last three or four elections.

5. This election once again is placed into a handful of swing states: Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia. All but one has voted Republican in the last two elections and three of those have voted Republican in at least three of the last four elections.

6. With a poll comprised of an equal number of current Obama and McCain supporters, 60% view Obama in touch with the problems of the average American compared to only 44% for McCain; however, the same poll shows that 46% of people think it is “very likely” that McCain would be an effective commander and chief while only 26% expressed this confidence in Obama. Pending crises in Iran and Russia that are currently dominating the news will only strengthen the swing voters to support the candidate that is perceived to be the more able protector over the candidate that is perceived to be more able empathizer.

If my prediction is correct, Obama voters should take heart in his age. I think he will be elected President in an election to come, just not this one.

Ten Years 10-7, 10-42.

2008-08-31T19:15:00.000-07:00

It was ten years ago this month that I resigned as an officer of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. For those of you not from Arizona, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS) is Arizona’s equivalent to the state police and highway patrol. I joined DPS in September of 1991, resigned in September 1993 to start seminary, rejoined in August 1994 when I decided seminary was not for me (yet), and then resigned permanently in August of 1998. My total service time with DPS was just a few days shy of six years, all of them in the Highway Patrol Bureau. I was assigned to two duty stations, Yuma and then Tucson, for about an equal length of time in each. Many of my former officers are still my dear friends.

Leaving for good was one of the hardest decisions of my life. The struggle was magnified by an emerging call to ordained ministry; however, there were other reasons that I resigned that were independent of my pastoral call.

I probably could have had a long career in law enforcement if it was just about the actual law enforcement and not the Monday morning quarterbacking, or sometimes just pure revisionist history, which is our court system. What became painfully clear to me in six years of police work is that justice is enslaved to procedure and not to the truth. To quote a Klingon lawyer from Star Trek, “The truth must be won.”

The truth of our courts, quite frankly, is often pure fiction. Racism is rampant; many lawyers only see value in winning and police are often fodder to cover their mistakes. To list all the examples I personally experienced would take more words than you would probably want to read. I will put four examples, however, in the comment section if you are curious. My point is that it really did not matter how good I did my job, the results in court were completely dependent upon how skilled the lawyers were in manipulating the procedure of the system.

Most officers were able to compartmentalize their jobs and be content knowing that they had done the best job they could, whatever the outcome. I was not one of them; it was not in my temperament to be one of them. It wore on me and I knew that if I did stay in law enforcement for twenty years or so that I would probably have a heart attack a week after I retired. This is why, although I do sometimes miss police work, I know that resigning ten years ago was the right decision.

Officers who can do their duty without the court system breaking them down have my utmost respect and admiration. I am also extremely thankful for criminal attorneys and judges who for the sake of justice truly strive for the truth as it is and not as they can manipulate it to be.

10-7 (off duty) 10-42 (safe at home)

America's Pastime Is Secure.

2008-08-27T23:00:00.000-07:00

I’m going to lighten the mood with this post.

My daily commute provides me ample opportunity to listen to the radio, usually sports talk. Almost universally, radio hosts proclaim that football has dethroned baseball as the national pastime. Now, I freely admit that I am a baseball fan. The only football team I follow is my University of Arizona Wildcats. The NFL is just boring to me. With my bias fully acknowledged, I maintain that baseball is still the national pastime and it’s not even close.

The annual revenue of the NFL is greater than Major League Baseball, but the gap is closing. Television ratings favor professional football over baseball and I will concede that NFL football is more popular than Major League Baseball.

What we forget is that baseball has much deeper roots than the major leagues whereas football’s dominance over other sports is at the professional, major college and high school levels only. In short, it is a big, impressive tree with shallow roots. The number of minor league football franchises pales in comparison to those in baseball. Many minor league teams are affiliated with minor league clubs, which grows a fan base in rural America for the parent club as well as the local team.

Of course, there are little league football teams; however, little league baseball encompasses far more children and at a younger age. It is a sport that every kid can play at least on some level. In football, you more quickly reach the point of having to weed out the mediocre players or sticking them in positions where they will never see the ball. In baseball, the best and worst players in the lineup get a turn at bat.

Football has no real minor league system. College football kind of serves as a developmental league, but loyalty to the schools promotes the popularity of college football. Football also fits in an academic environment where there is a big buildup to one single weekend game and then back to the academic week.

Baseball is a 162 game grind that does not build to a single weekly game, but enhances and finds itself a part of everyday life. Radios are regularly turned to baseball games, major and minor league, at places of work and during travel. Baseball flows with everyday life, it does not overshadow it. Yet, for each of those 162 games, thousands and tens of thousands of fans attend every game, often times in numbers in excess of many NFL teams for one Sunday game.

The popularity and revenue generated from sales related to little league baseball teams and minor league teams must be considered when assessing baseball’s popularity in financial terms. Although NFL football may generate revenue in the cities, minor league baseball, and even little league baseball, generates revenue to a broader range of communities.

The uniqueness of baseball as a sport must also be taken into consideration. It is a game where the defense controls the ball. It is a game with no clock that either team can win until the game is truly over. As long as you have a strike left, it is possible to win even if down by 100 runs. In football, if you are down by nine points with one second left on the clock, it is physically impossible to win.

Finally, baseball’s history is clearly superior to that of football. Baseball’s roots go back to the Civil War soldiers and professional baseball has been played since the 1880’s in America. There are even major league teams around today that were also in existence well over 100 years ago.

Baseball is America’s pastime not because its major leagues are more popular than the NFL, but because baseball is such an integral part of American everyday life in so many ways beyond just Sunday afternoons.

Let's vote already!

2008-08-21T21:17:00.000-07:00

I truly believe that John McCain will be the next President and that the election will not even be that close. Actually, I have been saying this since McCain emerged as the Republican nominee. This is not an endorsement or rebuke of Senator McCain; rather, I think that as the election grows nearer people will suppress their desire to elect a candidate who is perceived as one who will bring significant change and vote for the candidate who is perceived as one who will defend us from our perceived threats and enemies. Obama would be elected easily in a peacetime election; however, war, even if not officially declared, is not conducive to people embracing new ideas.

Of course, now that I have publically published my thoughts, Obama will win in a landslide. The latest Presidential campaign polls, however, show that Obama’s lead is shrinking or gone depending on which poll is cited. With Russia’s sudden desire to have a Soviet Era nostalgia tour, I think we will see the poll numbers start to shift.

Either way, I am actually more hopeful about this election than I have been in a long time. I think that either man would be a good choice. In fact, I wish we were back in the early days of the Republic when the loser would become Vice-President.

McCain, of course, comes from my home state of Arizona, taking over Barry Goldwater’s seat. Obama comes from the state in which I currently find myself. I disagree with both men on various issues; however, my agreement or disagreement with a candidate on specific issues is not what I desire in a candidate. I want to vote for the candidate who will do what he or she believes is right, even if it is unpopular. I want to support a President who I know is doing what he or she truly believes is in the best interest of the country and not what will ensure a second term of power. I believe that both men have this quality and I wish their campaigns would allow them to let this quality show.

This election, I am really hopefull in that I get to choose between two good candidates rather than the lesser of two evils.

What are your thoughts?

Depression. What's it good for?

2008-07-28T22:46:00.000-07:00

I know that I am not alone in dealing with severe depression. I don't know if that is even the right clinical term anymore, but I think severe depression can include chronic depression and intense episodes that require some type of hospitalization or immediate treatment. Whatever the proper term, depression just plain "sucks". I apologize for such a sophisticated description.

Just to say up front, I am not suicidal or anything like that; if I was, I would not be blogging. Even when the depression gets acute, I have more tools to deal with it than I did just two years ago. Still, it gets very discouraging when the symptoms are not relieved as quickly as I need them to be.

For those of you who have dealt with severe depression, you know about that which I speak; for those of you who do not, it is hard to explain. I say this not to imply that people who have never been severely depressed lack the ability to understand what it is; rather, I find that depression is not really about rational understanding but about irrational feeling. I don't understand depression at all. I know what it does and have knowledge about its progression and pathology, but I do not understand it. Depression reminds me of Paul in the book of Romans pondering why he does the very things he hates.

Depression is about feelings and moods being completely out of tune with the reality surrounding them.. People who do not quite understand it think that beating depression is about keeping up an optimistic mood and counting all the blessings that I have. This is where it is hard to explain. It is not about a lack of gratitude or simply choosing not to be pessimistic; rather, it is the complete inability at times to feel optimism or gratitude even though my brain knows that I have a great deal for which to be optimistic and grateful. It is like going into the world emotionally blind, having to infer what the rational feeling should be because it is the irrational feeling that I have. Depression is very much about being enslaved to your emotions, and it is very frustrating when that enslavement becomes debilitating.

It was really too late to start this topic tonight, but any responses and experiences are welcome.

God's Peace.

What now?

2008-07-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

OK, I am already lost. What the heck is an "enclosure link" link and why do I need one?

I have had the itch to start a blog for some time; however, I usually ask myself, "Why?" Do I really have anything to say? And even if I do, does anyone really have the time or motivation to read it?

A friend and colleague just started a blog, however, so I became inspired. So, here it is: "The Chronicles of a Lutheran Desert Rat". I am a third generation Arizonan and fiercely proud of it. God, however, has a way of humbling us, which is why I currently live in Illinois where neither I nor my wife has one bit of family.

As a parish pastor, there are quite a few things that I come across that would make for some good reading; however, since most of my congregants have a computer and I do have a responsibility to keep things private, it restricts me just a bit. Still, I think that there will be enough going on to keep my fingers busy for a while.

Actually, I serve a very supportive and loving congregation, which constantly surprises me in the ways they reflect Christ's love. A few times I am tempted to say, "Jesus may love you, but I think you are a damn loon," but this is usually because of some outside problem and not with the people of the congregation. Heck, as you will find out, I am a loon, too.

Well, I have a son to bathe and spell check to run before I publish this. Peace to all who read it.