Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Thought for today...

Thomas Powers tells this story:

The composer Stravinsky had written a new piece with a difficult violin passage. After it had been in rehearsal for several weeks the solo violinist came to Stravinsky and said he was sorry, he had tried his best, the passage was too difficult and no violinist could play it. Stravinsky said, “I understand that. What I am after is the sound of someone trying to play it.” While this conversation took place between a musician and a composer, it could have taken place between God and a disciple.

Disciple: I’m sorry but the part you have given me to play in life is much too difficult. I’m doing my best and yet it is still too difficult. I am not good enough.

God: I understand that. What I am after is the sound of someone trying their best to live the life that has been given them.

Live your life today. The best that you can. And know that it's enough.

Jim

(thanks to my friend Tara Barber for sharing this story with me)

Friday, January 29, 2016

Energy consumed looking to your past is energy stolen from your future!

I am part of many social media groups, on everything from restoring old engines to groups where pastors can have a dialog about things with other pastors. One interaction from the latter group caught my attention this past weekend. A pastor of an urban church was upset that the county had scheduled a marathon for Sunday morning, for which the route went by the church, impacting the ability of folks to get to worship. They were forced to reschedule worship for Sunday evening.

Helpful pastors from all over chimed in – they saw this as an opportunity for ministry – perhaps providing a water station for runners, or praying for them as they passed. Others saw it as a way to minister ‘outside the box’ or practice some evangelism. It’s a sad habit of pastors – we’re often in ‘fix’ mode when we should be in listening or considering mode.

Well, this pastor would have none of these fixes. He did not want to affirm the decision to run the marathon on a Sunday morning, a time once reserved for churches, even while others continued to affirm an opportunity in the marathon. I marveled at the sense of entitlement – somewhat taken aback at the idea that there were still mainline pastors who believed we had some special hold on Sunday mornings.

And the church held their Sunday worship service in the evening. It was lightly attended. But during the marathon? When thousands lined the streets? The church sat cold, empty, silent, and dark. Yes, rather like a tomb.

There was a time in our culture when Blue Laws and the like reserved Sunday morning for churches. Such laws and social conventions prohibited people from doing much of anything else.

I’m hoping you’ve noticed; that time has passed. Now, you can choose to tilt at these windmills, or you can choose to acknowledge that our culture has changed. We must change church culture as well if we want to be relevant for rest of the 21st century. But it will be about this basic choice: You can be outraged and try to re-establish long dead entitlements, or you can learn how to offer extravagant hospitality and a wide welcome to your whole community. Do you see it? Instead of using laws and social conventions to force people in, we will have to be relevant, noticed, and be a place people are transformed.

It goes without saying, but I guess I will say it anyway, that if that church actually served that neighborhood, getting to church wouldn’t have been an issue anyway.

You’ve probably heard this from me before but here it is:

All of the energy your congregation consumes trying to recapture your past is energy stolen from your future.

Be attuned to the ways your congregation attempts to hold onto the past. If you are using a lot of energy, is it energy you will need for tomorrow’s ministry?  Help the church break free from habits that no longer serve your mission well (even if it feels like it serves you well).

Learn to let go, and:
·       Pray.
·       And Listen.
·       And Hear what great things are in store for you.

Along with the Center for Progressive Renewal, I believe our best days are ahead - if you’re willing to risk – to be uprooted – to be open to the guiding of the Holy Spirit. Church must always be in transition. It always has. And that’s OK. Because we know our Rock and Redeemer guides us and grounds us.

Peace,


Jim

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Wondering on the Ways We Worship...

Perhaps the best part of my call with the Vermont Conference is the time I spend directly interacting with our churches. When 2014 ends, I will have visited more than three dozen of you this year, preaching and sharing worship in more than 20 different churches.

The diversity of worship expressions around the Conference is something I wish you all could see. There are the 'liturgical' churches, where every prayer is an opportunity for reading responsively, with multi-page bulletins in color. And others where the congregation mainly receives rather than participates. Some are careful to include the words to every corporate prayer, not assuming that every visitor will know the words to The Lord's Prayer. Musical expressions vary widely, from majestic pipe organs and electronic organs, to pianos and Clavinovas, to strings and brass and guitars. Projecting on screens or walls during worship is gaining ground. Some sermons are relatively short, some much longer. In some churches the sermon is the central focal point of worship; in others, it seems to be prayers of the people and the pastoral prayer. Some celebrate communion weekly, some monthly, and a few quarterly.

Here's the interesting thing. In all this diversity, I could not begin to tell you which liturgical practices are 'right' and which are 'wrong.' Because there's no such thing. Most seem to work in their contextual setting, fitting the congregation that gathers in its own way.

Moreover, I would posit that it's challenging to know from the 'inside' which parts of worship the assembled find most compelling. It is as difficult as looking directly into your own eyes. Because you ARE that.

When Tom Harty and I began as co-pastors in Randolph Center, we added the Passing of the Peace to our weekly liturgy. In the beginning, the congregation participated stiffly, almost grudgingly, rarely moving from their pews. In time it gained wider acceptance, but the change came gradually, nearly imperceptibly. The time for Passing the Peace grew longer and longer, people travelling further and further from their pews, until one day I realized that everyone made contact with everyone else, and the interaction went well beyond "Peace be with you."

Well, this wouldn't do. It was taking too long! It was threatening to cut into my sermon time! I wanted to get a bell to keep on the pulpit which I could ring and train them (Thanks, Pavlov!) to return to their seats on command. This was just too successful. Harrumph. 

One mid-winter Sunday after church, as I was grumbling about the Passing of the Peace, an elderly widow took me aside and gently said to me, "Jim, sometimes Sunday morning is the only time I get out of my house all week. This is the one place where I get some human touch."

Sigh...

Now, I would have told you that I suspected that my carefully crafted liturgy or inspiring and challenging sermon was the part of worship that was most valued. But, at least for one woman, it was fellowship, community, and the sharing of appropriate physical contact.

So, I wonder. Why do you worship the way you do? When's the last time you seriously deconstructed your liturgy to know what people find meaningful and cherished? Are the booming pipes (organ or pastor) it? Or the quiet spaces for reflection? Is everything in worship a prelude to an invitation to the table? Something else?

And, perhaps, two harder questions. Are the things important to you also the things that might be important to visitors and seekers? Is your worship designed for your insiders, or those you haven't met yet?

Stay tuned - we'll soon be announcing information about 
Recalculating the Way II coming in March. Rev Mike Piazza will be the keynote, and we will explore worship as our topic. 

Blessings to you and yours this holiday season.

Peace,
Ji

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Are We an Institution or a Movement?

Two weeks ago I attended the National Church Leadership Institute (NCLI) in Atlanta GA. The conference was hosted by the Center for Progressive Renewal (CPR). CPR is the organization the Vermont Conference has begun a long term relationship with to help equip our churches and pastors for mission and ministry.

The theme of this year's conference was "Finding Our Way Again," apropos since Brian McLaren was the main speaker and that is the title of one of his books. Brian is a great writer and an engaging speaker. He shared too much to try to summarize here, so I'll pick one point and expound a bit.

Brian, in one of his presentations, explained about the difference between institutions and movements, and how they come about and how they are changed. Institutions are, by nature, defenders of the status quo - they have a system and processes and direction and changing that from within is hard. Movements, on the other hand, aren't burdened by history or tradition - they are trying a new thing, trying a new way, trying to upset the status quo.

Movements generally have three outcomes:
- They wither and die, unable to sustain momentum
- They become accepted, and eventually become an institution themselves, or
- They cause significant change in an existing institution.

What does this mean to us? Well, it would take only a cursory look at the history of the UCC and its predecessor bodies to see how movements for change (abolitionists, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, ordination of women, et al) eventually became part of who we are as a denomination. You might carry that a step further and see how we as a denomination could be seen as a movement to society at large - eventually affecting change in a much broader sense. (I'm not asserting that the UCC gets the credit for all social justice ever - but we do have a history of being on the leading edge of such change - which is where the movements are)

That part is exciting and affirming. Here's the not-so-affirming part. Our churches, associations and your Conference are, you guessed it, institutions. That's why change is so hard. We're not built to be nimble; but to defend, to protect, to continue as we are. A review of mainline Protestantism in the second half of the 20th century makes this all too clear. As our culture changed and swirled around us, we become more steadfast, more resolute, more insular, hoping the latest church growth program would solve all our ills. We know now that each successive program was designed to try to bend the culture back to us, rather than the other way around. And therein is the answer on why they didn't work.

So, what to do? I think two choices are before us: either we start being an institution that acts like a movement, or we find ways to embrace and accept fundamental change from the emerging movements sprouting up around us. We have to retire from leadership the folks who assert "We've always done it that way!" and instead invite younger people into positions of leadership, even if their ways are not our ways. We have to stop worshipping our buildings, and instead think of them as a tool to do mission and ministry. And acknowledge that sometimes tools wear out, or no longer are the tools we need. We have to learn to be nimble, or step back so that the nimble can lead, and stop trying to protect what once was. We have to stop trying to recapture what we once were, and use that energy to make a new future, appropriate for this time, this place. We have to cuddle up to uncomfortableness as a way of embracing change.

It's a lot to digest, I know. But we don't have forever to get started. Your Vermont Conference has begun relationships with CPR and Partners for Sacred Places for just this reason - to help us become movement-like again - to embrace change, and become the church we are meant to be in the 21st century.

Peace,   

Jim

Thursday, February 27, 2014

If Your Church Worship Feels Like a Family, You're Doing it Wrong!

Did that get your attention? Thought it might.

I read a really intriguing article on the MinistryMatters website yesterday titled Why Worship Shouldn't Feel Like Family that had me up half the night considering what it meant - and if I agreed.

 When I visit one of our churches, whether to talk about stewardship, vitality, strategic planning, or something else I almost always begin with a little icebreaker - asking folks at the table to introduce themselves and answer a couple of questions. Often, those questions are:
·         What is it you love most about your congregation?
·         What is it that you wish were different?
The number one answer to the first question (survey says!) is a variation on: our church feels like a family. And I understand that answer. A healthy church can be a place where people feel comfortable, where you are known, where you are appreciated, where you are cared for when in need, where you share fellowship. All good things.

This article, though, challenges what I think about that. The very thing that makes our churches feel like family to us can be very off-putting to someone not already in the family. Our use of shorthand (abbreviations and acronyms that only insiders will understand), our handling of church business during announcements, and how we pass the peace and vocalize prayers concerns can all be very disorienting to a newcomer, especially an unchurched person.

I spoke with a person recently who had been away from church since they were very young, returning after a three decade absence. She was essentially unchurched, having been shuffled off to Sunday school instead of ever actually experiencing worship as a child. She spoke of how unwelcoming worship felt when time came for the Lord's Prayer, and the Gloria Patri, and the Doxology, how everyone else began speaking or singing - and all the bulletin listed was the title. What was she to do with that? She moved her lips and mumbled, hoping no one would notice she don't know the secret code or password that everyone else seemed to. She didn't go back. She felt like an outsider.

That's just one example. Now, the article doesn't say (and neither am I) that your church home feeling like a family is a bad thing. But perhaps we shouldn't worship that way. Worship, after all, is not an hour long opportunity each week to hang out with your friends (or family). There are other times in our church life to do that. Worship is an intentional act of devotion toward God. Moreover, it prepares us to serve a hurting world beyond our doors - prepares us for the work of discipleship.  

When someone new comes to your place of worship (instead of you finding them) it's a wonderful thing. And all our churches, if asked, would say that they are a very hospitable and welcoming group. But there's more to it than handing them a bulletin, helping them find a pew, and smothering them during the passing of the peace. If they've never been in a church before, they will be shocked at what happens over the next hour. And little of it may make sense to a newcomer when we assume everyone knows certain things.  

So this week, I invite you to view how you worship through the eyes of an outsider. Consider an unchurched teenager. Or a Boomer who hasn't seen a church since their youth. Will they feel welcome? Are there unspoken cues in your worship that undermine what it says on the front of your bulletin  - that no matter who you are and where you are on life's journey, that you are welcome here?

To read the article, follow this link. (be careful if you read the comments following, sometimes church folk aren't very nice. Most people missed that he didn't say church shouldn't feel like family - just that we shouldn't worship like one)

Then come on over to the Conference Facebook page, and let's discuss. (or leave a comment here)

Peace,

Jim

Where Will Our Next Pastor Come From?

If your congregation has a settled pastor, this may not be the question at the forefront of your congregation's thoughts... but perhaps it should be.

The mainline church is in the midst of significant change, but that's not news anymore. One of the often overlooked components of that change is what the future of pastoral leadership looks like. Here are some startling facts: 
·         80% of all authorized ministers in the UCC are over age 50.
·         Only 6% of all authorized ministers are under age 40.
·         From 1992 to 2012, the number of employed ordained ministers decreased by more than 1,300.
·         Licensed Ministers now account for 9% of all authorized ministers.
·         There is some good news - the number of female pastors is up to 46%. (although they are, on average, still paid less than their male counterparts)
·         70% of all UCC churches have a worship attendance of less than 100.
·         Here in Vermont, only about 1/3 of our churches have a full time pastor.

So, most of our pastors are over 50 years old, opportunities for full time pastorates have declined significantly, but even so there aren't enough new pastors in the pipeline to offset the massive upcoming retirements. Starting to think this is something to pay attention to?

The way we 'make' pastors is getting a lot of attention these days. I don't think our denomination's appreciation for a learned clergy is going away anytime soon, in fact I think the 4+3 (undergrad degree plus a Master's of Divinity) education model as part of a Member in Discernment process should remain the normative one.  And yet, there are significant obstacles before us, including:
·      With fewer churches who can afford one, there are limited opportunities for newly minted ordained pastors to be called to a full time pastorate.
·      Many seminarians graduate with more than $100K in total college debt, and face decades of student loan payments.
·      Local Church Pastor is not always the first career choice - even for those attending seminary.

At the United Church of Christ General Synod this past summer, one of the resolutions we considered tried to address at least part of this systemic problem. It was the resolution that sparked the most debate, more than mountaintop mining and divestment from fossil fuels and all the others. The initial resolution draft called for the establishment of a sixth all-church offering to be used for financial assistance for seminarians swimming in debt. In one of the closest votes at Synod, the resolution language was changed from "an annual all-church offering and other possible funding initiatives" to "an annual all-church offering or other possible funding initiatives." The amendment passed with 51.3% of the votes in favor. Our General Minister and President was for the amendment, stating that requiring a sixth offering would "tie the Collegium's hands...". The national setting of the church is working on options that will likely be brought to the next General Synod in 2015.

While the urgent matters before our churches call to us with loud voices, we cannot allow them to drown out the important matters that are also before us. Multiple Paths to Ordination and Licensed Ministry will have an important role as we go forward, but they are a partial solution to a larger challenge. How will we provide a continuum of support to those called to pastoral ministry to ensure that they are well prepared and unburdened as they begin their calling?

So, do you know where your next pastor is going to come from? It's not a rhetorical question.

Peace,

Jim

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Facts, Truths, Future?

Somehow I appointed myself "Fact Checker of the Internet." When one of my friends forwards an email, or posts on Facebook something that doesn't look right; off I go to Snopes or other places in an attempt to verify. And I know I'm not always completely gracious when my suspicions are correct. I do think we have an obligation to ensure what we say (or forward) is correct.

Now, I'm not talking about debating opinions. You can malign the President's performance, or do the same for the Tea Party, and you'll get nary a twitch out of me. We're entitled to our opinions, even if they're wrong. And with a Facebook friends list that is comprised of military veterans, industrialists, and progressive church folks, my page is a very interesting intersection. Almost anything I post makes someone unhappy. Which is why some days I stick to cat videos.

But facts are important. When we are barraged by information from 24 hour news channels, and websites and emails, it's easy to become an unwittingly complicit information consumer, or, if you will, a lazy acceptor of things-with-which-I-want-to-agree-whether-factual-or-not.

Remember what Honest Abe said (Happy Birthday Mr. President!):



But truth be told, I'm much more concerned about your faith than your facts. We can be very busy in our churches with worship and mission and ministries and such. But I wonder if the busyness keeps us from asking ourselves the important questions: How is our faith? How are our souls? How are our communities of faith a respite from our culture rather than trying desperately to mirror it? How does the time we spend together change ourselves and our world?

There are all sorts of ideas about how to attract young people - to call to us the generations lost. Maybe we could start with this: a willingness to have an open conversation with them about what we believe and our faith and our doubts, rather than an emphatic recitation of the facts as we think they are. To share our truths - our Good News - instead of our doctrine. To share the richness and fullness of a life as a follower of Jesus than exacting certitudes about how our way is the best way. To not simply hear but attentively listen and respond.

Are we yet malleable? Do we have room to consider and ponder and grow and change? Are willing to accept into our midst those who may challenge our facts while acknowledging our truths? Do we really want new people who will challenge our understanding of worship and even church itself as they mold it into something that works for their generation?

I hope so. I think it's the way forward.

Peace,   
 
Jim

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Welcoming the Stranger on Christmas Eve...

Well, here we are. The 18th of December. One week until Christmas. The Advent Express train has been gathering a head of steam, racing toward Christmas Eve and our annual celebration of the Birth.

This has been an unsettling Advent for me, the first time in 12 years I was not actively planning the season as a local church pastor. And I have a confession to make (lay folks, change the channel now. Your pastor might not want you to read this next part).

I miss it. I miss the hustle and bustle, I miss the balancing of what Christmas has become in the secular world with what it means to us as a congregation, I miss the controversy over whether it’s OK to pull out our Pilgrim Hymnals so that our generally inclusive congregation can sing the old beloved carols unreformed by gender neutrality, I miss the sometimes snarky discourse over the color of the Advent candles, and…
 
Whoa. Just had one of those moments. I can’t get this vision out of my head of Flora & Merryweather from Sleeping Beauty standing over an Advent Wreath with their magic wands, “Make it pink!” “Make it blue!”

Whew. Still with me? Here’s the part that you may find surprising. In spite of all the things that conspire to make it hard, I love Advent. And I suspect most pastors do too. And in addition to all the obvious answers to why, here’s my #1 reason.

On Christmas Eve, you have a chance to be with and love people who only enter your sanctuary once a year. It’s your congregation’s opportunity to take marginally attached folk and help them find a spiritual home. It’s a night when you put your best foot forward, not just for yourselves, but for the stranger among you. It’s when you can make the case that your congregation, your United Church of Christ congregation, is a sort of hospital
for the religiously wounded, where no matter who they are or where they are on life’s journey, that they are welcome. A place where the spiritual but not religious could find a home. Where the questioner and doubter would be welcomed. Think of your church as the stable. The best accommodations? Perhaps not. But the stable is the one that welcomes the stranger, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the vulnerable.

So, as you finish planning for Christmas Eve, keep these people in mind. Be sure your worship is welcoming, hospitable, that you print the words to every prayer in your bulletin, that you avoid ‘church-speak’ whenever possible, that you present love and acceptance as your chief witness. In Randolph Center we served communion on Christmas Eve. Perhaps that seems out of place to you. But we thought of those who only come on Christmas Eve, or are there for the first time in years, or never before, and we wanted to welcome them to the birth and the table. Jesus’ table.

Blessings to you and yours this Christmas season. God has great things planned for us. I can’t wait.

Peace,


Jim

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Is your congregation a place embracing change or a refuge from uncomfortable change?


I recently finished reading a book authored by Alan Klaas titled "In Search of the Unchurched: Why People Don't Join Your Congregation." The book was the result of a million dollar, two year, Alban Institute funded project which had some findings that may appear self evident, and some surprises as well.

The researchers began by asking themselves some questions (here's a small sample):

● What were gas stations like thirty years ago?
What are they like now?
● What were grocery stores like thirty years ago?
What are they like now?
● What was communications like thirty years ago?
What is it like now?

You can perhaps guess what questions came next.

Is the church affected by similar changes?
Is your congregation a place embracing change or a refuge from uncomfortable change?

The book asserts that 80% of congregations are in decline, due to a combination of factors, not the least of which is the change from a churched to an unchurched society. People no longer automatically participate in a community of faith; and as a result, the way we interact with the community outside the walls of our church must change.
 
I'm reminded of the analogy I once heard Brain McLaren use - "Are we in the phone booth business, or the communications business?" Because if we're in the phone booth business, we're through. If we are in the business of communications, the methodology can be fluid - even when our message is not.

There's a lot to digest in this book, but the point I'm pondering right now (and invite you to ponder with me) is this:

In the churched society, in our church 30 or 40 or 50 years ago, "mission" meant something very different than it means today. Congregations functioning well in the unchurched society of today see themselves as mission outposts in a mission field. These congregations perceive mission as starting at their property line, not in some far off land. Rather than focusing all their energy to meet the needs of current members, they instead invest in new ways to speak to the people in their community.

Peace,

Jim

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

(gay) Marriage, LGBTQ Christians, the Bible, and Me: A reflection...

I have friends from all over the spectrum, and to avoid heated disagreements I've been more silent than not about this, but I can't do that any longer. It's time for me to say what I believe. Here is a message I wrote for a member of my church.


I was recently asked by a member of my church how I would respond to a woman who left her church because the pastor openly supported LGBTQ rights. It is as divisive and emotionally fraught as any topic in our current public discourse, but I’ll see what I can do. I’d much rather have a conversation than produce a written response, but all I can hope for is that one will read it with an open mind.

            I think to begin; we have to address the thorny problem of the authority of the bible. The bible was not delivered by angels in the form of the King James (more correctly, the Authorized Version) in 1611. We Protestants have been given the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church. Which books would be part of the Canon were debated for 300 years, finally settled at Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in the year 382. Well, not finally settled. The contents of the Canon have been under review and attack ever since. Even Martin Luther proposed to remove 4 books from the Bible, but it has survived more or less intact. So we are given these particular books because Rome said so, some getting in and others excluded not just for theological reasons but ecclesial, political, and cultural ones as well. And the Authorized Version was translated with a specific purpose in mind: King James directed the translation in many ways, including instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy, and to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. (I’m not going to footnote this, but most of the above is from Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-09930-4. It is also searchable on Wikipedia.)

            All of that leads me to a place where I don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, or divinely inspired in the sense of written by people, dictated by angels. In a way I do think the Bible is divinely inspired in the sense that it is a sacred text, just not one that communicates the unaltered word of God. The Bible is the word of God, not the words of God.

            So, whenever I preach on a biblical text, I seek to both place the text in its proper cultural context, and interpret what that text means for us today. I am not worried about the historicity of the bible, but in the underlying truth. The Bible is full of parables and allegory – when Jesus says he is the gate for the sheep, he does not mean that he is an actual, physical gate.

            Now, it is possible to hunt and peck at texts which seem to pass judgment on relationships that are not heteronormative, but you must place each within the correct historical and cultural reference. The Leviticus passages (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) are the easiest to dismiss. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code, which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, “Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of sanitation had been invented.” (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2 Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding love, and Ruth’s words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between persons of the same sex. (portions of the above two paragraphs from the writings of Rev Mike Piazza)

It is curious to me how the Leviticus passage is used as an axe against the LGBTQ community. We have easily thrown away most of the rest of the rules from that book, yet we cling to this one. Why? Because it suits those who wish to use it to affirm what they already believe.

Paul had something to say about this, but it is not surprising, given his status as a Pharisee. But again, the context is important. The Rev. Peter Gomes makes the point in The Good Book that it was homosexual behavior by heterosexuals that was being condemned in Genesis and Romans; it was homosexual prostitution associated with pagan worship practices being called sinful, not homosexuality per se.

Why has the Bible been used to damn relationships which are not heteronormative? Perhaps for the same reasons that Holy Scripture has also been abused in history to oppress women, slaughter Jews, Indians, and Muslims, and enslave Africans. Thank God we learn (eventually). Hate is a sad legacy for a book that tells us the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

And what did Jesus say about this? Nothing. Not a word. How would he feel about them and treat them? Well, my understanding of Jesus is of one who always stood up for the marginalized, the down trodden, and the disenfranchised. And there I find my answer. Along with the new commandment which instructs us to love. And regardless what you think about LGBTQ people and gay marriage (which I like to call marriage) it wouldn’t hurt to begin from a place of love.

For the Christian, sin must be understood as a disease that results FROM a broken relationship with God and that results IN a broken relationship with one another and with ourselves. Hence, Jesus' supreme command is to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Christianity is not a religion with new rules and laws but rather is a new relationship with God. Those things that the legalists are fond of labeling “sins” are actually just symptoms of the much deeper disease of alienation and estrangement. Much of the energy of the Church has been spent dealing with symptoms while leaving the disease intact. Jesus did not seem overly concerned about the legal transgressions of those to whom he ministered. Rather, he was much more concerned with healing the physical, spiritual, emotional and relational brokenness of people. (Piazza)

I don’t understand what causes two people to love each other, and I’ve been married for over 30 years. And I am in no position to call another’s love wrong or imperfect or anything else. I embrace diversity in our congregation and community, and affirm the dignity and worth of every person created in the image of God. I honor the principle that discrimination is incompatible with Christ's Gospel of unconditional love, and welcome into full membership and participation in the Body of Christ persons of every race, language, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, economic or marital status, and faith background. I affirm and celebrate all loving and committed relationships. And specifically, as a follower of Jesus, I wholeheartedly support marriage equality.


Jim Thomas