Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Yes, I'm bitter. Got a problem with that? DO YA?

Everybody has a secret shame. Mine (or the one I'll admit here) is that I read People's website. Because it's a shame, in more ways than one, I'm not going to link to it here - I don't want anyone else to get hooked. Not that I'm hooked, exactly, but I do check it a few times a week. Or once a day. Sometimes twice. Whatever.

Which is how I found out that Nicole Richie - who weighs as much as I did in the fourth grade - is pregnant. Four months. With the child of some guy she's been dating since, oh, January. She's also facing jail time for a DUI charge.

Intellectually, I understand that people don't have children because they deserve them - that system, though it has its attractions, would only end up in a serious mess. How could someone who preaches grace be so cruel as to say that someone does not deserve her child?

But in what twisted world does Nicole Richie get pregnant when I - and thousands of other fertility-impaired women - can't?

You know, some days I have quite thoughtful responses to things. But today, at the end of a long day, in the midst of month 23 of trying to get pregnant, all I can muster up is this. Fuck it.

Over my Head

Every once in awhile, I feel the need to comment on a situation whose depth is far beyond my understanding. I have no idea if anyone will ever read this, nor does it particularly matter to me at the moment, since I am working this out for myself more than anyone else - but, over at RevGals, a storm has been brewing, and I've been thinking about what my response might be.

I don't really understand the facts of the whole situation, so this rumination is not as much a comment directly to that event as it has caused me to think about the larger issues at stake. (For a wonderful commentary from someone who is more knowledgeable, even though I don't completely agree with her, read this from More Cows.) To summarize how I understand it: a blogger was removed from the ring because content on her blog could cause problems, by association, for others on the ring. The primary issue at stake is the question of her polyamory - a committed relationship with more than one person. Bluntly, that is a way of life that I do not understand, and with which I have some problems (again, admitting that I don't really understand it). The presumption was that her inclusion in the blog could be problematic for those whose congregations know they are connected to RevGals. And it's that last part which seems to have caused the most controversy.

A few preliminary things: first, I found out about this the way you find out about things in high school, which is to hear rumors (in this case, through comments on a completely different post) and then to try and track down the truth. I find that irritating. I'm sure the ring and the blogger in question did not particularly want this issue publicized in the manner it was, though once you're in a public blog ring, it's pretty hard to keep the lid on. But I disliked the feeling I got from the whole thing: that the people who were really important knew about the controversy, and I was just standing on the sidelines trying to understand what the hell was going on. That's never pleasant. And my initial irritation was not the best entry into the discussion.

Second: as I have read a bit here and there, I do believe that the decision-makers in question did their best in a difficult situation. And the blogger in question has been tremendously gracious under impossible circumstances. But here's the question for me: where are the boundaries? This raises tremendously complicated problems. It seems to me no accident that even the earliest church struggled with questions of inclusion and exclusion, and certainly we haven't come all that far since, when you think about it.

I serve in a denomination - and a congregation, come to think of it - where ordination of gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships has not yet been approved. I pray that one day it will be - in fact, I trust and believe that one day, that will come to be. I believe my denomination and my congregation are wrong not to move forward. I have, honestly, not been particularly vocal about my opinion in my congregation (denominationally is a bit different). Am I protecting my job? Yes. Do I believe that I am doing some folks a disservice by not being more vocal? Yes. Do I know exactly how to deal with that? No. I do believe that I can preach and live the gospel without commenting directly on this question and still do my level best to help others live out the radical gospel - which, I pray, may lead them one day to the same conviction I have on this matter. I am sure that is not enough for some people, and I can understand why. But it is the uneasy truce with which I live.

So I have very little interest in exclusion from the church, or any organization representing the church, and RevGals could be called such an organization. On the other hand, there is some value in a community of people whose struggles and joys are quite unique - the value of finding one another, even in cyberspace, and knowing you are not alone. The shape of clergy life, and of life as a clergy woman, is not inherently more difficult than other ways of life. It is not better than, or more important than, any other calling. I detest the clergy attitude I hear too often: that this life is so much harder than anything else, that no one understands, that the congregation just doesn't get it. Maybe they don't - but, then again, I don't get what it is like to be a teacher, or a parent, or a real estate agent, or unemployed, or retired. So it's a basic human failure of empathy, not the triumph of clergy-dom as the career of martyrs. We ought to get over ourselves.

But one of the things I appreciate so much about RevGals, frankly, is its exclusionary nature - not that it seeks to exclude, but that it is, by definition, a blog ring for people connected to a certain sort of vocation. And that means that, by definition, we are excluding some people from participation. Again - not exclusion for its own sake, and not as a general practice, but so that it might be a safe and unique community for those who need support from one another.

I don't think, insofar as my fairly meager understanding of it would lead, that I can support polyamory as a way of life. But frankly, that's not the question for me. I have intentionally chosen to remain anonymous on this blog - and you can call me chicken for that, or you can appreciate that there are some things better left unsaid in congregations, and that my releasing of those things here makes me a better pastor in my context. So I have no risk here. No one will tar me with the brush of association - and that slippery slope is highly problematic to me. We are not going to agree on everything. Some of us in this ring would not be eligible for ordination in another blogger's denomination, and sadly, that's the truth.

But what we do have in common is a way of life that is hard to explain, and a need for collegial support. I appreciate that support. And I think it might (oh, fear and trembling here) require a bit of exclusion to be genuine. The problem, of course, is where that exclusion starts and ends. I have not yet figured that out for myself. So I will pray for those affected, including all those at RevGals, those who have left by choice or otherwise, and those who remain. May we learn to live together in honesty and in love - a balance nearly impossible to maintain.

For nothing will be impossible with God.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Page 357 and Counting

That's how far I have gotten in Harry Potter 7 - page 357. Much to my chagrin, as I was hoping to be done by now. And, until I finish (tonight! We hope!), I'm avoiding most online chatter - including blogs and non-mainline news organizations - in the fear of finding out the ending before I get there.

Oh, how I wanted to bring the book to work today, but I knew it would be too distracting, so I managed to leave it at home. To which I have been waiting to return since I got here at 9:00am...

Friday, July 13, 2007

Accio Friday Five!

I, like ReverendMother of RevGals, am a Harry Potter fan(atic) - saw Order of the Phoenix last night, as a matter of fact. So I'm delighted to accio my keyboard and produce my patronus...er, blog.

1. Which Harry Potter book is your favorite and why?
Oh, hard to pick - but I'd say six. I love the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry. (As an aside - I have to say that Richard Harris' death and the subsequent portrayals of Dumbledore by Michael Gambon are my only beef with movies three through five...I just miss Harris. He was perfect.)

2. Which character do you most resemble? Which character would you most like to get to know?
I'm Hermione, right down to the unruly curly hair and the oft-obnoxious school smarts. But I'd love to know Ginny - the whole Weasley crew, actually.

3. How careful are you about spoilers?
a) bring 'em on--even if I know the destination, the journey's still good
b) eh, I'd rather not know what happens, but I'm not going to commit Avada Kedavra if someone makes a slip
c) I will sequester myself in a geodesic dome to avoid finding anything out.

Definitely the last. I'm such a dork (see comment about Hermione above) that I seriously considered ordering my book shipped to the hotel out of town at which I will be attending a family wedding on July 21. I decided to stick with the house - but I will do my best to avoid any and all dropped hints between now and then.

4. Make one prediction/share one hope about book 7.
I hope Harry doesn't die. I also hope and suspect that Dumbledore is not dead...yet. I suspect the power of love given by Harry's parents will win out in the end, but somebody's going to die for sure. I'm guessing Ron. But then who will Hermione end up with?

5. Rowling has said she's not planning any prequels or sequels, but are there characters or storylines (past or future) that you would like to see pursued?
Nothing I hate more than an unnecessary sequel (see Gone With the Wind). It may not be the most Christian thing to say, but in this case - the end is the end. No more. I'll be happy to end it with book seven and call it a day.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

She Laughed

I've been thinking about the fact that the bible has a lot of stories about barren women. Well, not a lot in comparison to how many Psalms there are or how many times Jesus talks about money, but a fair number - it seems to have been a common problem among God's chosen women. And I find this intriguing.

So I've also been thinking about writing a series of meditations on my own experience with infertility and the experiences of these biblical women. I'd like to take pieces of their stories and reflect with them - there could be a number of meditations for each woman. The first one, below, is called "She Laughed" (you can guess who the subject is, I'm sure). It's not complete - when I re-read it now, after writing it several months ago, it sounds more bitter than I had intended - but I'd appreciate feedback, or at least a potential audience. These are not intended for preaching, by the way, but more as written material to ponder with.

Here goes.

She Laughed

They said to him, “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he said, “There, in the tent.” Then one said, “I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent entrance behind him. – Genesis 18:9-10

I wonder what Sarah was thinking when she heard that. Who knows if the bible counts days and years the same way we do now – maybe Sarah wasn’t quite 90 when the angels showed up at their tent – but she was old, too old, and she knew that, and Abraham knew it too. And then she stands eavesdropping on the conversation between her husband and these three strangers, and hears the words she must have found completely, totally, utterly unbelievable.

In spite of the raging availability of angels nowadays – in ceramic, plasticine, or quilted form at least – I would have absolutely no idea what to do if three guys showed up at my door and one of them mentioned to my husband that I was going to have a son. This is part of the trick that infertility plays on your mind. Over and over again, like a terrible loop in your head, runs the phrase whispered as a chorus: I’m never going to have a baby. However old Sarah actually was, and however long she had waited to get pregnant, I’m sure it was a lot longer than I’ve been waiting at this point. I’m also quite sure that peeing on a stick, in bible times, was much less helpful than it is now for predicting ovulation and possible pregnancy. Though that whole striped-reeds thing worked well for Jacob…I might have to check that out.

But there’s also the divine-visitor aspect of it. I’m a bit jealous of Sarah over that one. Much better than an EPT. Gender prediction, even! I don’t anticipate angels arriving at my door with such an announcement. Doctors can be angelic, in the original sense: the idea of serving as messengers, as proclaimers of good news. But this is not the same thing.

I wonder how long it took before Sarah gave up hope. Was it after Ishmael? Was it even before that? Was it when her sisters had children, and her neighbors, and that girl down the street who got pregnant by accident? Did she cry herself to sleep at night? Did she rage against the totally unfair nature of it all? Because I feel sure that she had given up hope by the time the angels arrived. That’s why she laughed – because the idea was beyond ridiculous. If she had still been praying for a baby, still been secretly, even in the deepest part of her heart, hoping for one, she would not have laughed. She would have cried then, tears of relief and joy. You only laugh when a thing is so inconceivable as to be a joke.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Friday Five: Hasty Edition

From RevGals...

Whoops! I have been in a family-induced haze these few days, with the July 4 holiday and taking time off while relatives are visiting. So I literally lost track of what day it was!

So rather than make you guys wait even one minute longer for the five, I'll dig up an oldie:

Today, what are you:

1. Wearing
A new shirt! And some shorts (work-appropriate), because it's bloody hot here. 103 yesterday, which is on the very high end of the mercury for us. And cute shoes: my weakness.

2. Reading
As usual, more than one thing. I'm frantically trying to finish Harry Potter 5 before the movie comes out next Wednesday; then I'll have to start 6 in time to finish before 7 is released in a few weeks. But I'm also reading Three Cups of Tea, a fantastic and true story of a man who starts a school in Pakistan. The charity which supports that now network of schools is linked on my blog on the right - check out The Central Asia Institute. Amazing stuff.

3. Eating
Nothing, at the moment, though I am pondering what treats I might find in the church freezer. Hang on a second.

Oh, lovely. I found a square of lemon cake with white frosting. So now I'm eating that.

4. Doing
Blogging. But I should be working on the sermon.

5. Pondering
Also, as usual, more than one thing: what the sermon will be; how the installation of cabinets is going in our house and whether my husband will be satisfied with them (happily, he's home to supervise as he is a raging perfectionist); a beautiful poem I heard on Morning Edition today, from an Iraqi-American poet; what I'm going to wear to a wedding we are attending tomorrow, and whether it will cover last week's brutal sunburn (oops); and now, how many calories are in this square of cake.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

*runs in to post something...at least a sermon*

I will repeat this to myself: "Life will slow down. Life will slow down." Or, more importantly, "I will slow my life down." And "I will blog more often."

In the spirit of that last one, I'm posting last Sunday's sermon. No time to write more at the moment, though I'm working on something about today's funeral.

Dear friends in Christ, grace and peace to you from God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

This Wednesday, of course, is the 4th of July. Like most Americans, you are likely to watch fireworks someplace and eat hamburgers, maybe go to the lake or to a parade, hoist the flag at your house and listen to somebody playing the 1812 Overture or the Star-Spangled Banner.

When I was a kid, my favorite part of the 4th of July was the sparklers. Have you tried those? They’re like tiny little fireworks that you hold in your hand, and you light them and they shoot off sparks, and if you wave them around in the dark you can see the patterns of light they leave behind them. I like the sparklers but I was also a little afraid of them – they fascinated me, but I was always worried that they would catch me on fire or burn my hand. They were irresistible and terrifying at the same time.

Which is fairly appropriate when it comes to thinking about the real point of July 4th. One preacher says, “we call it Independence Day but sometimes I wish we would call it Freedom Day, so we could spend a little more time wondering what that word means. What are we free from? What are we free for? How do I know I am really free? Is my sweet liberty strictly a political thing – my freedom to speak, my freedom to vote – or is it a larger concept?”* What does it really mean to be free?

Americans are famous for loving and promoting a few things: freedom is one of them, maybe the primary one, and family is another. Perhaps by sheer coincidence but perhaps not, our biblical readings today address exactly those topics and, as the bible usually does, it gives both a twist you might not expect. It’s a good week to be thinking about what it really means to be free – freed from something, and freed for something. It’s also a good week to think about family, given that holidays of any sort are often a time when we are around family whether we want to be or not.

What comes to your mind first when you hear the word freedom? Chances are, there are as many answers to that as there are people in this room. It may be a symbol, like the flag or the Statue of Liberty. It may be an action on your part, like voting or saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the national anthem. It may be a person or group – veterans or those serving in the armed forces right now. It may be an emotion or a feeling, something hard to put into words. What does it really mean to be free?

Some 1900 years ago, St. Paul wrote a letter to the Christians of Galatia, a region in modern-day Turkey. His letter survives as the biblical book of Galatians, from which we read this morning. As with any biblical book and especially Paul’s letters, we are not entirely sure what was happening in the community to prompt the correspondence, but from what we can tell, Paul was concerned that the Christians in Galatia were being told that they had to observe Jewish laws and rituals in order to be really Christian.

So it makes a fair amount of sense that, when Paul writes to them about their freedom in Christ, he says this: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” That’s exactly how we think of freedom most of the time: freedom from something; from slavery, from oppression, from dictatorships, from war, from being told what to do with life.

But, while Paul wants the Galatians to be freed from some things, he is more concerned about what they do afterward – what they will do once they realize that Christ has set them free. And so he makes a jump that sounds he’s going backward: “for you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters,” he writes, “but do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.” Wait a minute, Paul. Are we free? Or are we slaves? Once you’re free, why would you go back to being anything else?

Martin Luther picked up on Paul’s paradox in Galatians in an essay he wrote called, “The Freedom of a Christian.” “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none,” he wrote, and, “A Christians is a perfectly dutiful slave to all, subject to all.”

Obviously, neither Paul nor Martin Luther were Americans – not by nationality and neither, it would seem, in spirit. We are proud of freedom. We throw that word around a lot, especially around the 4th of July. The question is whether we really know what we mean when we say it.

Most of our American use of ‘freedom’ comes from talking about what we are freed from. Freed from taxation without representation; freed from being told how to worship; freed from unjust or cruel imprisonment; freed from monarchy. It’s much trickier to decide what we are freed for.

Which brings us to Jesus’ rather odd words about family – another discussion familiar to Americans, and another time that the bible puts quite a different spin on the topic. The real problem at issue is the cost of discipleship; the expense of following Jesus and his way into life. One potential disciple says with great fervor to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus warns him that this path has its complications, but he indeed invites him to follow, right now: and the man says he has only one thing left to do. “First let me go and bury my father,” he says, and if Jesus were really about family values the way we normally talk about them, we would expect Jesus to say something like, “yes, that’s appropriate, honor your father by burying him well, and then come and follow me.” But instead, Jesus bluntly tells them all that there is no turning back, even to honor parents or bid farewell to family – “no one who puts a hand to the plow and turns back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

We have claimed for many years that the United States is a Christian nation, but although many of the founding families were Christian, making such a claim is much more complicated than we might think. What would it mean for us, as a nation, to say that freedom means becoming a slave to all? What would it mean for us, as a nation, to say that Jesus’ vision of family has very little to do with mom, dad, two kids and a dog, and almost everything to do with obedience in faith? This is a lot harder than flying a flag at the church or singing “God Bless America” at a baseball game. The bible asks us hard questions about freedom, and what it’s really for. And Jesus asks us hard questions about family, and what it really means. There are no easy answers here. Freedom and family are like the sparklers you hold in your hand: beautiful and dangerous, irresistible and terrifying. Scripture warns about both, perhaps because God knows how quick we all are to make idols out of almost anything we can find.

What it comes down to in the end is a question of who we really are. You are an American, this is true. Whatever ethnic background your family comes from, however many nations are represented in your family tree, I am assuming that at least most, if not all, people in this room are citizens of this country.

And you are part of at least one family, if not two or three. You are sister, brother, husband, wife, cousin, uncle, child, parent. You are all of those things and each of them has shaped your life, but none of them contains the whole of you. You are Christian. You are a child of God. That is your truest identity, and it takes precedent over all others – over nationality and ethnicity and even family itself. You will not grow out of it. You can try your best to leave it behind, but even if you are the one to walk away, God still will not abandon you.

The freedom we find in Christ allows us to keep all our other roles in perspective. The call to love Jesus above everything else is a hard thing, but once we are tied to him, we find a freedom nothing and no one else can give. It is an irresistible and terrifying demand, and we afraid it will burn us, but following it will light up everything else. For if loving Jesus means losing something along the way – or even losing everything, should it come to that, even including nation and family and everything in-between - we are not to fear, because "buried in Jesus’ demand is also his promise"*: that true freedom does not belong to any flag, that Christ’s family is more diverse and far-reaching than we could ever have imagined, and that binding ourselves to him and enslaving ourselves to one another, is the only real freedom we will ever find. Amen.

*Two quotations taken from Barbara Brown Taylor: the first from "The Cheap Cure," in Home by Another Way; and the second from "Learning to Hate Your Family," in Teaching Sermons on Suffering: God in Pain.