If I remember correctly, Jon Lovitz used to do a regular skit on Saturday Night Live featuring a very whiny guy who, upon proposing some horrible idea, would follow it with, "is that so wrong?" (I tried googling this but the SNL archives online are pretty limited.) At any rate, there's a reason I feel a bit like said character today.
In the Lutheran system, here's how the call process works: the pastor goes through an interview; if the call committee chooses that person then they propose that name at a congregational meeting; the congregation votes to extend the call; then the pastor has 30 days to consider his/her response. So far, so good. We're currently in the purgatory between call committee recommendation and congregational vote.
And in this purgatory is the special hell of package negotiations. When I accepted my first call, here's how that process went for me:
1. I receive official letter of call from Current Congregation.
2. I notice that Current Congregation is planning to pay me, you know, ANYTHING.
3. I think about student loans starting repayment in six months.
4. I pray for, oh, thirty seconds.
5. I sign on dotted line and say yes. I am genuinely excited about doing ministry with Current Congregation. I am also delighted by the prospect of any salary at all. And benefits, too! I'm rich.
Now I'm married. And we have a house. And Beloved has a job. And those two latter things, plus all our friendships and family in this place, will be pulled up by the roots if we move. And we will move into a much higher-cost housing market. All of which means I need to be a little more savvy when it comes to negotiating a salary for this potential new call.
Is that so wrong? Because half of me thinks it is, and the other half thinks that's how a lot of pastors let themselves get in a financial hole.
This is something they don't teach you in seminary. And I hate that phrase, generally, because a lot of people blame all their shortcomings on the seminary, as if any educational institution could ever teach you absolutely everything you need to know. Ask any business person with an MBA or even doctor with an MD: you won't learn everything in school. Get over it.
Nevertheless...how do you balance responsible finances with Jesus' call to give up everything and take up the cross and follow? My brain tells me that asking for a salary appropriate to my experience and education is not a bad thing. My heart worries about being too demanding and self-centered.
Yet another wrinkle in an increasingly complicated pattern. Yet more on which I can fixate my anxiety - and not in a good way. Meanwhile, the six confirmands are preparing their statements of faith for Sunday and, you know what? They're really good. Those kids were six years old when I came to this congregation. I can't believe they're in high school.
I always thought that taking a new call would be a clearer process. That I would just know what to do in every situation. Life isn't like that. Is that so wrong?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Is that so wrong?
Posted by
Shalom
at
11:45 AM
5
comments
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Now what?
I got the phone call yesterday. The chairman of the call committee, saying, "We want you." Which was simultaneously exciting and surreal.
I've been completely unfocused for the past week waiting for that call, waiting to get rid of the tension and the wondering about whether I had read the situation accurately, whether my instincts about this were on target or totally wrong. So, on the one hand, I was relieved to hear that yes, I did have a decent sense of the interview weekend. I thought it went well, and it did, and that was good to know.
But immediately after relief I felt a not-small amount of fear. Because now the ball is in our court, and we have to make a decision. This involves things like negotiating a salary package and finding Beloved a new job and selling our house and holy freaking cow, this is going to be a lot of work.
I'm vacillating between real excitement and pure terror. Boy, this is harder than I thought.
Posted by
Shalom
at
5:03 PM
2
comments
Friday, October 19, 2007
Good to Know.
You Are a Little Scary |
![]() You've got a nice edge to you. Use it. |
Now back to sermon writing. I still think I am a little less scary than this parable.
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:27 AM
0
comments
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Friday Five: Homage to the Top Chef

(I'm cheating by doing this Friday Five on Thursday, but tomorrow is going to be crammed full o' stuff and I think this is my only chance.)
RevHRod writes, This Fall my family has been energetically watching Top Chef on the Bravo channel. My teenage daughter watches with the dream of some day being a chef. My husband watches because he loves reality shows and I mean, really loves them. Plus the whole competition thing really works for him. Me, I love cooking and good food. Every so often I get an idea from this group of talented young chefs who are competing for big money and honors galore.
The winner for this season was Hung. Not the fan favorite, but he won fair and square. In his bio, he says if he were a food "I would be spicy chili - it takes a while to get used to, but once you eat it you always come back for more!" With that in mind, here is this week’s Friday Five.
1. If you were a food, what would you be?
French Onion Soup. Substantial, a little spicy, occasionally cheesy, and hot.
2. What is one of the most memorable meals you ever had? And where?
That's a hard one. Grilled flank steak and spinach salad at the lake cabin - after which my husband proposed. An amazing little French restaurant in Montreal with a friend years ago; best mushroom pasta ever. A bottle of wine, perfect bread, brie, and international friends sitting on the lawn in front of the Eiffel Tower for hours, ten years ago. My grandmother's Swedish meatballs on Christmas Eve. And the dessert buffet (complete with chocolate fountain!) at our wedding.
I realize this is more than one. Oh well.
3. What is your favorite comfort food from childhood?
My mom used to make this dish called "Saucy Chicken" when they had adult dinner parties. I remember lying in bed, listening to the adults laugh, feeling so safe and loved, and smelling that dish. Even though it involves cream of celery soup - not exactly gourmet - I still love that meal.
4. When going to a church potluck, what one recipe from your kitchen is sure to be a hit?
I make a mean potato salad.
5. What’s the strangest thing you ever willingly ate?
Cooked sea cucumber. It does not taste like chicken.
Bonus question: What’s your favorite drink to order when looking forward to a great meal?
I'm not a pre-dinner drinker, but I do love a good red wine. Pinot Noir or Merlot usually, with occasional forays into Cabernet. Unless it's winter; then I'm all about the hot buttered rum.
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:28 PM
11
comments
Today's Random Observation
I just finished a first pre-marital counseling session with a very sweet couple. As always, I had them take the Prepare/Enrich inventory.
I usually scan through a few areas to make sure there aren't any glaring issues. As I did so, I noticed something which I have seen many times before.
Under "religious affiliation," there are four choices.
a.) Catholic
b.) Jewish
c.) Protestant
d.) Other
This couple chose "other." This couple is Protestant. This happens all the time. I assume they notice the absence of the word "Lutheran" and figure that "other" is their best choice.
Meanwhile, the people who score these things probably think I'm running a Wiccan retreat center out here.
I never realized so many people didn't comprehend "protestant." No judgment on my part. Just a random observation.
Posted by
Shalom
at
4:33 PM
1 comments
Small Reasons for Gratitude
I'm so happy that our local NPR station's pledge drive is over today.
That's all. You have to take happiness where you can find it.
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:15 AM
1 comments
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Change, Thou Art Difficult
I wrote awhile ago about a particularly neurotic experience in worship. (If you missed it, look here.) It had to do with my congregation's reluctance to change the Lord's Prayer, moving out of "thy and thine" to "you and yours." (The sort of language change that generally happened, you know, hundreds of years ago, but that's okay.)
I decided to write a newsletter article about this, because a.) I needed something to write about for November and frankly, the annual "be thankful!" theme is getting old and b.) I like newsletter articles to give food for thought. Plus I'm not entirely sure where else to address this, given that I don't really want to spend a whole sermon on it and there aren't too many other options. (The music director and I have decided, however, that we'll likely use the Lord's Prayer as our theme for Lenten midweek services, and "prayer" as a general Lenten theme. That should be fun.)
At any rate, the article is below. (Wherever you see "This Congregation," the actual name of my church appears, but it's been altered to protect the stubborn.) If you have any thoughts, please comment. It can't get much longer than this - I'm pushing the boundaries already - but I'd love to hear other opinions. I wilt be forever grateful for thine gracious words.
There’s an old joke: “How many Lutherans does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “Change?” (I said it was an old joke, not necessarily a great one.) The implication, of course, is that Lutherans aren’t big on change. That’s partly true, though I think it’s more of a general human tendency than just a Lutheran one. Change is hard. Especially when we weren’t looking for it.
Our biggest changes in the last few months at This Congregation have largely revolved around the new hymnal. New songs, new liturgy pieces, new book (small print, I know – the large print edition is coming in 2009), new version of the Apostles’ Creed. These adjustments we have handled with considerable grace and good humor, all things considered. For all that we claim not to like change very much, This Congregation has long been a congregation at ease with many changes, able to bend without breaking and learn to try new things.
But oh, it has been hard to change the Lord’s Prayer, hasn’t it? For some of us more than others, but on the whole, that’s the one piece which has certainly caused the most consternation, and about which I’ve been asked the most questions. “Why did we change the prayer? What was wrong with the old one? What if I don’t want to pray the new one? Why fix something if it isn’t broken?”
I’m not sure I can address all those questions here, but it seemed like one place to try. At the very least, I’d like to encourage you to think hard about why change is sometimes a good idea, even when it makes you uncomfortable for awhile, or when it’s a change you don’t really want. Changes in worship are always a challenge. But they do give us opportunity to think about why we worship, how we worship, and what we’re really doing when we gather on a Sunday morning.
The Lord’s Prayer appears in both Matthew and Luke’s gospels (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4). In Matthew, Jesus instructs the disciples to pray “in this way,” perhaps meaning that the prayer itself is a pattern to be followed for all our prayers, not simply something to be recited. It comes in the midst of Jesus’ reminder that his followers should not pray for show, nor should they worry about using big, fancy, religious words. Instead, he encourages them to pray simply, for, as he says, “your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matt. 6:8).
In Luke, the setting is a bit different. In Matthew, Jesus’ instruction on prayer comes during the Sermon on the Mount; in Luke, it occurs later in Jesus’ ministry, right after he has reminded Mary and Martha not to keep themselves so busy that they lose track of what really matters. Luke’s version of the prayer is also quite a bit shorter, mentioning nothing about God’s will being done or delivering us from evil. Neither gospel contains the words which traditionally close the prayer: “for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever.” I encourage you to read both versions and note some of the differences between the two.
The traditional version – the one with “thy” and “thine” and “art” – originated in 1662 and was slightly altered in 1928. It came from the Church of England Prayer Book. Both those versions, as well as the newer ones, are based on Matthew’s version of the prayer, instead of Luke’s. Since Jesus would have prayed in Aramaic, an ancient language related to Hebrew, any English version is a translation of the original.
The version we now pray on Sundays comes from the English Language Liturgical Consultation, an ecumenical body. It was formed in 1969 by many mainline churches to help develop not only prayers, but also the lectionary (the series of biblical readings we hear on Sunday mornings). The hope was that all churches, regardless of denomination, would be able to share some key things in common: the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and a lectionary. The “new” version of the Lord’s Prayer is not that new, since it was released in 1975. In fact, it was actually in the green hymnal!
History aside, the real struggle is about something else. Why should we change a prayer to which we have become so attached? The world already changes so fast, so often – why can’t some things stay the same? Is change for its own sake really a good thing?
These are important questions. And yet, there are also some others. Why do we have such a hard time changing our words for this prayer? Is our reluctance to change a real, theological, spiritual issue – or are we just stubborn? (That Norwegian blood runs deep, doesn’t it?) It’s uncomfortable to feel that you don’t know this prayer anymore. But then again, a little discomfort in our faith lives causes us to think. It causes us to ask pay close attention to what we are praying instead of simply reciting words from memory. That’s worth doing every once in awhile, even though it is hard.
I know that on my deathbed, I will very likely pray, “Our Father, who art in heaven…” That version of the prayer is simply imprinted in my brain, and it will always be so. And no one will ever force you to pray the new version if you truly can’t do it. But if you are struggling, ask yourself why. Wrestle a bit with change. Try on a little discomfort.
When Jesus originally taught the disciples how to pray, they were probably uncomfortable too. After all, they had grown up with traditional Hebrew prayers; they had memorized those since childhood, and here Jesus was giving them something quite different. Many Jewish prayers begin with the phrase, “Blessed are you, O God, King of the universe,” and Jesus’ prayer doesn’t begin with those words at all. It was probably a hard change for them.
A little change now and then can help keep our prayer lives vibrant, alive, and growing. Growing pains are inevitable. But we can pray about that too. No matter what words we use.
Posted by
Shalom
at
2:10 PM
0
comments
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Theological Word of the Day: Dizzy.
Beloved and I spent this past weekend with Possible Congregation (see posts below for more details on this). Possible Congregation is now looking more and more like Really Exciting Hope They Call Me Congregation, and, like everything else in this particular process, I didn't see that coming.
Insofar as I can tell, this place would be a great fit for me. They describe themselves as 'theologically progressive,' and their mission statement has words like 'inclusive, compassionate, and challenging.' I love all these words. (It also has 'Jesus,' which is good.) It would be a big change, since I'd be going from Head Honcho to Second Banana (not exactly the technical terms used, but you get the idea). Honestly, I'd be quite fine most days if the buck stopped on someone else's desk. I also know that there would certainly be some moments where not being the one in charge would be a difficult adjustment.
It's a big, definitely programmatic, congregation. Current Congregation is a medium-sized, verging-on-programmatic-but-still-wrestling-with-pastoral-expectations congregation. It would mean more time managing staff and a bit less time doing all the pastoral things I do now. Again: I would enjoy working with a large staff. I'm good at that. I would also miss some things about having just 10 kids in confirmation and teaching it myself (as opposed to 80 kids in their program, with mentors and staff doing much of the teaching).
No place is perfect, and I am not foolish enough to think this one is. But I can definitely feel the pull toward a new beginning. I think that is something to pay attention to.
"What about Beloved?" you ask. Wasn't he dragging his feet on this? Wasn't he the one asking all the practical questions about the expensive housing market and where he could get a job and all the traffic and his expectation that we would live in our current city until he retired?
Here's where it must be the hand of God because, I tell you what, it's sure not me. Beloved is excited. I know for sure that he will also have a hard time leaving and he does have legitimate reasons for that. I also know that he goes up and down about this, as do I, and that I can't guarantee that he will not pull back from time to time.
Nor can I guarantee that Possible Congregation will actually extend the call to me, which is the first question. I'm getting a bit ahead of myself, I realize. But I do want to be as prepared as possible, since we will only have 30 days to decide should they indeed do as we hope.
Which brings us to the word of the day: Dizzy. I've tried to think of something more theologically sophisticated, but that's about all I can find. Dizzy with joy and confusion and grief over the real idea of leaving, dizzy with possibilities and real estate listings and jobs for Beloved, dizzy in a real, physical way (my stomach is jumping even now). Dizzy that Sunday's texts are about wrestling with God. No kidding.
Also seriously unfocused. That was today's runner-up word.
Yikes. Keep praying for us, would you? (And thanks for doing that already.) Good stuff is happening.
Posted by
Shalom
at
12:09 PM
1 comments
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Your Cheatin' Heart
That's the song running through my head this morning: "Your cheatin' heart, will tell on you..."
And no, it's not because of any marital indiscretions on my part (or on Beloved's). It's because I am heading out this weekend to interview in another congregation and I feel as if I am walking around the church office today with a big scarlet letter on my chest. What would it be? "I" for interviewing? "D" for discerning? "F" for fleeing? "C" for confused? Maybe all of the above.
I have interviewed at one other congregation in the eight years I've been here, and turned down a few other opportunities. But at none of those moments did I feel the sort of pull I do about this particular possibility. Ten minutes into that other interview I knew it wasn't the right place for me nor I for them, and I sailed through the rest of it without even considering whether our conversation would go any further.
This time is different. Partly because Possible Congregation is, on paper, exactly the sort of place I have been hoping to land in for a long time. Partly because Current Congregation is in a good place but really needs someone to kick them in the proverbial (and communal, a hard image to conjure up) butt, and I'm not sure I'm the person to do that. I've had doubts about that for a long time. Partly because Beloved is not overly happy with his own career situation at the moment and thus has been much, much more open to this possibility than I had ever imagined. Partly because the timing - in spite of all the things I just mentioned - is not all that great, and one of the few things I know for sure about the mysterious workings of the Lord our God is that my individual calendar is not the trump card I prefer to think it is.
From talking to trusted colleagues, I have the sense that my image of infidelity is a common one. And yet, in the Lutheran system anyway, this is how it works. Part of the reason my sense of it is so much stronger this time is that I have to leave town for this interview, and therefore must be away on a Sunday.
It is not helping that last night I started reading a book called Loving Frank for my book club, which is a fictionalized account of the true affair between Frank Lloyd Wright and his mistress. More furtive love and secret assignations are not images I need at the moment. I might put it aside for awhile.
I have absolutely no idea what will happen. Absolutely none. That is both terrifying and thrilling. I ask for your prayers for all of us, as you have them to spare: for Beloved and for me, for Current Congregation, for Possible Congregation, and for our families (as we would move away from one and to the other - yet another wrinkle in a complicated pattern).
Breathe in. Breathe out. One more step. Time to jump into the deep end.
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:06 AM
1 comments
Gotta Love Luther
For this quote alone I am Lutheran (though yes, there are plenty of other reasons too).
If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitous sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Volume 48, pgs 281-282.
Posted by
Shalom
at
9:49 AM
2
comments
Friday, October 05, 2007
Friday Five: Thankfulness List
The RevGals are keeping it simple this week and asking for list of five things for which we are thankful. Maybe because at text study this week we looked ahead at next Sunday's grateful-leper text; maybe because I've started to see ads on television inviting Canadians to come and shop for Canadian thanksgiving (a real switch in the dollar value, there); or maybe because one way I deal with personal adversity is focusing on the many reasons I have to be grateful; whatever way you slice it, I've been thinking a fair amount about thankfulness lately. So: well done, RevGals. Here goes.
1. My husband.
I make no apologies for the cheesiness of this one. We've been thrown into the deep end lately, with the surprising prospect of an interview and perhaps a move, and with the news that our Baby Quest is likely to be medically invasive, complicated, and expensive. And through it all, through even some very hard conversations and a great many tears, this man has been more patient and calm and thoughtful and hopeful than I could ever have expected. It took us a long time to find each other; when we married, I was 31 and he was 42. It was worth the wait.
2. Autumn.
From the sublime to the...well, not ridiculous, but perhaps at least less emotional. I love autumn. I love that the leaves are turning colors and it is crisply cold in the morning, that you can see your breath when you step out to get the newspaper and that we can now make things like meatballs and soup and breads and stews. I am grateful even for the descent into winter darkness (this is probably the Scandinavian in me). I think it all satisfies my nesting instincts.
3. Really, really, really good music.
This July, we welcomed a new member to our church staff: our long-awaited Director of Music Ministries. Suffice it to say that this guy ROCKS the pipe organ and the piano, already has three youth music groups well established, and can play any hymn I request. I was gearing myself up to ask him if he would be willing to learn Widor's Toccata for Easter, and found out he was planning to use it for this Sunday's postlude (we ended up changing the last hymn to a spiritual, though, so he made an adjustment on that). What a joy to hear music well done after all these years. Alleluia!
4. My parents.
The looming prospect of parenthood (and the fear of never having it) have made me so deeply appreciate my own parents. After my horrible appointment in which the doctor told me our chances of natural conception were "in the single digits," I called my mother (only because my husband was teaching and this didn't seem like the kind of thing you tell your spouse over the phone anyway). I cried and cried and so did she and, when I hung up, I thought simultaneously of how tremendously thankful I am for my parents and of how very hard it will be when they are no longer here. All our parents are in their mid-60's to early 70's and all four are exceptionally healthy, so we have no reason to panic about this. But someday, someday, they won't be here. And I am starting to understand now how they grieved when my grandparents died.
5. Hope.
There are a lot of things I could list for this last one: friends, this blogging community of clergy women, my congregation. But what all of those - and many more - have in common is the hope they inspire in me. Hope that the darkest valley is not the end. Hope that a life interrupted is not reason for despair. Hope that God who has been faithful for so long will always be so, even if that faithfulness takes a different shape than originally anticipated. It must be the Holy Spirit who gives this hope, because it sure isn't something I can generate within myself. And I certainly don't know what I would do without it.
Posted by
Shalom
at
9:57 AM
6
comments
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Stupid Human Trick #286
We are proceeding through the maze of bloodwork in fertility testing (I say "we," in the royal sense, because I'm the only one getting the needle for now. This is a bit like saying that "we" had to give a sample for the semen analysis). Step one was the FSH test on cycle day 4. Good results. Step 2 is the progesterone test which needs to be done between days 20-24. I went last week and got the results back on Friday: low levels. The nurse explained that this means I do ovulate, but in some sort of weak fashion. Great, I thought. Of course we're among the - what is it? - 10% or less of couples whose infertility problem is due to both partners. Shit.
And then, last Sunday morning in the shower (sidebar: why do ideas always come to me in the shower? And so often on Sundays when frankly, I am practically in a coma anyway? Odd) I remembered something. I remembered that my period had started on September 9, not September 2. I realized this meant I had gotten ahead of myself somehow and had, therefore, done the progesterone test on the wrong day. Which meant that the poor results were very likely my own stupid fault and perhaps not accurate.
Explaining this to the nurse over the phone on Monday morning was embarrassing ("Hello, I need a new test order because I can't count to 28 correctly") but hopefully, my reprieve. Test results should come tomorrow.
Infertility is such a weird journey. Who knew I would be so glad to realize my own stupidity?
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:10 AM
1 comments
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Here If You Need Me
The title of this post is also the title of a book I just finished for book club. The author, Kate Braestrup, tells the story of her work as a chaplain with the Maine Game Warden service (which, as she notes, raises a lot of questions like, "What do you do? Bless the moose?" when, in fact, she works with their search-and-rescue division).
This is a very good book. I wish I could sit and have coffee with her, since I have a lot of questions both about her work and her journey to seminary. The latter is a choice she makes after her husband, whose dream it was to go to seminary when he retired as a state trooper, dies in a car accident. Normally, this would throw up all kinds of red flags for me about transference and grief-avoidance but frankly, this woman comes off as extraordinarily healthy. And you should really read the bits about her refusal to have the funeral home care for her husband's body.
At any rate, the passage which stuck with me most was from her chapter on heaven. She's Unitarian. And she doesn't believe in heaven or any sort of afterlife, which she discusses freely. She talks a bit about this. And then she shares the following conversation with her son (who is about 12 at the time, I think):
My son Zach is the child of Unitarian Universalists, so naturally he didn't know a lot about Jesus. But I heard a lot about Jesus at my Christian seminary, and a lot of it was pretty cool. So one day, I found myself telling Zach about Jesus' life and death, the stories they told about him, what he said to his disciples.
"When Jesus talked about loving," I said, "I think he meant something really radical. I think he was talking about loving as God loves; loving completely, loving with a whole self. He told his disciples to give everything they had, everything they were, to hold nothing back, not money, not time, not even life itself. Everything was to be given over in the service of love."
I went on about this for awhile, sermonizing in a motherly sort of way, and Zach listened carefully, because even as a young boy he was always a careful listener.
"So, Mom," he said at last. "Let's say I decide to become a devoted follower of Jesus Christ."
"What?" I said, startled and alarmed.
"No, but let's say I do."
"Okay," I said cautiously.
"And I die, and because I'm a Christian, I get to go to heaven instead of going to hell."
"Yeah..."
"If I really take Jesus seriously, if I really am willing to give up everything I am and everything I have in the service of love, if I am really a Christian...it seems to me I would have to give my place in heaven to someone else, someone who otherwise wouldn't get to go."
I stared at him.
"I'd have to go to hell, so this other person could be in heaven. Right, Mom?"
That right there. That is why you need to read this book.
Posted by
Shalom
at
3:23 PM
1 comments
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Friday Five: Reverendmother's Swan Song
Reverendmother over at RevGals says her (maybe? certainly baby) goodbye to hosting the Friday Five with these questions:
On Endings and Goodbyes:
1. Best ending of a movie/book/TV show
Newhart, hands down. I never watched this show much, but the whole "waking up in bed with the wife from my previous sitcom" was brilliant. Brilliant.
Movie-wise, I still love the ending of Gone With the Wind. I love that we never know what happens to Rhett and Scarlett and so you have to imagine it for yourself. Sequels be damned.
2. Worst ending of a movie/book/TV show
Hmmm. I hated the end of The Piano. As someone who loves to play the piano herself, the idea of losing a finger and the ability to play - and all the emotional release which comes with it - was traumatic to me.
3. Tell about a memorable goodbye you've experienced.
Saying goodbye to my bestest seminary friends was very, very hard. But it reminded me of how hard it was to say goodbye to my college friends - after which I managed to convince myself that, although nothing could ever possibly be as good as college, seminary would be okay. And seminary was even better. So although saying goodbye to seminary friends was hard, I had a better hope that the best was still to come.
4. Is it true that "all good things must come to an end"?
Eventually, yes. That's why I love anticipation even more than the actual event. Eventually, everything ends. (However, see comment on "the best is still coming" above.)
**I am editing this quickly to explain a bit more: as Robert Capon would put it, the only thing you need to be in order for God to resurrect you is dead. Only after things end can they be raised to new life which, after all, is our greatest hope - so I find it a good thing that everything ends. God does love to raise the dead, after all...
5. "Everything I ever let go of has claw marks on it." --Anne Lamott
Discuss.
This is one among the thousands of reasons I love Anne Lamott. Personally, I can hardly let go in the first place.
Bonus: "It isn't over until the fat lady sings." I've never loved this expression. So propose an alternative: "It isn't over until the coffee pot is empty." How very Lutheran of me.
And, by the way - thanks, Reverendmother, for so many great Friday Fives. Blessings on your way!
Posted by
Shalom
at
10:15 PM
7
comments
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Something Else the Lectionary People Don't Think About
About 90% of the time, I really like and appreciate the lectionary. I like the fact that it prevents me from choosing my favorites. I like that we are reading together with many congregations, in a tiny glimpse of the unity of the church. I like the pattern of seasons.
And then there's this month in Year C. Which is the homiletical equivalent of driving along down the freeway and suddenly hitting a dirt road filled with potholes.
But the challenge today has not been the trajectory of the sermon (it's only Tuesday, for heaven's sake) - it's been trying to find a hymn to go with this rich-man-stuck-in-the-flames-of-hell thing. Not to mention last week's frantic attempt to find something to sing after preaching on the dishonest-manager-whom-Jesus-praises extravaganza.
It reminds me of a worship committee meeting a few years ago when, in a search for a hymn to go after the sermon on 'John the Baptist Gets Beheaded Sunday,' one of the committee members suggested O Sacred Head Now Wounded.
Where art thou, O Lectionary People, when it comes time to choose the hymn of the day? Huh?
Posted by
Shalom
at
1:38 PM
4
comments
Friday, September 21, 2007
Sunday's Sermon: A Study in Irony
Below is the sermon for Sunday. Here's the irony (which I also mentioned in a footnote at the end, a practice which helps me remember to whom I am indebted for various thoughts and quotes) - I owe the entire second half of a sermon on forgiveness to someone else (Sarah Dylan Breuer is my hero today), and hopefully she will forgive my use of her brilliant analysis.
The confession of ignorance in part one, however, is entirely my own.
Peace to all for Sunday.
Dear friends in Christ, grace and peace to you from God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
If you’re anything like me, your first reaction to today’s parable can be summed up in one word: What? It sounds like Jesus is praising a guy who lied about his master’s income and went behind his back to try and save his own skin, and then you get to the part where Jesus says, “I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth,” which really doesn’t sound like much of a Jesus thing to say, and frankly, this is about the strangest parable we’ve ever heard. Which it is. It’s such an odd story that I think we ought to hear it again, but in a slightly different version. This is how the parable appears in The Message, a modern paraphrase of the bible:
Jesus said to his disciples, “There was once a rich man who had a manager. He got reports that the manager had been taking advantage of his position by running up huge personal expenses on his business account. So he called him into his office and said, “What’s this I hear about you? I want a complete audit of your books. And, by the way – you’re fired.”
The manager said to himself, “now what will I do? I’ve lost my job. I’m not strong enough to work in manual labor, and I’m too proud to beg. Wait: I’ve got a plan. Here’s what I’ll do…I’ll make sure that the people who owe money to my boss owe me a favor instead. I’ll become their best friend. Then, when I’m finally discovered and turned out into the streets, those people will welcome me into their homes.”
So he went at it. One by one, he called in the people who were in debt to his master. He said to the first, “how much do you owe him?” And the man replied, “a hundred jugs of olive oil.” The manager said, “Here; take your bill, quickly now, and cross out 100 and write 50.”
When the next debtor came in, the manager asked the same thing: “What do you owe?” And the man answered, “A hundred sacks of wheat.” “Okay,” said the manager, “take your bill, cross out 100, and write 80.”
Now here’s the surprise: when the master heard about this, he praised the manager! Why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens, because they’re on constant alert, looking for a new angle, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way, but for what is right – by using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so that you’ll really live, and not just get by on your good behavior. (1)
That version is a little more straightforward, but frankly, it still doesn’t take the edge off the story. No matter how you translate the words or mix them around, what you get in the end is still Jesus praising a dishonest person who saved his own skin by lying and survived it only because the master took the shocking action of not throwing him into jail. There’s no getting around it: this is a weird parable.
Most of the time we would all consider it my job to get up here and explain to you what this means. This is, after all, at least part of what you pay me to do: to read and research and think and research again, and finally to come to you on Sunday with some sort of meaningful, sensible explanation.
But we all run into parts of scripture which baffle us utterly, and I confess freely to you that this passage stumps me. I did find one particular writer whose take on this parable opened it up for me in a new way, and I am going to share that with you in a moment, but there is still something very important about the fact that scripture can sometimes puzzle us beyond belief. You can go along verse after verse, chapter after chapter, doing just fine – you read hard things from Jesus, certainly, but the hard part of them is often doing as he says, not understanding what it means. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is not hard to grasp. It’s just hard to put into action.
Perhaps Jesus tells a few of these particularly troubling parables just to remind us that we can never really get our hands or our minds around the whole complexity of God. Just when you think you’ve got it figured out, whatever “it” is – life, marriage, faith, politics, even a parable – it can slip out of your hands like sand, and suddenly you have to start over again. Catherine LaCugna, a theologian, once wrote, “We find God because we have been found by God. Anything we could find on our own would not be God.” A difficult parable like this one reminds us that we cannot find God on our own: sometimes we cannot even figure out a parable on our own. We cannot hold onto God for long, and too often we end up worshipping our ideas about God instead of the living, complex, mighty, vulnerable, merciful and extraordinary God about whom the scriptures can only begin to teach us.
But somehow, ending a sermon with the phrase, “I have no idea what this means,” didn’t seem all that satisfactory to me. So I share with you a very insightful word from Sarah Dylan Breuer, who writes a regular commentary on the lectionary passages. (2)
Here’s the problem that all readers of this parable must face: what the manager does is clearly dishonest. From a basic capitalist perspective, he’s guilty of embezzlement: he takes the landlord’s property as if it were his own and forgives debts that aren’t his to forgive. Even after he is fired, he keeps doing this even though it is, in no way, his job any longer.
"Think about that for a moment. What, exactly, is it that the manager does, even without authorization and with a great deal of deception?
He forgives. He forgives debts."
Let’s go back to the word originally used in the gospel for this man: the steward. He is the steward, the caretaker, of another person’s property. And he takes care of it by forgiving debts that do not belong to him. “He forgives things that he had no right to forgive. He forgives for all the wrong reasons: for personal gain, to compensate for past misconduct, to get ahead, to save his own skin. His motivations are poor, to say the least.” But in spite of that, in spite of the fact that he forgives for all the wrong reasons, in spite of the fact that he should rightfully have been thrown into jail for losing money that wasn’t his in the first place, the landlord forgives him. There it is again: totally inappropriate, wildly bizarre, and utterly unexpected…forgiveness.
This story appears only in the gospel of Luke. And it may be no accident that, when Luke tells the story of Jesus teaching us how to pray, he uses a very specific word in that prayer: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those in debt to us.” The Greek word Luke uses for “debt” is a word only used in monetary circles, a word that accountants would write down in column A: so Luke isn’t just talking about forgiving sins, or forgiving general wrongs done to us, but very specifically about forgiving financial debts. What that forgiveness might look like is the very subject of this parable, the moral of which seems to be: “Forgive. Forgive it all. Forgive it now. Forgive it for any reason you want, or for no reason at all.”
“Why forgive someone who’s sinned against us, or against our sense of what is right? You don’t have to do it out of love for the other person, if you don’t have that love quite yet. You could forgive them because you pray to do that every Sunday, and because you’d like to be forgiven yourself when the time comes. Or you could forgive because it’s really no fun to hang onto a grudge anyway, and you’ve learned that refusing to forgive because you don’t want the other person to benefit is like eating rat poison hoping that it will hurt the rat. You could forgive because you want to be in touch with Jesus’ power to forgive sinners and we want to be more like him. Or you could forgive because you think it will improve your chances of winning the lottery.
It boils down to the same thing: deluded or sane, ridiculous or wise, selfish or unselfish, there is no bad reason to forgive.” Forgiving debts of every kind – sins and wrongs and money and grudges and even ourselves – only puts us more in touch with God’s grace, and over time, that forgiveness itself will change you, no matter why you started doing it in the first place. There is no bad reason to forgive. In this case, your motivation doesn’t matter: you could even be a dishonest steward trying desperately to hang onto a job you’ve already lost and escaping jail by the skin of your teeth. You could be a man hanging on a cross, dying slowly and painfully, forgiving your executors with your last breath. You could be a mighty nation who decides to free the poorest of the poor by letting go of all your IOU’s and throwing them into the ocean.
Or you could be us, with all our mixed motivations, in all our confusion, knowing barely anything except this: that God has found us, and forgiven us, so that we can laugh all way to the kingdom, forgiving like it’s going out of style. It’s the first step in a life of stewardship, of moving our whole selves and everything we have into God’s way of life. When you forgive, you do not change the past. But you absolutely, no question about it, change the future. (3)
Amen.
Notes:
(1) I'm paraphrasing The Message. Paraphrasing a paraphrase. I'm paraparaphrasing. And also inventing my own words, apparently.
(2) All quotes that follow, unless otherwise noted, and the general gist of this interpretation are entirely thanks to Sarah Dylan Breuer at this post. To whom, ironically, I am deeply indebted.
(3) The last two sentences are a quote on forgiveness from Quotes for the Journey, Wisdom for the Way, by Gordon Jackson. NAV Press, 2000.
Posted by
Shalom
at
1:52 PM
1 comments
Friday Five: De-cluttering edition
Sally is asking about our stuff. Short answer: we have too much.
With Jo, Jon and Chris all moving to college and University accommodation there has been a big clear up going on in the Coleman household. We have been sorting and trying hard not just to junk stuff, but actually to get it to where it can be useful. On a brighter note we have used Freecycle ( check it out) to provide the twins with pots and pans etc that other folk were clearing out.
Making the most of our resources is important, I have been challenged this week by the amount of stuff we accumulate, I'd love to live a simpler lifestyle, it would be good for me, and for the environment I think...
With that in mind I bring you this Friday 5;
1. Are you a hoarder or a minimalist?
Somwhere in-between. I keep important things, but I have semi-yearly fits of organization and throw out/recycle/give away stuff regularly. I tend more toward the mimimalist. Some famous British person wrote, "never own anything you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." Or something like that. I agree.
2. Name one important object ( could be an heirloom) that you will never part with.
I have two pieces by a Jewish artist that I love more than you should love a material thing. Those two and a small painting of Banff we bought on our honeymoon. So I'm cheating: three things (but in one category).
Though in a fire, the first thing I would probably grab would be photos.
3. What is the oldest item in your closet? Does it still fit???
I have a sweater fetish, and one of them in my closet is from high school. Yes, it fits.
4.Yard sales- love 'em or hate 'em ?
Eh...I can do without them. My father-in-law loves them and gets good deals. The ones I go to always seem to have about 95% crap.
5. Name a recycling habit you really want to get into.
I just bought re-usable grocery bags at Safeway the other day. I really want to use those instead of plastic bags (though I do recycle the plastic bags, in case Al Gore happens to read my blog).
Bonus point...
We are not environmentally perfect by any stretch (I commute 70 miles round trip every day...) but we do compost. And love it. Try it! It's super easy, and you will have the best. garden. dirt. ever.
Posted by
Shalom
at
7:39 AM
3
comments
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Viva La Revolucion
A few months ago, our congregation switched to the new hymnal. For Lutherans, this is a very big deal. Very big. With the exception of a few supplemental books here and there, we haven't switched for 30 years (meaning that, the last time a new hymnal was introduced, I was in the cherub choir). So it was time.
For the most part, we've done very well. The fact that this switch brought us from two hymnals to one made a lot of people happy; fewer things to juggle during worship on Sundays. We like the red cover. It has neat art. The print is a little small, but we put so much of it in the bulletin that this hardly matters anyway. There are lots of great hymns (about 900 in all). We even managed to slide into using the "new" version of the Apostles' Creed without much fuss.
But then there's the Lord's Prayer. And lo, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You would think I had actually demanded that they gouge out their eyes or chop off their hands, given the fervor with which some people approach this change. I overstate a little; in fact, most people have been fine with it. Or, at least, they've kept their not-fineness to themselves, and sighed about how things change, and moved on. I really expected it to be a bigger deal than it was. But a few people seem to think that the version we've been praying was the actual original, the one Jesus prayed his very own self, and my pointing out that it's actually quite different in the gospels (not to mention that Jesus himself was more of an Aramaic speaker than we tend to be) has not taken the edge off it.
(My mother-in-law particularly detests this new version. I love my mother-in-law. And she is not a member of my congregation. so it doesn't particularly bother me that she mumbles the old version to herself during worship on Sundays. I did finally tell her, only half-jokingly, that she needed to complain to her own pastor about it because I had enough grumblings to deal with on my own. She hasn't mentioned it since.)
But I digress. A few months ago, I wrote about a staff situation which was creating some conflict in our congregation. Short version: we changed from multiple part-time music positions to one full-time position, and two of the part-time people took this personally. Their leaving was quite ugly, mostly by their own actions. The choir director and her parents, in particular, left in a huff. Interestingly, the choir director's younger sister and her family remain. Let's call her husband Rick.
During one of the "All About Worship" classes I taught last spring in preparation for the new hymnal, we discussed some of the changes we would be making when it arrived. New liturgies: fine. New version of creed: okay. New hymns: great. New Lord's Prayer: thou art kidding, no? Rick, in particular, was unhappy about this change. Not in a mean way, and not truly angry, but simply wistful - wishing that we wouldn't change just that one thing. Certainly he wasn't the only one; his wife felt the same way, but many others did too. They understood intellectually all the good reasons I gave, but emotionally, it's a different thing. And, believe it or not, I understand that too. I know that "Our Father who art in heaven" will always be my default version. On my deathbed, that's probably how I'll pray it.
Rick and his wife were in church on Sunday after some weeks of absence, during which I had begun to wonder if they had joined the rest of their family in another congregation. But it was great to see them, and we chatted for awhile, and they talked about how much they liked our new music director, and all seemed well. Worship that day went without a hitch: confession and forgiveness, music, prayer, scripture, sermon, creed, prayers, peace...time for communion.
I always bring my bulletin with me to the altar when I preside, because a number of the prayers change seasonally. But when it comes time for the actual communion bit, I use the altar book. The print is big, for one. But mostly, I prefer the heft and weight and significance of a book. Bulletins feel a little flimsy for the moment, for what we are really doing at that point. Everything was going fine. Then I invited the congregation, as I always do: "gathered into one by the Holy Spirit, let us pray as Jesus taught."
I began: "Our Father in heaven..."
And the congregation began, "Our Father, who art in heaven..."
You have never heard a congregation pray anything with as much verve and power and determination as they prayed the old version of the Lord's Prayer. It took me about 2 seconds to realize this was happening. Here is an approximation of the monologue in my head which followed:
"Is that the old version? Are they actually doing this? What happened? Why are they so loud? [Editorial note: seriously. They were almost shouting it.] Do they really hate the old version so much? And why can I hear Rick so well? Is is possible...did he and his wife...did they actually convince people to pray the old version? Is this some sort of bloodless coup? Oh, God. Oh, it is. Oh, they hate this prayer and they hate me and during coffee hour they totally decided, 'SCREW THE PASTOR, we hate this prayer, let's just do it the old way.' I cannot believe this is happening. How could they do this to me? What am I going to do? I can't force them to pray a certain way if they don't want to, right? Oh, God. What am I going to do? HOW COULD THEY DO THIS? I'm going to have to leave. That's it. I'll have to take another call. Oh, God. Oh, no."
I kid you not. In the, oh, forty seconds it takes to pray this prayer (not that I was actually praying, obviously), I concocted an entire revolution in which the whole congregation had conspired to overthrow my liturgical changes and reinstate the traditional version of the Lord's Prayer, all potentially led by a couple who had remained in the congregation not - as I thought - because they disagreed with their family's departure but as covert spies just waiting for their moment to strike. Liturgical Shock and Awe.
And then I looked at the bulletin to check and see which version of "Lamb of God" we would be singing during distribution.
And I noticed, for the first time, that the secretary had accidentally printed the old version of the Lord's Prayer.
They were just reading it.
Somebody find Woody Allen. It's time for a feature film on the world's most neurotic pastor, and I've got his star right here.
Viva la revolucion. Let them eat wafers.
Posted by
Shalom
at
8:28 PM
7
comments
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
I'll Take It
Good news from the doctor today: my first set of bloodwork came back with good results. They want to see an FSH level below 14, and I'm at 9; which, long story short, means that my egg quality is good and IVF is still an option for us. (So is donor sperm, but Beloved is not quite sure about that, and I don't blame him.)
Take the good news when you can get it. I'll take this.
Posted by
Shalom
at
11:35 AM
1 comments
Friday, September 14, 2007
Friday Five: Meetings, Meetings...
This is my first Friday Five in quite awhile. I've been stuck in meetings! (Okay, not really. But that would have been a very timely excuse, no?)
ReverendMother writes, In honor of a couple of marathon meetings I attended this week:
1. What's your view of meetings? Choose one or more, or make up your own:
a) When they're good, they're good. I love the feeling of people working well together on a common goal.
b) I don't seek them out, but I recognize them as a necessary part of life.
c) The only good meeting is a canceled meeting.
I'm going to chicken out and say that I really could say any of the three, depending on the meeting. I like to get things done, so the meetings that irritate me are the ones where we spend most of the time socializing or discussing way-off-topic stuff. Or where one person (unless it's me, of course, in all my brilliance) dominates the whole thing. If I had to choose one of the above, I'm probably consistently a 'b'.
2. Do you like some amount of community building or conversation, or are you all business?
Sort of answered this one above. I like to socialize, but my preference is to get the work done first and then have the option of hanging around. Some of us want to go home. On the other hand, especially in a new group, you need a certain amount of community building included in order for people to trust one another. So, I guess I like purposeful socializing. I dislike a lot of distract-y gossiping.
3. How do you feel about leading meetings? Share any particular strengths or weaknesses you have in this area.
I like leading meetings because I can get things done. (Can you sense a theme here?) I suppose that my business-like demeanor could be a weakness as well. Maybe. I'm not convinced of this. I think the church generally needs a kick in the butt more than it needs another easy-going committee member. Or my church does, anyway.
4. Have you ever participated in a virtual meeting? (conference call, IM, chat, etc.) What do you think of this format? Conference call. Not a fan. I know it's a necessary evil, but I really miss the body-language bit. I'd rather do email or IM than a conference call, but I'm no giant fan of those either. Nothing replaces the in-person experience.
5. Share a story of a memorable meeting you attended.
Okay, none of my answers above were all that interesting; in fact, I stayed in this particular Friday Five just to be able to answer this one. This is in my top-five favorite moments of ministry, this meeting. And it has everything to do with the lovely image below. Thanks, despair.com. 
So we were starting our capital campaign to retire the mortgage. We needed to raise about $320,000 (we can have a separate discussion about why retiring your mortgage is or is not a good idea, but suffice it to say that it wasn't really my choice to make at the time). One of the early steps in the process is to establish an "Advance Gifts" committee, which solicits large or significant gifts before the official kick-off of the campaign, basically so you can announce all this success on the very first day. Sort of like making a list of all the things you have to do this weekend and starting with two or three things you've already done, so you can cross them off and feel good about yourself before you begin (this is a hint from my mother, and it really works).
On this committee were a bunch of guys in the congregation I hardly knew. I knew many of their wives better, and some of their kids. Several were professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects) and several were retired. About a dozen in all. And we had our first meeting with - as he shall be called - Consultant Guy, on a Monday evening. Consultant Guy was one of those particularly smug, slick money-raisers who's probably pretty successful at it, but who makes you want to take a quick shower after spending any amount of time with him. (Fortunately he was only our auxiliary guy and we only had this one meeting with him.)
There's a much longer story behind my previous interactions with Consultant Guy, but that's really for another time. Nothing terrible or inappropriate, just...you know. Icky. So imagine the slickest guy you know and - bing! That's this guy. Consultant Guy wanted to break the ice by having everyone introduce themselves and then tell us what we were doing at 10:00 this morning. "Won't this be fun," he suggests in his peculiarly slimy/jolly manner.
Everyone obliges and we go around the room: someone was mowing the lawn, someone was working, someone was in traffic, someone was on the phone. Etc. Until we get to a man whose family I knew quite well, but who, as an individual, I had spend virtually no time with. This man is a doctor. And he is also the kind of person (as I discovered) who has a very astute slick-detector. He could see right through Consultant Guy. Here is what followed.
Doctor: So you want to know what we were doing at 10:00 this morning?
CG: Yes, that would be great (insert slick chuckle here).
Doctor: Are you sure about that?
CG: (with increased chuckle) Why, yes! Certainly. Of course.
Doctor: Well, I had my head up some guy's ass.
LONG PAUSE.
Then, RAUCOUS LAUGHTER. I thought I was going to bust an internal organ. Doctor continued, "Because I was doing a colonoscopy." More laughter. "So," he continues, "seriously. Up his ass."
Consultant Guy was summarily deflated. And this is still my favorite meeting of all time.
Posted by
Shalom
at
9:40 AM
5
comments


