The Church of Oz

There is a scene in the classic movie “The Wizard of Oz” where the real identity of the Wizard is exposed. And it is nothing like the identity he presented to others.

It really wasn’t his fault. According to the story, the Wizard arrived in Oz quite by accident–literally dropping from the sky as the result of a balloon trip from Kansas gone awry. Still, his unusual arrival amazed the people, and apparently they gave him absolute authority over their lives and practically worshipped–and sometimes feared–him. We could say the whole situation took on a life of its own.

As strange as it sounds, I sometimes think the institution of church came from Oz–at least from the first part of the movie, that is. And that thought scares me because–let’s face it–I’m considered by at least a few people to be one of the multitude of leaders in that institution.

I’m not saying the institutional church itself is all bad. I just think that sometimes–like the story of the Wizard–things have gotten out of hand. Jesus came teaching people a way of peace, love and inclusion that was, in large part, very different from both the government and religious policies and practices of their time. Jesus did not start a church. Jesus did not start a religion. Scripture records that Jesus came so we might have abundant life.

And we’ve settled for an institution.

It wasn’t always that way. Christianity started as a small, marginalized movement. I believe it was probably when Constantine “legalized” Christian worship in 313 of the Common Era with the Edict of Milan that things began to change. Depending on which scholars you read, this move was more political than spiritual, as Constantine was working to consolidate his power. If I understand the edict correctly, however, its purpose was to legalize the practice of all religions in the Roman Empire. Still, Christianity eventually became the religion of choice in the Roman Empire–especially if you wanted to be part of the favored power structure. In Christian history, we might even say that that is when the balloonist from Kansas became the Wizard behind the curtain.

History records church leaders (the Wizard) sending thousands of people (the Dorothys, Scarecrows, Tin Men, and Cowardly Lions) out to earn their salvation by killing the various enemies of the church (the Wicked Witches of the West); only to be told on their return that there were more “tasks” yet to do (those who were lucky enough to make it back alive, that is). Some church leaders held the power to read and interpret scripture for everyone else; others sold sweet seats to the afterlife (or at least took money to pray souls out of Purgatory).

Some people might read this information and say, “Yeah, but that was then and this is now.” True. At the same time, some groups–including some Christian groups–still have “crusades” against ideas and people who do not measure up to their expectations and definitions of “truth.” Some still claim to know THE way to eternal happiness and peace; and yes, you can have it too. If, that is, you are part of their group and follow their doctrines and dogma. And let’s face it, some members of the Institutional Church are still sleeping with the Empire.

In my opinion, what started out as a movement with amazing potential to change the world, over time became an institution mired in struggles for power and wealth. And like the Empire (and the Wizard), it has played on people’s fears of the unknown to maintain that power and wealth.

Just like in the story of the Wizard of Oz, however, I believe the curtain is being pulled back, and people are learning a few things about the church–and themselves.

Hopefully we’re learning that behind the big, booming voices, education and pageantry are at best imperfect human beings who do not hold the keys to our final destinations. And while church folk are definitely not perfect, I believe most of us are well-meaning, loving, and caring human beings. And as there were good things happening in “the merry old land of Oz,” there are good things happening in churches all over the world, too–even with all the big, booming voices hiding behind the curtains.

People are also learning that they don’t necessarily have to attend a church, synagogue, temple, mosque or any other building to be moral, ethical people who can make positive impacts in this world. As the Wizard eventually told Dorothy and her friends, they’re learning they’ve had the power within them to face their challenges the whole time. They just had to learn that lesson.

Who knows? Maybe that is what the church should be about–encouraging and teaching people that we already have the power within us to face the challenges of life, as well as to bring peace and justice to the planet. And since people have different names for that power, we should celebrate our different understandings of that power rather than try to establish our understanding as the Truth.

Yes, people are learning that sometimes the church isn’t always as it appears from the outside. And that knowledge is painful at times, too. At the same time, I believe some of what we’re learning is potentially life-giving and freeing. Who knows? Maybe some of what we’re learning is even salvific.

If we’re willing to keep pulling back the curtains, that is.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

This week I stated reading Paul Rasor’s “Faith Without Certainity: Liberal Theology in the 21st Century.” Although I have only finished the somewhat lengthy introduction and am now about 1/4 way through chapter one, I can already say this book is challenging me in positive ways.

First, I thoroughly enjoy Rasor’s definitions of religion and theology. He states: “The term theology is often associated with arcane and academic or technical concepts that focus on abstract doctrines. But the purpose of theology is really quite simple. If religion is about the large-scale world pictures that orient us in the universe and help give our lives meaning and purpose, then theology is about examining those worldviews and the assumptions that go into them.”

What I like most about these definitions is they recognize the fact that everyone is a theologian at one time or another–including people who either question–or who do not believe in the existence of–any representation of the divine. That is, we all have questions about things like how life works, why life isn’t always fair, the ultimate meaning of life, and if there is anything beyond our current existence. One way of looking at religion then is our viewpoints represent those large-scale world pictures; and when we examine those pictures, we are doing theology. As Rasor reminds us, “our struggle and our outrage are always grounded somewhere.” And I would add, whether that grounding is in what some of us call “God” or not. So for me, identifying that grounding is “doing theology.”

Another quote from Rasor I like is: “Theology is not something we do just with our heads. We must also use our hearts and guts, as well as our hands and feet.” To me, that means theology is something we think about, feel, and is reflected in the words and actions of our lives.

Now, an integrity (or wholeness) of thought, feeling, and action is a “trinity” in which I can believe.

So how does my appreciation of Rasor’s viewpoints regarding religion and theology relate to the title of this post, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do?”

Well, if–as Rasor asserts–“liberal theology is characterized by the belief that human religiousness should be understood from the perspective of modern knowledge and experience”–and if we acknowledge that our knowledge and experiences evolve and change over time, it follows that many of us are going face the prospect of “breaking up” with some of our most cherished and deeply-held beliefs at one time or another in our lives.

And as Neil Sedaka reminds us, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do.”

For some, these changes involve breaking up with the idea of a supernatural being who controls every detail of our existence and has a specific plan for every person who ever has, and who ever will, live. Some  have broken up with the ideas of Jesus being literally God Incarnate, as well as literal intepretations of heaven, hell, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, the rapture and second coming of Jesus, and an inerrant bible.

Some people are even breaking up with the idea of worshipping God as we often do now. By that comment, I mean there are people who are questioning not so much the existence of mystery that is beyond our comprehension, but why we continue to relate to that mystery much like our ancient ancestors did: offering thanks often out of fear of punishment or to gain favor not only in this life, but hopefully in the afterlife as well. I mean, we may not actually believe a lot of what we’re saying in these worship services; but hey, it can’t hurt to hedge our bets, can it?

Now before anyone thinks I am poking fun at certain beliefs, let me be clear that I respect all peaceful paths to truth and understanding. So if the beliefs I mentioned above are part of your path, blessed be–seriously. At the same time, these same beliefs are no longer useful for many people–including me. Rasor points out that “what we long for is a theology that both makes sense and feels right. Until we find this, we haven’t finished our naming process. And when we do finally get the intellectual and spiritual dimensions in sync, our theology becomes not just a label but a resource, a grounding for spiritual practice, for social critique, even for healing.”

So know that if you are in the process of a religious/theological break up, you are not alone. And while break ups are often a painful process, there is often hope somewhere deep in the midst of that pain just waiting to be born. Finally, if you will allow me one more musical reference, from the group “Shinedown:”

“Sometimes good-bye is a second chance.”

“Can We Talk?” Not Always…

“Can we talk?”

Depending on such factors as who is asking this question, their tone of voice, body language, etc., “Can we talk?” can produce in us emotions like joy, apprehension, fear, annoyance, and so on. If you are married, “unionized,” or otherwise in a committed relationship with another person(s), you probably know exactly what I mean. If you are a pastor, I am almost certain you know what I mean.

This question assumes someone desires to enter into dialogue with us about a certain issue, hopefully to obtain closure, understanding, consensus or some other goal. If there is one thing I have learned in my 10 years of pastoring, however, this assumption is not always the case.

In the past month I have had two such experiences. The first involved an e-mail from someone who wanted to know if, as a pastor, I “believed in homosexuality.” Apparently a friend of her’s from our church was attempting to dialogue with her about the subject, and had given her some of our information on homosexuality and the bible.

I have to admit I thought it was a little strange someone would ask an openly gay pastor if he “believed” in homosexuality. As with most e-mails on this subject, however, I sensed there were some underlying issues at work. So I replied to her it was best we talked on the phone–or met at her convenience–to discuss these questions, and gave her my contact information. She replied via e-mail  that “it really doesn’t matter what you say, anyway, because I’m a Christian and don’t believe in homosexuality. Not that I don’t care, it just doesn’t matter. I’ll think about calling you.”

Still waiting for the call…

The second experience involved a representative from a local senior center. The center was promoting a health club program at their facility focusing on the 50+ crowd. I liked the concept: older folks usually feel intimidated at most health clubs that focus on the young, buff, and beautiful. So why not provide a place where that intimidation is removed, and people receive the individual attention they deserve? The representative asked to come speak with our congregants about the program. I gave him our service times, and suggested he speak to people at social hour between services, as that time would be the best for getting the most exposure to our congregation as a whole.

I then asked if his facility’s non-discrimination clause included sexual orientation and gender identity. Very long pause and then, “Well, it is the 21st century, after all,” came the reply.

“I understand that,’ I replied, ‘still, about 75% of my congregation identifies as lgbt. So, just as you want seniors to feel comfortable at your facility, I want to make sure all our seniors feel comfortable at your facility. I’m sure you can understand my desire to recommend safe and welcoming facilities and programs for my congregants.”

“Well, I’ll talk to my supervisor and get back to you.”

That was almost a month ago.

In both cases, people contacted me with the desire to talk about an issue. When I didn’t immediately give them the answer they sought, but rather attempted to deepen the conversation a bit by asking for more information, the conversations ended. Can we talk? Apparently, not always.

These and other experiences have caused me to consider the question of why we have such a hard time talking to one another sometimes. Whether we are liberal or conservative, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, or people of other faiths or who claim no particular faith, sometimes we just can’t talk. And to be honest, I don’t think the subject matter makes much difference, either. Soemtimes I even wonder if we really want to talk at all.

Or perhaps that’s the real issue; that is, we talk too much without really listening. Perhaps we hear, but don’t really listen. All of us have our strongly-held beliefs about any number of subjects, and it isn’t too difficult to feel threatened when people strongly disagree with our equally strongly-held beliefs. And since we’re so sure we’re right–especially when it comes to politics and religion–why bother?

Perhaps new and different thoughts are just too frightening for some people to consider–especially when it comes to faith and religion. To me it’s sad to think there are some folks who are so afraid God might strike them dead for using the minds and free will they believe God gave them. What does it say about the character of a God who would do such a thing? That is not any god I am interested in at all.

When it comes to the issue of dialogue, maybe we can take a lesson from Aristotle, who is quoted as saying, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I have also heard this quote adapted to read, “It is the mark of an open mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” In other words, it never hurts to listen to different viewpoints, to reflect on those viewpoints, and to offer our own in response–all without either a pathological need to “convert” others to our way of thinking, or an irrational fear of offending God and losing our sweet seats in the afterlife.

Who knows? We might even learn something in the process…

Left Behind…Again

Like many people, I’ve missed a few deadlines; and as a result, I’ve been left behind a few times in my life. I’ve normally tried to credit these unintentional mistakes with aging brain cells. Fortunately, and to the best of my memory–remember, we’re talking aging brain cells here–none of those missed deadlines have been crucial or caused undue stress or harm to other people.

Unlike Harold Camping…

Camping, you may remember, has predicted the rapture numerous times–at least 12 dating back to 1978, according to an October 22nd, 2011 ABC News blog post. The latest doomsday deadline was October 21st, 2011,updated from Camping’s previously missed deadline of May 21st, 2011.

The May deadline caused the most public uproar. Millions of dollars were spent advertising the end of the world as we know it. These dollars came from contributions to Camping’s radio ministry. There were stories of people quitting their jobs to spread the word about the coming Armageddon, giving away their retirement funds, and so on.

And then…nothing.

On the weekend of May 21st, I was in Austin, Texas, enjoying pre-graduation festivities at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. I was scheduled to receive my Doctor of  Ministry on the afternoon of May 22nd. While I don’t believe in a literal rapture and second coming of Jesus scenario as taught in some Christian traditions, I have to admit I thought it would be a real kick in the head if Camping was right. Let’s face it, the rapture could put a serious damper on the graduation ceremonies. Then again, maybe not, since Camping’s followers believe liberals like myself are destined to be “left behind,” anyway–and in Austin I was in some amazing liberal–and faithful–company.

On one hand I feel sorry for Camping and his followers. I want to believe they were–and perhaps still are–sincere in their beliefs and desires to help people avoid eternal damnation. And as someone who has been ridiculed for his beliefs before, I know the unkind comments and jokes have to hurt. Still, predictions like Camping’s are nothing new and the results are always the same. So why do people keep taking these predictions so seriously–especially when words attributed to Jesus in the bible say no one knows when these events are supposed to happen–and many of these folks claim to closely follow the bible’s teachings?

Perhaps all we have to do is take a quick look at the world around us. Economic instability, violence, greed, natural disasters, disease and so on are enough for some people to throw up their hands in resignation. So if you believe this world is screwed up beyond any hope for repair and restoration, then a literal rapture theology just might be for you. Get your ticket punched for sweet seats in the afterlife by saying the right things about Jesus–and Jesus only–then sit back, stay pure, and wait.

Of course by doing so, we essentially guarantee the eventual annihilation of the planet because we have absolved ourselves of any responsibility for caring for the planet, for the “widows and orphans,” and for engaging the other challenges of our time. You know, like the bible and other sacred religious writings and their prophets–including Jesus–instructed humanity to do. Seriously, I find it hard to believe that any religious system based on an eternal rewards and punishments system would actually reward adherents for ignoring its basic teachings on communal responsibility and social justice.

Again, while I don’t believe in a literal second coming of Jesus and rapture as interpreted by some traditional Christian groups, I think it’s possible Jesus actually returns daily. For me, Jesus “comes back” every time we do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to  do–and not to upgrade our seating arrangements in the afterlife. The kindom of Universal Life, Love, and Being comes into sight when we feed hungry people, house homeless folk, provide much-needed medical care to people who cannot afford it and address the systemic issues that allow these and other injustices to occur on a daily basis.

Who knows? In the end, maybe we’re  really “left behind” when we refuse to respond to and act upon the best that is within us–a best that some of us call “God.” And the good news is, this “best” is within and accessible by each and every one of us, so none of us need fear being “left behind” ever again.

Blessings on your journeys!

I Now Pronounce You…

“For as much as Richard and Danny have consented together in holy wedlock in the presence of Almighty God and these friends and family, and have pledged their faith in the love of each other, and have declared the same, by virtue of the power vested in me as a minister of the Gospel by the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches and the state of Iowa, pronounce them married in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and
Sustainer.  Amen.”

With these words, spoken in Davenport, Iowa on October 16^th, 2010, another part of my identity was born—or at least legally recognized in the few states and countries that allow gay marriage, that is. Then on June 1^st, 2011, Richard and I were officially “unionized” in the state of Illinois by virtue of our marriage in Iowa last year. In a nutshell, “unionized” means we’re “sort of married” now in the states that recognize civil unions. That is,
we have most of the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples in the state, and none of the federal benefits that come with marriage.

If I sound bitter, don’t misunderstand me. I’m thankful for the progress made on the gay marriage issue. At the same time, our marriage/civil union raised some interesting issues.
For instance, you can imagine how much fun it is now for us to fill out paperwork that requests our marital status, since most of these forms do not have a “unionized” option. I’m tempted to add a box and label it, “It Depends.”

See, in some places we’re married; in some places we’re unionized, and in most places we’re considered legal strangers. Then there is the whole question of what to call us individually: domestic partners? husbands? spouses, or perhaps “crazy”, as some of our friends have jokingly (I think) called us.

We’ve decided we like to be called “Richard and Danny.”

To be honest, however, Richard and I don’t dwell on these and other semantic issues too much; because even after 15 years, we’re too busy still learning how to navigate the joys and challenges of being a couple. Unfortunately, the marriage license didn’t come with a handbook on how to do this thing called “marriage.”

There is one question, however, we’ve discussed at length. Does marriage make a difference in our relationship? Well, no and yes. No, because I still “encourage” (read “nag”) Richard to follow our doctor’s orders about his diet and exercise, as well as his procrastination tendencies as much as I did before we were married. Richard
still “encourages” (read, “nags”) me to be more serious about my writing, about working too many hours, and not spending more time on my favorite hobby, cooking; which then usually leads us back to the whole diet and exercise discussion.

We still share the television remote—and we still roll our eyes at each other’s viewing selections. We still love the children and grandchildren we share, and debate what we think is best for them. Sometimes we even ask for the kids’ opinions. Lately we have been discussing how best to take care of my aging mother and stepfather. Oh, and we still love
each other even after saying, “I do.”

Marriage—and now, civil unions—didn’t change any of these things about our lives. When we were married, a light from heaven didn’t fill the church, and an angelic chorus didn’t break out in song —and fire and brimstone didn’t consume the church and wedding guests, either. We didn’t get married to set an example for the people of the church I pastor; and we didn’t get married so God would love us and recognize our relationship, either. The God of our understanding loves everyone and honors all loving relationships—whether governments recognize them or not.

At the same time, marriage—and now civil unions–did change something about our relationship. I just wish I could succinctly name that something. All I know is that “something”—whatever it is—feels good and peaceful.

Who knows? Maybe I should quit trying to analyze it, and simply enjoy the blessing that is
our marriage/civil union/domestic partnership/friendship.

Blessings on all your relationships!

21st Century Golden Calves

Like a lot of people, I’ve been watching the Occupy Wall Street movement unfold on television. To date, it appears no one person or group has emerged as its leader, which is probably a good thing. I say that because we humans have a tendency to deify our leaders, our movements, and our institutions. And when we do that, we forget the issues which these leaders, movements, and institutions were orginally meant to address.

Economic inequality in its many forms and practices seem to be at the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its supporters across the country. Of course, these are not new issues. Throughout history we read where greed has been at the core of many oppressive practices, policies, and institutions–including the church–and prophets have always risen up to condemn these practices and draw unwanted attention to the institutions, structures and people who lead and support them.  What remains to be seen is whether the Occupy Wall Street movement will become to the far Left what, in my opinion, the Tea Party has become to the far Right–a political “golden calf;” that is, a “deity” that a “chosen” people can both worship and control in hopes of gaining power, wealth and divine favor for themselves.

You remember the story of the golden calf from the book of Exodus, right? If not, here’s a quick review. Moses headed up the mountain for a little one-on-one time with God. He was gone so long that the Hebrew people became concerned, restless, annoyed–you name it–and then did what humanity has always done when we perceive a vacuum in any area of our lives–they filled it with something. In Aaron, the people found someone who would give them what they wanted–a “deity” they could worship and control. Who knows? Maybe Aaron had his doubts about the golden calf project; still, maybe he thought, “If I can ease the insecurities of the people by giving them what they want, maybe they’ll elect me as their next leader.”

Aaron even declared a feast day to God to kick off the golden calf’s inauguration. So he threw on some pre-approved religious liturgy to add some divine legitimacy to the event. And then all hell broke loose. Later, when Moses confronted Aaron, Aaron tried to distance himself from the disaster by saying while he did throw the gold of the people into the fire, the golden calf jumped out all by itself.

Any of this sound vaguely familiar?

I don’t see this biblical story as a literal event, but as a cautionary tale regarding the moral chaos that can erupt when we are too quick to fill the various vacuums of our lives with yet another deity we hope we can worship and somehow control. If we believe God, the Inner Light, the Divine Presence–whatever or whoever you call It–is everywhere present, then the answers lie within us as we connect to that Presence, which brings forth our greatest selves.

I hope the Occupy Wall Street movement manages to keep what I see as its prophetic edge. After all, don’t we have enough “Aarons” around already? And if we think about it, isn’t the price of the gold we need to fashion our “calves”–be they personal, political, or religious–too high?

Just something to think about…