Musings

Further Altar-Natives

What a lot of responses I got to my last "musing" about the need for radical change in the way our churches are organized!  I wish I could send you all the emails I received - but I'm afraid it would overwhelm your inboxes...

So I'll do my best to summarize your thoughtful and heartfelt expressions, and add my further reflections based on your insights.  Clearly this is an important topic for progressive Christians and our sympathizers.  In general, your responses suggested that indeed, many if not most of our churches are severely impaired in fulfilling their core mission by cumbersome processes of doing business and by the burdens of property maintenance.  Most of you shared my hope that we can do things very differently.  Many embraced my ideas, many offered different prescriptions. 

Several of you were uncomfortable with my suggestion that we're drowning in democracy.  Some suggested that without direct democracy, a church would become "consumerist" and lose its soul, abandon its commitment to working for justice and peace, and just offer feel-good programming.  It's a good point.  I do think that is a real danger.  And I certainly prefer practical forms of democracy.  It's all in the details.  Can we delegate the building and office functions to professionals, and refocus the volunteer efforts of the church members on service, advocacy for social change, worship, study, and care of the people in the church?  De-coupling business/property management from the worship and mission of the congregation might also liberate the church to be more useful to its members and to the world.  Whether elected or self-selected, a strong church board can empower a congregational volunteer structure that enlivens worship and mission.  One remarkable example of a progressive church with a self-selecting governing board, which still has a very feisty congregational life, is Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, MI (www.christ-community.net).  It has nimble, professionally-driven management that stays close to its grass-roots.

Some of you recounted the ways that your churches have greatly simplified their business structures - keeping congregational democracy while drastically reducing the number of committees and meetings and processes.  (One respondent suggested this book that her church is using to streamline its functions:  Prophetic Renewal: Hope for the Liberal Church by Rev. Michael S. Piazza.) 

In my "musing" last week, I suggested that a church could function like a charitable community non-profit, with a self-selecting board and a highly empowered professional staff.  But there are other more "democratic" options that could be used to the same end.  A church could keep its "congregational" structure and vote to contract with a management provider, perhaps created by a consortium of local churches in a regional area, to take care of its property and office functions.  Investors in real estate hire such companies to manage their properties; groups of churches could create similar entities. 

Another concern from some of you centered around the role of the minister.  Some of you felt that a pastor is essential to a congregation, and that the church would lose its spiritual and theological moorings without one.  I do appreciate that sentiment:  I wouldn't object if my church sold its old building, if that is what it took to keep our wonderful minister!  And being a local church pastor was mostly a great joy for me when I was doing it.  There are churches that function very well with a minister in the traditional role.  No reason to fix what's not broken. 

But in many cases the pastor-parish system is broken - either episodically or chronically.  In many of these cases it may be time to reconsider the system itself, rather than just hope that the church can find a new pastor who will be their savior.  Pastors and church members are often the victims of unrealistic expectations that are built-in to the structure of their relationship.  Especially in small congregations - and that's most of them - the pastor's roles as a caring listener and as the "head of staff" are often incompatible.  The pastor sometimes must make business recommendations that result in stepping on the toes of the same people she or he offers personal pastoral care. 

Again, there are a lot of alternatives, including my suggestion that instead of having one pastor, a church could use a team of regular guest preachers and/or "outside" speakers.  Perhaps a new class of clergy could emerge, focused on high-quality "itinerant" preaching, especially for small congregations.  Pescadero Community Church, a little congregation on the N. Calif. coast, opted successfully for many years to have a rotation of four pastors do the preaching, with the occasional "outsider" filling in, as well.  The pastoral care function can be taken on by lay deacons or by a professional pastoral counselor.  This does run the risk of a church losing its theological grounding, but that can be mitigated by having well-trained lay leadership, which is easier than ever to develop and maintain.  I have served churches in which I was but one of the resident theologians; these churches didn't lack for lay people with a grasp of spiritual and biblical subtleties.  There are now excellent progressive adult education materials - books through www.tcpc.org , DVD series like www.livingthequestions.com , and a "circuit" of accessible national-level speakers and teachers to bring to our congregations.  It is true that there is nothing quite like the intimate connection between the pastor and the people in the traditional structure.  However, that isn't the only model of leadership that can enable a church community to thrive.

One "musings" reader told about his church, St Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal in San Francisco - a progressive congregation with an international reputation (www.stgregorys.org).  Among its many features worth emulating, it offers a unique option regarding the role of the pastor.  The senior pastor preaches only once a month: there is a regular rotation of preachers who are more or less associated with the congregation.  The senior pastor is mosly focused on the management functions of the congregation.  The pastoral care is mostly the function of lay people who have been well-trained by the church's professional staff.

Please keep the bright ideas and helpful examples coming!

An Atar-native Manifesto

I’ve been a pastor in the United Church of Christ since 1979.  In one capacity or another, I’ve been a professional servant of the church for 30 years.  I’ve been a local church minister, church-based community organizer, church-based nonprofit agency executive director, and campus minister.  Now, as the associate dean of religious life of a university, I preach about once a month in different churches.  On the rest of my Sundays, I sit in the pew as a member of a wonderful little progressive UCC congregation, Mt Hollywood Congregational in Los Angeles.  (www.mthollywood.org)  I love my church community – I’m so thankful for this group of warm, caring, free-spirited people. 

For the first time in many years, I’m the parishioner, not the pastor.  And it gives me a fresh vantage point from which to make some observations about the way we “do” church.

I appreciate local church life more than ever.  A year ago my wife and I moved 400 miles from most of our family and friends.  I went to Mt. Hollywood Church and within minutes realized I was home.  I wept with joy, knowing that I didn’t need to search any further: I had found my people.  This church has made such a huge difference to me, and to my wife.  The church helped me adjust rapidly to a very new and different community.  It grounds my body and soul, it un-alienates me from living in a monstrous city of 4 million.

In exchange for this sublime blessing, I serve as the building and grounds committee chairperson.  I have a full-time-plus job, I have a wife and rather extensive family, I have lots of professional and avocational involvements…. And I’m in charge of plumbing, painting, electrical, and other repairs for a 90-year-old building collectively owned by 120 people, hardly any of whom, unfortunately, have any more expertise in managing a funky facility than I do.  And that includes our wonderful pastor.

Our church, like almost all “mainline” Protestant congregations, suffers from the burden of institutional (and property) maintenance.  This is a truly lovely gathering of souls, but, collectively, we are definitely not on top of the organizational management game.  Our finances are precarious, our property is a disaster waiting to happen.  The budget isn’t realistic, and everybody knows it.  We’re a bunch of really nice people with busy lives and the business challenges of the church overwhelm us. 

I now spend more time going to meetings and dealing with building issues than I do in worship or fellowship.  This is typical for many if not most church lay people.  And isn’t anything new for me.  I have always spent a lot more time taking care of the business of the church than doing what attracted me to the profession of ministry in the first place.  I accepted that devil’s bargain a long time ago and I am (perhaps too) comfortable with it.

But why would anybody else be comfortable with it?  I know I’m not normal:  ministry is, let’s face it, a peculiar profession.  Just being a church member can carry with it an onerous burden of responsibility.  I’m not surprised at how many members have left the United Church of Christ, screaming and tearing out what remains of their hair.

I am getting a first-hand lesson in one reason that the United Church of Christ and almost all other denominations (including the Southern Baptist Convention, believe it or not) are declining in membership.  We’re being smothered by antiquated structures we are trying too hard to maintain.  We’re way too much about process and way too little about product.  The product is truly beautiful, and much to be treasured.  But the process is gagging it.  And that’s got to change.

Local churches are non-profit corporations.   They are, in effect, small businesses.  And in recent decades it has become more challenging than ever to manage a small business.  There are a thousand details which must be tended.  Just overseeing the personnel requires a level of legal expertise that was unheard-of fifty years ago.  The UCC denomination, like most others, imposes a lengthy and difficult process on churches that are hiring pastors.  And with couples where both partners have jobs, there is less time to devote to interminable meetings of boards and committees. 

The role of the clergy itself is becoming an anachronism.  A century and a half ago, the pastor was among the very few educated people in a local community.  Going to church to hear the same person stand up and talk every weekend was one of the very few public entertainments available.  Today the number of choices for people who seek spiritual edification, and the education level of parishioners, is staggering.  The pastor may be one of the lesser-educated and lower-status members of the congregation.  Local church pastors are in a losing competition with televangelists with golden throats and wavy hair.  No wonder, then, that so many pastors are chewed up and spit out by their congregations.

Our churches are dying from too much democracy.  That may sound outrageous, but think about it:  we don’t expect our local non-profit charitable organizations to answer to the votes of hundreds of volunteers.  It becomes far too complicated and time-consuming to expect that even most of the major decisions, much less the thousand minor ones, can be decided by the will of everybody involved in a local charity. We understand that non-profits with small, dedicated, self-selecting boards of volunteer directors are vital elements of American democracy at the grass-roots.  Why not run churches according to this successful model?  Many of our churches have become unresponsive to change around us, because we try too hard to keep everyone happy.  We avoid needed changes that might rock the boats of a handful of members.  The result: lots of people get tired of the dithering, and drop out completely. 

It’s time for some serious change in our churches.  Not incremental change, but radical transformation.  To that end, I offer one of many possible scenarios.

Imagine a church like the one to which I belong – full of goodness and vitality, but suffering from scary organizational burdens.  Imagine it liberating itself from time-consuming and soul-draining processes, so that it can focus on the compelling reasons it exists in the first place. 

It starts by separating congregational life from institutional maintenance.  It adopts the model of a typical local non-profit charitable organization.  It becomes an entity something like a local YWCA, where few of the members expect to be drawn into decision-making roles, and yet it is still a “grass-roots” institution with a rich inner community life.  It turns over the organizational management to a board of directors that elects itself, choosing its own members from among the congregation.  This board makes broad policy for the church, hires and fires the top staff, and then lets the top staff run the organization on a day-to-day basis.  There is only one monthly church board meeting – lasting no more than an hour and a half.  New members for this board are recruited by the board from the church membership.  The board’s purpose is to serve the congregation and to serve the wider community, so it has a strong motivation to be in close touch with the needs and desires of the congregation.  If the congregation isn’t happy with the board, they can very effectively express their dissatisfaction by withholding money and participation, if they don’t feel heard in words.  But the board, and the staff, are not bogged down by needing to consult everyone in the congregation about fine details of the church’s management.  It is no longer a typical “congregational” church, run by “Athenian” or “New England Town Hall” democracy.  But people can still have a strong sense of “belonging” within it.  Indeed, their relief at having a simple church organization can greatly enhance their commitment to it.

Instead of a pastor, the top staff person is an executive director or program director.  The director answers only to the small board of directors.  The director is the sole manager of the subordinate staff who run the office, organize and conduct the church’s worship and programming, and take care of the property.  Volunteers are recruited from the congregation to assist with these tasks as appropriate, but the real responsibility for taking care of the business of the church rests with paid professional staff.

The paid director organizes the church’s worship service, involving church member volunteers.  Instead of a pastor who preaches every Sunday, there are a variety of guest speakers or preachers – some ordained, some not - some who preach regularly, others on a one-time basis.  These people are not regular church staff members, but guests paid to appear on an episodic basis.  The personal, pastoral care is provided either by a pastoral counselor or pastor of visitation on the staff of the church, or by a team of lay volunteers.

Since the top staff person, the director, is not the Sunday preacher, the church is thus liberated from the pastoral “cult of personality” – or the absence thereof – which so often bedevils congregations.  The church isn’t focused on one charismatic, or less-than-charismatic, cultic figure, but rather on the spiritual life of the congregation itself.  Seminary-trained professionals can become itinerant speakers/preachers/teachers, offering talks and programs that are highly polished and reflective of the best art and scholarship - because they aren't burdened with all the other organizational details that take up most traditional ministers' time.

Its organization is run efficiently and nimbly, so that resources are deployed to maximize the quality of worship, programming, and service/advocacy work of the church.  The small board and the highly-empowered staff can adjust programming quickly in response to the needs of the congregation and wider community.  The board and staff can make tough, decisive choices quickly, and can make effective long-term plans.

The church becomes a center for spiritual growth, worship, and service to the community.  The church serves those who want to belong to a traditional congregation, but it equally serves those who are spiritual “seekers” and have no interest in formal membership.  There is a distinct congregation, with members and regular attendees who make pledges and donations to support the church.  Equally important, the church offers workshops, retreats, and events that serve the wider community beyond the membership.   Speakers and events and concerts are offered year-round, appealing to a variety of audiences in the local community.  There is an admission charge (or suggested donation) for all these special events.  It’s a true community institution, not just a sectarian religious group.

All maintenance of the facility is managed professionally, either by paid staff of the church or by an outside building management organization.  There may be work-days for church volunteers to help with property maintenance, but the church does not depend on volunteers to keep the property in good shape. 

What do you think?  Is this one “altar-native” to the current system that typifies liberal Protestant churches?  I’d love your feedback –

 

It Could Happen Here

If you are trying to kill a religion, there is no surer method than marrying it to a government.

Consider Iran, where vast crowds  gathered recently in Tehran’s streets to protest the theft of an election by turbaned clerics.  From the rooftops, the people chanted the same words that the masses roared 30 years ago when they brought down the Shah and ushered in the current theocratic government:  “God is great,  death to the dictator!”  Read:  "God is great, but we are done with the people who claim to rule us on God's behalf!"  The majority of the people of Iran are under 30 years old, and most of them are chafing under the repressive rule of unelected ayatollahs.  Whatever moral authority Ayatollah Khamenei had before the protests has been seriously eroded since his brutal crackdown on dissent.

Consider Europe, where the churches are sponsored by the state in many countries.   Hardly anybody goes to church anymore.  Europeans don’t have religion forced down their throats nearly to the degree suffered by Iranians.  But they still find it hard to swallow.  The holiness of the church doesn’t rub off on the state nearly as much as the unholiness of the state rubs off on the church, in countries where the two are intertwined.

Iran’s case is a cautionary example for us in America.  It’s really nice to have a progressive Christian in the White House.  But the last thing the country needs, and the last thing progressive Christianity needs, would be for the President to identify his administration strongly with our religion.    As long as progressive Christianity is not seen as the force that runs the country, we have some chance of influencing America for the better, while preserving the integrity of our faith.  We need to keep the state from being run by a church, and a church from being supported by the state, at all costs.

The damage done to Islam by Islamic theocracy in Iran is enormous.  The clerical leadership has alienated a vast swath of the population, particularly the younger generation, from the rich heritage of the religion.  Clergymen use goon squads to silence the protests.  If we think it couldn’t happen here, we ought to think again: there are millions of people in the US who yearn for “Christian dominion”, a vision of a theocratic state that would force everybody, Christian or not, to obey laws based on fundamentalist Christian interpretations of biblical laws.  (For scary reading, see www.chalcedon.edu  .)  Imagine posses of self-anointed Christian Dominionists in America enforcing a legal code from the Bronze Age, and you get the picture. 

I’d like to think that these recent events have eclipsed America’s neo-conservative hype about Iran as a monolithic enemy of the West.  Consider the deep contradiction of millions of Iranians protesting against theocracy, and John McCain’s theme song of “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”  How would our bombs distinguish between the pro-democracy protesters and the pro-theocracy thugs that attacked them?  Hopefully it is now obvious that a ham-handed approach won’t work in a country of people who don’t eat pork.  Yes, the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power is a real problem.  But it’s a problem our Air Force can’t fix.

Even the clerics in Iran aren’t of one mind about their form of government.  In the seminary city of Qom, debates have been raging for years about whether or not it serves Islam for a cabal of ayatollahs to run the country.  Those debates are at a high pitch now.  A significant number of influential religious scholars are pleading for recognition that the will of the majority of the people is the best way to interpret and apply “sharia” in society.   These scholars see the awful damage done to their religion by the clerical oligarchy, and are striving behind the scenes to change the system.  Indeed, what happens in the cloisters of its seminaries may have as much impact on Iran’s future as what happens its the streets.

While the election of Obama made the prospect more remote – thank God – the possibility that our country could go the way of Iran is far from unthinkable.  May recent events on the streets of Tehran inspire us to vigilance in preserving religion and democracy by keeping their institutions a healthy distance from each other.

Feeling For

Hiking alongside Big Tesuque Creek near Santa Fe, New Mexico, last week, I felt the urge to stop and stare at a little pinon tree.  It was sprouted from a nut likely dropped from the full-grown pinon under whose scrubby arms it was sheltered.  I observed my reaction to the sight of this baby tree growing beneath the bigger tree’s branches.  I felt a wave of warmth, a feeling of the love of a parent for a child.  I almost scoffed at myself:  trees can’t feel such emotions, so why am I reading love into a situation where it doesn’t exist?  But as I pondered further,  I asked a question about my role, my task, in the natural world.  Am I here to love on behalf of things that cannot love on their own?  Perhaps the love I feel belongs to the parenting pinon as much as it does to me.

Am I here on earth to feel for trees, since they don’t have their own nerve endings?  I stood and wondered.  I looked up at the tumble of stones on the mountainside above me.  Since rocks have no brains, am I here to ponder their origins and their futures on their behalf?  Perhaps I am not here just to think for myself.  Perhaps this mind isn’t just mine, but rather was put in my head for the sake of the other creatures and entities in the world around me.  Perhaps my mind belongs also to the pinon tree, enabling it to love its offspring.  Perhaps my brain also belongs to the boulders on the mountain, enabling them to consider their places in the cosmos.  Perhaps my feelings enervate the tumbling creek below me, enabling it to appreciate the music it makes as it splashes over the stones in its bed.

“I am not here for me,” my fellow seminary student friend Dan Rauker once said to me, years ago.  His words have served as a mantra ever since.  I found myself chanting this mantra as I hiked into the mountains.  I felt for, I loved on behalf of, the birds and butterflies and even the mosquitos I encountered along the trail. 

And at least for a little while, I was not there for me.

Matthew 13 Revisited

ARIZONA MUSINGS READERS, PLEASE NOTE:
I'll be at Scottsdale Congregational United Church of Christ in Scottsdale, AZ, this weekend - www.scucc.com - Seminar: Sat June 20, 2-4 pm - Preach: Sun June 21, 9 and 11 am.)
This piece below is one I wrote years ago - it appears in my recent book, BIRDLIKE AND BARNLESS (available at www.tcpc.org - click on "store").

Matthew 13 Revisited
(A readers’ theater in four voices.)
From BIRDLIKE AND BARNLESS by Jim Burklo

    Matthew:    The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.
    Martha:    That  a woman mixed in with three measures of flour.
    Mark:    What was that?
    Mary:    It was a pearl of great value.
    Matthew:     Which, when it was leavened,
    Martha:     Turned into the greatest of shrubs.
    Mark:    What did she hide?
    Mary:    It becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and made nests in its branches.
    Matthew:    When the man found it, he sold everything he had and bought the field where he had found it.
    Martha:    Until all of it was all leavened.
    Mark:    What is the kingdom of heaven like?
    Mary:    It's like a merchant in search of fine pearls.
    Matthew:    It's like a woman.
    Martha:    It's like yeast.
    Mark:    It's like who?
    Mary:    It's like a net which was thrown into the sea.
    Matthew:    It's the smallest of all seeds.
    Martha:    When it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad.
    Mark:    What was full?
    Mary:    What is the kingdom of heaven like?
    Matthew:    The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

On Wild Oats and the Exhortations of the Elder Zossima

The reason I continue to write "musings" each week is that I get such rich, soulful feedback from you, my readers and fellow spiritual seekers.  I got a lot of thoughtful responses to my last two pieces, on "The Four Spiritual Awes" and on "The Marriage Bus".  The latter article got correctives from readers about my statement that religion was the main impediment to the legalization of same-sex marriage, and on the strength of those comments I am persuaded that while religion is a big factor, it may not be the main one.  Indeed, Jesus' example of compassion and acceptance has been an important inspiration for the movement to embrace and support same-sex unions. 

Regarding the former article, one dear reader pointed out that love was not included front-and-center as one of the "Four Spiritual Awes".  A point well-taken indeed, as there is nothing more awesome.

I was taking a hike a week ago in the wilderness park above Claremont, and at a lonesome spot on a trail on a high meadow, I stared at golden, dry wild oat stalks waving in the wind.  The oat husks were joined at the tips in pairs that pointed into the breeze.  The sight of them moved me.  They were beautiful, elegant, just as they were, and in their own right.  But the sight of them stirred a more metaphorical thought in me. 

My wife, Roberta, is the "musings" reader from whom I get the most feedback.  She and I had a conversation recently in which she confessed that after our 15 years together, she still doesn't really "get it" about progressive Christianity.  The language of the faith just doesn't make sense to her, and my best efforts to explain it have not reached her soul.  On one hand, this was upsetting to me.  The person with whom I am closest, the person with whom I am so powerfully bonded and connected, doesn't really understand the gist of my work.  But she has a good reason.  She's a "recovering Catholic".  She was so turned-off by the particular version of Catholicism in which she was raised - it never made sense to her - so the whole Christian religion seems confusing and unhelpful to her.  On the other hand, her confession was very helpful to me.  When I talk with her in secular, everyday English about matters spiritual and moral, she understands and appreciates what I'm saying.  I need to do more of that in my relationship with her - and with many others.

For some reason, contemplating wild oats caused me to realize, abruptly, that I need to be fully bilingual on matters of the soul.  I need to work harder to communicate clearly with people who cannot relate well with religious language.  At least as hard as I try to communicate with people who are steeped in the Christian tradition and want to keep the baby Jesus but toss out the bathwater of useless dogma and doctrine.  As the oat husks are joined at the tip that aims in one direction, so secular and religious seeds of spirituality each have their place in growing us toward the Awesome One.

In the midst of this rumination, I picked out a time-worn copy of Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" from my office library as bus and subway reading for this week.  I found myself re-reading, after many years, the section on "Notes on the Life of the Deceased Priest and Monk, the Elder Zossima, Taken from His Own Words by Alexey Karamazov."  It was uncanny to find powerful resonance with my own recent thoughts and conversations as I read these words from Russia in 1881.

Dostoyevsky's character, Elder Zossima, is a saintly and beloved Orthodox monk who recounts significant passages in his life.  Zossima's brother Markel, who died at age 17, was a major influence on him.  Markel rejected the church and embraced radical, socialist ideas (as did Dostoyevsky in his early years).  Markel was a bitter and sullen teenager, until about the time he contracted tuberculosis.  Then he became full of love and appreciation for life.  He received the sacraments and went to church, apparently as a kindness to his devout mother.  But he never espoused the doctrines of the faith.  As he was dying, he spoke about awe and wonder and love and compassion.  "Life is paradise," said Markel from his sickbed, "and we are all in paradise, but we refuse to see it.  If we would, we should have heaven on earth the next day.... every one is responsible to all men and for everything...  Though I can't explain it to you, I like to humble myself, for I don't know how to love enough... am I not in heaven now?" 

As his life was ending, Zossima gives his testament of divine love, in Christian terms but in a manner that made room for other ways of expressing the experience.  "If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things... Loving humility is marvelously strong, the strongest of all things.... My brother asked the birds to forgive him.  That sounds senseless, but it was right for all is like an ocean, all is flowing and blending; a touch in one place sets up movement at the other end of the earth.... It's all like an ocean, I tell you.  Then you would pray to the birds too, consumed by an all-embracing love, in a sort of transport, you would pray that they too would forgive you your sin.  Treasure this ecstasy, however senseless it may seem to men.... Kiss the earth and love it with an unceasing, consuming love.  Love all men, love everything. Seek that rapture and ecstasy.... prize it, for it is a gift of God and a great one..."  Zossima kisses the ground as he dies, surrounded by his fellow monks and followers.

It seems that Dostoyevsky wanted to get one message across in two languages, through the stories of Markel, the free-thinking secularist, and his brother Zossima, the devout monk.  One idea that Dostoyevsky himself saw from two different perspectives:  the modern, secular viewpoint, and the ancient, traditional Russian Orthodox viewpoint.  One message of awe in two languages, joined at the tip that points to Love....

 

 

 

The Marriage Bus

Some of my progressive clergy colleagues recently have made a bold declaration.  They've announced that until same-sex marriage is legalized, they won't perform marriage ceremonies for anybody - straight or gay.  I greatly admire them for taking such a stand - it's a strong statement with personal consequences for them.  Many pastors depend on weddings as an important source of income.  These pastors are putting their money where their hearts are, for the cause of marriage equality.

I respect their stand but won't be joining them in their pledge.  My heart is in the same place as theirs, but I believe I'm called to push for the cause by other means.

A few days ago, I did a pastoral counseling session with a woman whose husband announced a few months ago that he was leaving her.  Now that they are fairly deep into the process of divorce, he has begun emailing her, asking for reconciliation.  She feels guilty for not responding, but she knows he no longer lives in her heart.  Traditional religious beliefs had a big role in locking her into an unhappy marriage, and now those same beliefs tug at her to let her husband move back in with her again.  But when I asked her about her feelings toward him, she made it clear that the inner connection between them was broken.  The marriage had been over for a long time - long before they filled out the divorce paperwork.  She once thought marriage was fundamentally an official status bound by government and church laws.  Now she sees that marriage is a spiritual state between two people.  When marriage ends, the spiritual facts have changed whether or not the dissolution papers have been filed with the court.

Likewise, in my long experience of performing wedding ceremonies, I have seen firsthand that marriage transcends the legal status associated with it.  When marriage begins, it's a spiritual fact that can't be denied even if the law doesn't yet recognize it.    I have performed marriage ceremonies for people who for various practical reasons didn't sign wedding licenses.  I have performed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples years before the law (temporarily) recognized such unions.  Those gay couples were as married as any straight couples whose services I have performed.  To deny that they are married strikes me as absurd; I don't understand how anyone who really knows these people could question it.

The last same-sex wedding I performed was for a lesbian couple who got legally married during the window of time when that was possible in California.  I knew that the majority of the people who attended that beautiful event - a rather traditional-looking ceremony - had never been to a same-sex wedding before.  I would wager that dozens of people were converted that afternoon, turned in favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriages.  For these converts, going to a lesbian wedding has become a "new normal" thing to do.

The more of these ceremonies we clergy people conduct, with our without the blessing of the law, the more unremarkable such weddings and relationships become for the wider public, and the more converts we make to our cause.  Just as interracial and inter-ethnic couples are now commonplace, and miscegenation laws are now seen as bizarre footnotes of history, the day won't be long in coming when most people will look at same-sex marriage as perfectly normal.

I believe that the biggest objection to same-sex marriage is religious in nature.  People who oppose legalization very often do so on the grounds that it is against the will of God and the divine word of the scriptures.  Religion is most of the problem, so religion has to be at least part of the solution.  If churches and temples encourage people who are spiritually married to celebrate these facts of the soul in wedding ceremonies, without distinction regarding their legal status, this makes a very powerful statement to the wider public.  Such ceremonies visibly demonstrate that there is something of the divine in the bonds of committed, spiritually-centered couples, whether gay or straight. 

So I will keep on doing weddings for heterosexual and same-sex couples alike.  And I plan to emphasize more than ever in my wedding addresses that marriage is a spiritual reality, quite apart from whether or not society has evolved to the point of legally supporting it. 

I suppose that this question is a lot like the choices that civil rights activists had to make in the '60's.  Should they get on the bus and refuse to sit in the back, no matter what the law says, or should they boycott the buses completely and walk instead?  Both were honorable, and in their own ways effective, means of action against the injustice.  I'm going to stay on the marriage bus and do my part to assure that same-sex couples are up front, for all the world to see. 

(This is a revision of a "musing" from over a year ago.  It will be the basis of a sermon I'm giving at the United Church (UCC) in Simi Valley on June 14 (10 am: http://www.uccsimi.org).  I'm considering this as the "seed" of a new book by the same title.  It is a radically different alternative to the ubiquitous fundamentalist tract by Campus Crusade for Christ called "The Four Spiritual Laws" - http://4laws.com/laws/english/flash/ .  I'd love your reactions/suggestions!)

THE FOUR SPIRITUAL AWES

1.) Awe for _________(God, Nature, the Universe, Allah, Atman, Great Spirit, the Christ, Cosmic Compassionate Consciousness, Ultimate Reality, etc).  The Awesome One is beyond the capacity of words to describe, beyond being named with any one name, too awesome to fit exclusively into any one philosophy or religion.  When we discover the Awesome One in the everyday world around us, we are filled with joyful, worshipful wonderment.

2.) Awe for compassion. Our awe for the Awesome One makes us humble, and this enables us to feel and practice an awesome kindness toward all beings.  Our humility keeps us aware that our fellow creatures are fragile and precious, needing our loving attention.  If we have awe for the Source of all life, then we treat life reverently.

3.) Awe for freedom.  Our deep, powerful attraction to the Awesome One invites us to choose among many paths and purposes.  There is no one predetermined plan for each of our lives.  We can be guided by our powerful inner attraction toward the Awesome One as we continually make and change our plans.  We are in awe of the unique creative potentials given to each of us by the Source of our lives.

4.)  Awe for discovery.  We are always too amazed by the Awesome One to claim full knowledge of its essence or its purposes.  So we remain humbly curious about its awesome ways and workings, eager to learn more through every kind of inquiry.  The more we learn, the more awestruck we become, and the more we want to learn.

How do YOU want to live?  You have a choice.

If you put yourself at the center of your life, what happens?  Do you obsess about how other people affect you?  Do you worry about how you look, how others think about you?  Do spend a lot of time thinking about your future – what you’ll get, what you’ll do?  Are you focused on your possessions – what you have, what you want to own?  What is it like if you make yourself the center of your life – living as if everything and everybody else revolves around you, as if you were the center of the universe?


Is this what you want?


But if f you put the Awesome One at the center of your life, what is that like?  Do you begin to see that others are no less or more awesome than you are?  Do you feel like you share a common life with other people and even other creatures and things around you?  Does that help you feel love and compassion for them?  Does that improve your relationships with others?  Does that help you love yourself more?  Do you feel joy and wonder and amazement?  Do you feel the urge to be creative?  Do you feel like you have a task in life, a purpose to serve others in a special way? 


 
Is this what you want?

If you choose to put Awe at the center of your life, instead of yourself, you have joined the company of the seekers and saints of all the great world spiritual traditions, in all places and in all ages.  Find a community of people to support you in your quest to make Awe the focus of your life: a church, temple, mosque, or other Awe-focused group of people who are open-hearted and open-minded.

New Songs for Progressive Christians

From my work on a campus with tens of thousands of 18 through 30 year olds, from lots of conversations with young people who care about religion and spirituality, I have a sobering report to offer my fellow progressive Christian pastors and lay church leaders.  Over and over, I hear the same sort of thing from students who are church shopping:  "I go to evangelical churches and hear cool music and experience lively, engaging worship, but the punch-line of the message is old-fashioned, right-wing, literalist theology.  I go to progressive churches and listen to dull music with old-fashioned lyrics in boring worship with a lot of old people, but the preaching is up-to-date, pluralistic, open-minded, and creative.  Where can I find lively worship with progressive content?"  There is a big and growing population of young people who are attracted to Christianity but can't find churches that meet their needs.  Will progressive churches rise to the challenge and change their worship habits, in order to serve this emerging demographic group?

For some time, I have been re-writing old hymns with new lyrics that keep the faith but drop the dogma, words that re-energize and re-interpret the Christian tradition.  (You'll see several in my latest book, BIRDLIKE AND BARNLESS, which you can order from the "store" at www.tcpc.org .)  Putting fresh words to the old tunes that are familiar to older folks in our churches is a step in the right direction, but to reach younger people who have no sentimental attachments to those tunes, we need an ever-fresh body of new, singable music in our worship.

Here are my latest lyrical contributions to the cause: three progressive Christian "chant songs".   Spread them freely - all I ask is attribution...  I hope that some musically talented members of my readership will offer tunes for them! 

RE-MEMBER by Jim Burklo

Re-member, re-member, re-member me with you
With this bread, with this cup, re-member me with you
Re-member, re-member, re-member me with you
With this love, with this care, re-member me with you
Re-member, re-member, re-member me with you
On this day, in this hour, re-member me with you


JUST A PINCH by Jim Burklo

A pinch of yeast within the flour
A treasure hidden in the ground
We know not the day nor hour
When the pearl is finally found
Secrets held in mustard seeds
Salty grains give food its worth
All our small but loving deeds
Show your presence in the earth


YOURS THE PRAISE by Jim Burklo

Fire who burns inside the mountain
Earth who feeds the trees
Sea who sprays up like a fountain
Wind who sighs the leaves
You, the source of inspiration
You the beauty bring
Yours, the power in creation
Yours, the praise we sing

_____________________

PS to California friends:

I voted (absentee) on the May 19 election as follows:  Yes on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and no on 1F.  I think all of these propositions are seriously flawed - however, the first five of them are essential in order to avoid a budget catastrophe that would hurt the poorest people in the state.  The last one, which would prevent pay increases for lawmakers in times of budget shortfalls, is meaningless in terms of its effect on the budget - it's just for show, and on grounds of principle I am against meaningless propositions.  I believe that our state needs comprehensive fiscal reform, starting with a constitutional change that would roll back Proposition 13's requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass a budget or increase taxes in the legislature.  We need a return to real democracy, with simple majority rule in the legislature.  The second reform would be to make it much harder to put a proposition on the ballot, so that our legislature can do its job of crafting laws and passing budgets.  California now has proven that minority rule and Athenian democracy by ballot initiative don't work in running a huge and complex state government.  We need to empower our legislature fully to do its job on our behalf and then hold them fully accountable for the consequences.   It won't be perfect but it will beat the mess we're in now.

Jesus Was A Liberal: book review

Book Review by Jim Burklo, Associate Dean of Religious Life, University of Southern California, and author of BIRDLIKE AND BARNLESS: Meditations, Prayers, and Songs for Progressive Christians: 

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL: Reclaiming Christianity for All
by Rev. Scotty McLennan (Palgrave MacMillan, 2009)

“Liberal” is anything but a dirty word for the Dean of Religious Life, and pastor of Memorial Church, at Stanford University.  Scotty McLennan is proof that while Christians may be a minority group within it, publicly professing followers of Jesus still thrive in the Unitarian Universalist Association in which he is ordained. He has written his opus on progressive Christianity without disparaging the conservative Christians or the public atheists to whose positions his book carefully responds.  With his typical generosity of spirit, Scotty shares how much he respects and learns from those with whom he substantially disagrees, while using them to locate progressives in the center of the Christian tradition.  Scotty is the real person behind the figure of Rev. Scot Sloan in Doonesbury, created by McLennan’s Yale roommate, Garry Trudeau.  Contrary to his comic-strip caricature as the pastor of a nearly empty church, McLennan’s big audience will grow bigger with the launch of this new book.

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL is the best introduction to theologically and socially progressive Christianity that I’ve read in the past several years.  McLennan offers a concise definition of “liberal” Christianity, and applies it concretely to hot-button social issues and common confusions about biblical interpretation. He describes what is right about the long, venerable liberal religious tradition more than he argues against what is wrong with atheism or biblical literalism.  He makes his cases unequivocally but without being shrill.  He offers a defense of abortion rights grounded on the Christmas story in Matthew:  “Precisely because Mary’s situation is utterly unique, it places in bold relief other girls and women who have not voluntarily chosen to become pregnant.” (p 16)   He shares the bases of his public opposition to the war in Iraq in Christian “just war theory”.  His analysis of the impending conflict, and his predictions of the outcome of the war expressed in his sermons and a newspaper editorial, turned out to be uncannily accurate.

The book is flavored throughout with both the earthy and the intellectual.    Scotty moves between insights from religious scholarship and stories from his own and others’ experiences of pastoral ministry.  He illustrates with stories from his stints as a poverty lawyer, as a disciple of a Hindu priest in India, and as a university lecturer.  He neatly addresses the common concerns of lay people who are struggling with basic Christian concepts like the Trinity, the “body and blood” of communion, being “born again”, and the apocalypse.  But he doesn’t talk down to the reader: he also salts the text with scholarly analyses of biblical texts and historical details. 

The most distinctive feature of his book is his detailed response to four highly visible public atheists of the past few years; Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.  He engaged with them personally in their appearances at Stanford, responding to their indictments of liberal, progressive faith.  Scotty’s book is a call for critics of supernaturalist faith to refrain from throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.  He vigorously argues against their accusations that progressive faithful people unwittingly aid and abet the perpetuation of archaic, harmful religion.  At the same time, he calls liberal Christians to join atheists in ecstatically experiencing the natural world.  “…I congratulate Richard Dawkins on his enthusiasm, awe, and wonder forged as an atheist in the realm of science alone.  We religious people need more of his spirit.” (p 127)

The book ends with McLennan’s rousing defense of the “L” word.  “Too many (liberal Christians) choose silence, afraid to use the word “liberal” to describe where they stand.  That leaves them lying low, sitting quietly in their pews at church or in private prayer at home… I bellow, ‘Stand up, stand tall, and proclaim the positive power of liberal Christianity!  Do it now, before it’s too late!’” (p 219)  In the cause of redeeming the faith, whether we use the word “liberal” or “progressive”, nobody stands taller – literally and figuratively - than Scotty McLennan.