Back Home

Sue-z and I are both (for our sins I presume) now referred to in musical circles as, "old folkies." This of course presumes two things, we are old (yup)and we are folk music singers (both) and players (mostly me.) So what does a couple of old folkies do on Mother's Day Weekend? We leave the kids and grand-kids at home, and drive all the way down to the Cumberland Gap National Park where there is a dulcimer (my principal instrument) music festival. For two days and two amazing nights, we sing, we listen, I play, and we attend "workshops" offered by some amazing players.

We had a blast. It is hard to think of more welcoming people than musicians. If you show up carrying the tools, and they have been taken care of, you are invited to sit down, tune up, and join. Everywhere in my experience, except perhaps the world of professional symphonic music, this rule holds. Especially among dulcimer players, often ignored by the self appointed experts, the camaraderie is almost instant.

For two days and nights, we did not know what the world was doing, did not know the latest politician's latest scandal. For two days we were simply friends making music, progressives, conservatives, Christians, Buddhists, Agnostics,and probably a couple other faith communities: we were there for the love of the music.

We are for sure going back next year.

And yet, on the way home, as I slowly let the, "real world," such as it is and what there is of it, back into my view, I almost felt guilty. On Facebook, a post from a friend thanking the children of our parish for the letters he received - in Afghanistan. On Twitter a note that a young friend and his wife are expecting. He is on active duty, there is no assurance he will be in country when she delivers. Here I am enjoying the freedom to play and sing, while they are risking lives.

Can we ever properly thank the warriors who protect us? Does it matter? I doubt they do it for our gratitude.

Still we can try. From time to time I will see another old guy, someone my age perhaps, wearing a cap identifying the unit in which he fought in our many too many wars, or the ship on which he was a keel plate owner, or one of the increasingly few "Tuskegee Airmen" who flew for a country that discriminated against them. I make a point to stop and say thanks. They are often a bit surprised, and perhaps embarrassed, then they smile and say I am welcome.

Really, I am? I was not born when many of them fought. I sang protest songs against our war in Vietnam (not against the soldiers, but against the government) but none-the-less. I am welcome too. I guess that is what this silly experiment in freedom some are so determined to toss aside seeking security, is about.

Is a simple thanks enough? No. We can do more, by demanding that politicians keep the promises of the GI Bills, and by seeing to it that those harmed in service get needed care. We can do more.

We can make sure the country does not ever go to war when any alternative is even remotely possible. Americans have gotten sloppy about that. We have let politicians go into Afghanistan and Iraq, bombard Libya, and if we listen to the wrong voices we will do it again in Syria.

Our warriors, these women and men prepared to fight and die do not ask a lot. But we owe them. We owe them being sure that we never spend their lives stupidly, or unnecessarily.

I am not a pacifist. Sometimes, no matter how reasonable, no matter how decent, we may think we are, there are those who will attack us. That is not an American thing, it is a human thing. It is no less true for anyone in any country.

Sometimes a country simply must defend itself or cease to exist. That is part of the terrible price we pay for our humanity. Sometimes, as for instance in the case of the Shoah, we simply must stop something evil. Those times are rare. If we are honest, we know we send our warriors into much more danger than those times justify.

We all, protected by warriors, owe them our best efforts at conflict resolution. We who live in free lands owe more. We can make the government listen. Try that in Syria, or prewar Germany!

All of that came from two days of freedom. I think we will be gone longer next time. That is why we follow the music -- there is power in the songs, power in the dance!

And Then There Is Tennessee

In a previous post, I wrote about marriage equality. Based on the events I see around the country and in my own State, I waxed optimistic. I ended that post with the observation that, "this will be a wild ride." I may have understated a bit.

On 24 April 2103, a date that will live in stupidity (with apologies to FDR) the Tennessee General Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution 134 titled the "Ido4life" resolution. I mean how corny can they get, the "I do for life" resolution.!

The resolution references Genesis 2, 24 as a proof text for the idea that marriage is open only to monogamous, two gender marriages.

Of course there are problems here. The legislature may apparently missed the little detail that they are in the United States. These dopes ignored the unbroken string of cases back to about 1867 which make it clear that Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian Scriptures, and even the Holy Q'ran are irrelevant when one is arguing definitions. We have this constitution that makes establishment of religion unlawful.

And the verse they site does not prove what they want. They are rather bad Biblical scholars too. In a sense they can be forgiven for this one, they seem to have relied on a fundy preacher who may preach but on the evidence, does not study.

Over-all a disaster for Tennessee's right wing. The resolution makes them look bad, and does not send the anti-gay message effectively. When someone turns the lights on, proponents of this crud look really, really bad. Call it the Todd Aikens effect.

Marriage Equality

In 2003, a lifetime ago in American culture, the vestry was presented with a petition. The petition had been secretly circulated by some parishioners. I was not invited to sign, circulation was furtive and selective.

The vestry took the petition seriously. Petitioners requested creation of a policy forbiding the use of parish assets to bless or otherwise recognize single gender unions.

The vestry undertook a study of the relevant canon law. A detailed response to the petition was published. The response was very narrowly focused. Under canon law the vestry said, the rector holds all authority over the liturgical life of that parish, subject only to the bishop. That being so, the vestry could not and would not approve or reject the petition because on its face it was out of order.

About 20 member families left. Some went to a nearby parish that is known for its ultra-conservative views, others went to other more conservative communions. The parish moved on, saddened but resolute.

Several years ago, Illinois became one of the States that created a sort of larval stage of marriage equality: the civil union. It now appears likely Illinois will finally take the step to full marriage equality. Illinois politicians are not substantially different from those in other States. They do not lead so much as ride the waves. That is, the shift in our legislature reflects what is going on in the society. To borrow a line from Bob Dylan: the times they are changing."

Responding to the social change, and the probable trajectory of State law, the bishop of Chicago circulated a question to the vestries. The question: what will your policy will be when, not if, when, State law is changed. The times are indeed changing.

When times change, there is always controversy. Those who benefited from the old paradigm do not want to give up privileged positions. The arguments for the old paradigm can be called, "original intent," or "God's word" but at the end of the day, the fight is always about standing, money, and power.

This question is not easier ten years later. Whatever a vestry decides, someone in their parish will be offended.

So there I was, first vestry meeting in years, first one with this vestry, 32 years a member of the parish, none-the-less, one of the new guys. A motion was presented authorizing anyone entering any lawful monogamous union, to seek the sacerdotal participation of the clergy and use of our facilities. As always is true this would be subject to the decision of the rector who can refuse to marry anyone if she sees an issue.

We unanimously passed the motion. Our doors and arms are open.

What troubled me then, and troubles me now, is a question we did not address. When exactly did someone vote to make my straight, happy, nearly 45 year, marriage acceptable? In a real sense the problem I see is that we, the straight majority, have a privileged position from which we can decide the status of lgbt people.

Polling data show a tectonic shift in our society. Depending on which poll you read, as many as 80% (!) of young people support marriage equality. They not only hold a "yes" position, they wonder that someone thinks there is viable "no" position. They give me hope.

America will be a step closer to its dream when no one seriously thinks that there is something called, "gay marriage." Then we will simply have marriage and people entering into it. I once thought I would not live to see that day. Now given the change since +Gene Robinson bravely took the ordination oaths in the face of death threats,to today's recognition of the changes, I think I will see it all unfold.

Times change, cultures change, and sometimes the rate of change can be breathtaking. In the fifty or so years between the end of WWII, and the end of the 20th century, the very idea that schools, buses, housing, or, marriage, should be separated by skin color became laughable. After centuries of cultural and structural racism, the culture grew up in a rush.

I think it is rather like earthquakes. Over time, pressure builds, and suddenly there is a shift or a series of changes. When the rate of change accelerates, violent reaction from the losers intensifies. One hears increasingly, the lunatic right wanting to, "take our country back," a concept that would only make sense if they ever owned it!

We should expect that we will hear a lot of anger and disagreement for a while. Some of the reaction will be violent. We have seen it before: losers wearing white sheets, cowards with bombs killing children at their church. But in the end, America has changed. We seldom go back, and when we do, as in the McCarthy period, we recover our direction.

Hang on! This will be a wild ride!

Triduum - Easter Musings

"triduum" the three days: Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Pascha (Easter,) form the solemn emotional rollercoaster in the catholic Christian experience. Friday's liturgies are subdued meditations on the death of Our Lord, and the sense we have that when we say that "Jesus died for us" we not only proclaim his gift but our needs. All of Saturday, until after sundown, there is no specified liturgy. One might do the hours indeed one should. But Eucharist, our central feast is notably absent.

Saturday is a remembrance that we are buried in both a spiritual sense and eventually a literal one. Under that earth however is abundance: it is also the day of anticipation. Those who do not live within the catholic faith communities may not see that. But then, when they contemplate the crucifixion, if they do, they see only an execution.

Ah but come inside a church! Inside you will find the life within the seed sown on Friday. Inside the church, instruments are tuned; flowers arrive and are lovingly arranged; choristers, and musicians practice; the sacristans, or altar guild clean, and polish everything they can reach; floors are washed, and waxed; programs are proofread, and reread; robes are cleaned, mended, and pressed; acolytes, and other participants in liturgy are walked through their duties; and sermons are written, rehearsed, rewritten, and finally completed.

Late Saturday, as the sun sets or even later, for Anglicans and Romans, comes the "principal service of the church year." We know the date is at best approximate, and we do not care. What is happening is more important than when.

Darkness is thrown away, physically with new fires lit in ancient rituals. Fire shared with all, as individual candles held by all join the first light. Greeted by bells, "Alleluias," and jubilant music; the cry, "He is RISEN" is shouted and the response, "He IS risen indeed!" echoes through sacred spaces, and into our consciousness.

The liturgical acts, and the preparation all lead to this. The metaphor is complete: Jesus died, went into the earth, and arose, carrying all of us with him. The world of darkness he left when he died is the kingdom of God now and abounds with potential. On Friday we face our humanity, our sense of sin, the ugly and the evil kingdom of darkness we too often choose. Saturday we face not dying but death itself. We see the winter we face, and the darkness seems to win. Then, with a burst of joy and triumph we see the new kingdom come, and the world needing redemption.

All the world requires is this single three day period. All we need do is "Grow the Church, Form the Faithful, and Change the world." For what are you waiting?

In the News

In Rome, we all have noticed, there is a new bishop. As the Pope begins his reign he is asked what name he wishes to use. Various men have chosen various names for lots of reasons. And until recently there has been a tendency towards streaks. Names seem to move in and out of popularity.

Our Roman cousins have chosen the first Francis. And as is our wont, many have heard what they choose to hear. Blessed Francis of Assisi is among the most well known and venerated saints on the calendar. He is remembered unfortunately, less for what he said and did than for his image in statuary surrounded by songbirds.

After Ignatius Loyola the most important Jesuit saint is Blessed Francis Xavier. Now he was not a bad guy, far from it, he was an amazing evangelist who was personally responsible for pushing the Gospel message into much of Asia.

Does this matter? As a Jesuit educated person (I went to Loyola University of Chicago in the 1960's) I think it does. It matters because in choosing a name, the new popes give us a clue about what they value. In the euphoria that surrounds the election of a new pope, there is a tendency to project. Francis of Assisi, the gentle, nature loving saint is an image many who found Benedict 16 legalistic, and unbending might want to see. But Francis Xavier, a tough minded, evangelistic Jesuit is more what I think they will find.

I do not mean that as a criticism of the new man. He will do his best, seems truly humble for one who has risen to the heights, and shows every ability one might need in such a one, save progressive thought. I wish him well. His holiness has said he was thinking of Francis of Assisi when he chose the name, and of course I take his word for that. But I still wonder, can a man whose priestly formation came from Jesuits forget the other Francis? Given that worthy saint's interest in evangelism, does he want to?

But then, I did go to Loyola. I like Jesuits, even when as I generally did, I disagree with them. I do not expect Francis to be running the Vatican barefoot with a grey robe and birds nesting on his shoulders. In fact no one should. Rather I think we just heard a dismissal of Benedict's willingness to shrink the church to achieve orthopraxis if not orthodoxy. I think the new man expects to grow. Grow not by making Europeans and North Americans happy but by pushing the church into Asia, Africa, and South America.

We shall see. I may be reading the tea leaves wrong. But it is important to remember that the pope is not a Franciscan, he is a Jesuit. And the Francis they revere, Francis Xavier, was an evangelist, not a lover of birds.

FWIW
jimB

Lent is Ending. What Will You Lose?

Loss, any loss, carries with it grief. When someone dies, a hymnbook is replaced, a new version of the Book of Common Prayer is adopted, even though those events have different levels of grief, they always bring some. Bach gives way to folk rock, and for some there is loss, and inevitably, grief. Generational change especially in the church, is the stuff of controversy. Change too brings loss and grief.

In Chicago, we are called to "Grow the Church, Form the Faithful, and Change the World." And that is indeed the Gospel imperative. But as we grow the church, we inevitably welcome not only new people but new ideas, music, and beliefs. Herein lies the dilemma.

We either take, "Form the Faithful" to mean molding those newcomers into copies or ourselves, the road to extinction, or we undertake helping them understand the implications of what Jesus calls us to do in the world, and equipping them to do those things. In the later case, we face the loss of "the way we always do it" and the attendant grief. If we choose the alternative, we face almost certain loss of the newcomers.

Loss, giving up the music, the minister, the liturgy, the belief and the role that we have cherished, accepting and working through our grief, and joyfully proclaiming that the new is good and can call us to better things; these form the final challenge of what we call, "New Life In Christ." This is our walk up Calvary.

Losses can be really private. We can all carry some that we do not want to share with anyone, not even our clergy or fellow parishioners. And there are those parishioners who do not want others to share. The pain that accompanies loss and grief can make some very uncomfortable. It is even worse when we cannot take our losses to God. An old hymn advises, "Take it to the Lord in prayer." It was among my dad's favorites. But for some of us, even that, sharing our pain with God, can be difficult. Which is sad because God is there for us and Jesus really does understand.

Some things are not lost: we give up, we discard them because we should never have owned them. The idea that the church should be what we want even if others are excluded or harmed too is something to discard. The sin of white, straight, male privilege really should not be lost but discarded. Sexism, homophobia, misogyny, ideology, these should go. God's refining fire beckons: we can throw our sins into the fire or face it with them. Why is the choice so hard for so many?

Other losses, love, friendship, comfortable patterns in life, worship, art, and family, these losses can really hurt. And yet we can take none of them with us on our final journey. At the end of our day, we have only God. God who loves us, calls us, and preserves us to eternity. Everything else, everything(!) we must eventually lose, grieve and release.

Grief is not wrong. Refusing to work through it, and move on to the light that is error. As J.R.R. Tolkien observed, "I do not say do not weep. Not all tears are evil." Ah but some are. Grief without end does only harm. Accepting loss, crying, and learning to live on, that way lies the light. Along the way we all have some things to discard.

In the last few days of Lent, it is a good time to ask ourselves what we should discard? What grief and loss do you need to face along the way to the light?

Some Special Writing

Regular readers of my little essays will have noticed I have not been writing the last few weeks. This is because my writing time has been taken over by some real crises issues in my parish. Even if I had a few more hours to write, I am focused on things like security matrices and access points. Not the stuff of scintillating posts!

But, my dear friend Susan, who is like me a lay member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, has been doing and writing about some very interesting things. And she writes brilliantly. So here is a link to some amazing writing about some amazing goings on in Florida. Florida apparently actually trying to tiptoe into the 21'st century and make, "gay marriage" just part of "marriage." To read about Susan's experience is the discussion, follow this link.

I hope to be able to write something of my own next week. Almost certainly it won't be as good as Susan's three posts about the discussions in which she participated.

See you soon!