are you red or blue?

As previously posted, I have offended people with what they consider my "liberal" views. While I admit that I am considered liberal in many areas, some people who are offended have actually just assumed they know how I feel about certain issues. I work for trial lawyers so I must be liberal (and evil). So logically you can assume that since I am liberal I am "pro-abortion." That one really irritates me. I don't think anyone is pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

I basically don't like labels like liberal and conservative because those are relative terms. What is your starting reference? I recently asked several people if Jesus was liberal or conservative. I suspected that so-called conservative people would say that Jesus was conservative and so-called liberals would say He was liberal. According to my very non-scientific survey Jesus is liberal, conservative and independent. He forged new paths, he was compassionate for all, he followed the law, he was not influenced by outside forces.

I am offended by people who assume you cannot be "liberal' and Christian. I am offended by one political party claiming all rights to Christianity. And I am not alone. A couple of years ago I bought a book by Jim Wallis titled God's Politics. In it he points out that God is neither Republican or Democrat. I like a lot of what he says. Today I read his blog and I like it so much I would like to share a portion with you.

by Jim Wallis 10-23-2008

...I want to suggest a different approach this year and share my personal list of “faith priorities” that will guide me in making the imperfect choices that always confront us in any election year — and suggest that each of you come up with your own list of “faith” or “moral” priorities for this election year and take them into the voting booth with you.
... there is certainly no easy jump from God’s politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election, we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about if we are people of faith, and our own moral sensibilities if we are not people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, and all of us, should be “values voters” but vote all our values, not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.
In 2008, the kingdom of God is not on the ballot in any of the 50 states as far as I can see. So we can’t vote for that this year. But there are important choices in this year’s election — very important choices — which will dramatically impact what many in the religious community and outside of it call “the common good,” and the outcome could be very important, perhaps even more so than in many recent electoral contests.
I am in no position to tell anyone what is “non-negotiable,” and neither is any bishop or megachurch pastor, but let me tell you the “faith priorities” and values I will be voting on this year:
With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.
From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having “their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid,” as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.
“Choosing life” is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and “pro-choice” and “pro-life” mantras from either side.
God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new “green” economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.
Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to “welcome the stranger.”
Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a “countercultural activity” in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.
That is my list of personal “faith priorities” for the election year of 2008, but they are not “non-negotiables” for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing.

One of my LEGS members recently asked about Biblical guidance in voting decisions. I believe Wallis has helped.

Once Clergy Always Clergy

Someone asked me to ponder this thought. Can clergy take off their clergy hat occasionally? Or do you have to always behave as a clergy? I think this was someone's way of telling me to straighten up and fly right. Keep quiet. Don't be quite so honest. Really, so being dishonest is what being a clergy is all about? I am sure they meant I should be more tactful. I am sure this is a criticism that I could use and I should speak more carefully.

Here is the irony. Church people are "concerned" about these things. "Pre-Christians" / seekers / unchurched - whatever the term of the week - comment on how refreshing it is to know a "real" person who happens to be clergy. "Church people must be confused that you are not a hypocrite like many of them - behaving one way at church and another way away from it." "I could have stayed in church if my preacher was more like you." "I wish your church was closer to me; I would visit."

I don't mean to sound egotistical. I realize for every person who thinks my bluntness is refreshing, there is someone who is offended by it. I know my style is not for everyone.

I know that church leaders should be and are held to a higher standard. I know we should be more disciplined. I know congregants should be able to look up to their pastor.

So maybe I am not such a great clergy. Maybe I should rethink this whole thing. I like being able to speak my mind. I don't want to be a cookie cutter clergy. I am not just like everyone else.

I love the people at my current appointment. But I wish more people were inspired and passionate. Some are. But for too long they have been accustomed to the staff taking care of things. I am not sure they actually understand they are a vital part of the church. But I think they are starting to get involved. But if I dare to say I would love for people at my appointment to be passionate, someone will misconstrue this as bashing my church.

I like working with youth. It is really where I am most comfortable. But only a few youth at my current appointment are committed to regularly participating. And some are actually staying away because of me. Some people are critical of the youth counselors who have volunteered since I started working with youth. I certainly feel like there are more people dissatisfied with my youth work than those who see my vision. But when I suggest that maybe they need to hire an actual youth director, some assume I do not want to work with youth rather than seeing that I am just open to the church re-evaluating the situation.

I am quite aware of problems at my home church. I was included on recent mass emails. I opted not to respond or get involved because I thought it would not be appropriate. My closest friends might have heard an opinion, but I have not commented publically on the situation. And let me be clear here: It would be unwise for anyone to assume that I have taken a "side" and even more unwise to assume they know which "side" I have taken. But, in fact, some have made such assumptions and have become critical that a clergy now appointed elsewhere would get involved in home church drama.

So if being clergy means I cannot say how I feel on my own blog or post comments on my friends' blogs; I cannot admit my shortcomings; I cannot be honest; I cannot be concerned for my home church (of which my child is still a member), perhaps I don't need to be clergy. Or perhaps people should rethink their expectations of clergy.

team work is the fuel that enables common people to accomplish uncommon things

(or up up and away)

today was laity sunday at church. this is the day the clergy sits in the congregation and lay people handle all aspects of worship. a day to remember that all members are to be ministers. you know - we are all part of the body of christ.

for children's moment jason used his injuries from a motorcycle accident to demonstrate how difficult it is to be truly efficient when part of the body does not function properly. during children's church children had to accomplish tasks with at least one part of their body restricted in some way.

then after church my family went on an adventure. several of us had lunch with my parents. my great-nephews were in town for the weekend. we enjoyed lunch and spent some time visiting. then cathy, katie, calum, braeden, alicia and i went to paws in the park in pell city for an adventure. after waiting in line for almost two hours, we went riding in a hot air balloon. while we waited, we watched a team of 5-6 people get the balloon set up. while we waited, i read the back of a t-shirt on a girl further up the line. "team work: the fuel that enables common people to do uncommon things"

the thought on the t-shirt and the team working to enable us to enjoy the balloon ride made me reflect on the teamwork that should be involved in the body of christ. the church should be able to soar like the balloon if everyone works together.

we had a lot of fun today. worth the wait.

my mother always said be careful what you say

Be careful what you say because you never know to whom you are talking. My mother always warned that it is a small world. The older I get the more I know my mother is right about a lot of things.

Being on a church staff means people will talk about you. Sometimes it is good; sometimes bad. People think nothing of sharing their opinions of politicians, football coaches and preachers. They do not consider this gossip. It is simply something we do. So I am quite used to being the subject of conversation among members of the churches I have served.

First let me admit that the most recent criticisms about me really can be traced back to a careless statement I made. I made an enemy at the church when I gave my opinion of Sarah Palin. And since then it has gone down hill. I can do no right.

Recently, a group gathered at the church for a social event. The group had two people present who do not normally attend. One happened to be the person who was offended by my Palin comments. Apparently at some time during their time together, the conversation turned to me. My critic shared her less than flattering opinion of me. I am not sure how many of the others chimed in. I am not sure if anyone pointed out any of my positive characteristics. All that was reported to me was that there quite a bit of Donna-bashing. Apparently it was not until the other non-regular attender was leaving that she shared with someone that she was related to me. Yes folks - you read correctly. All of the Donna-bashing occurred in front of a visitor who happens to be in my family.

Now, I do not fault the group for talking about me. I have been guilty of sitting with friends talking about a preacher. But I do think we need to all think about who is present when we have these discussions.

So my question for my critics today is: Would you like the names of other relatives so you can contact them all to tell them how ungodly I am?

The 10 Commandments of Blogging

I recently ran across a blog that outlined the 10 commandments of blogging. The Evangelical Alliance in the UK recently held a “Godblogs” conference wherein Christian bloggers gathered to discuss a Christian approach to blogging. During the event, the group decided to write a tongue in cheek set of commandments for bloggers. http://www.eauk.org/articles/blogging-ten.cfm

While this might not be my list, it made me think about how carefully we should write. Recent blog posts and emails have set off a fire storm for some of my very dear friends. It really has passed the point of ridiculous. When discussing it with another friend, he commented that he really did not get why people blog in the first place. He further commented that people should be very careful about what they post (if they feel the need to post) on blogs. As a business owner, he commented that recruiters often refer to blogs as a means of weeding out potential hires.

Now all of the craziness and the comments made me think and I have a few observations.

1. Stop and think about the ages of the people who read our blogs and "get it" and those who don't. Realizing that I am about on the cusp of this age division. I think that a lot of boomers and older don't like communication by emails and blogs. I think they read things too literally and are too easily offended. So are we also guilty of not "getting" them? Maybe it is a true generation gap issue.

2. Are we all being too self-focused? Are we chasing our tails trying to each prove that we are right? Are we so busy thinking about how we are going to respond to the latest rhetoric that we fail to listen to what our "opposition" is saying?

3. Although our blogs are our own thoughts and our opportunity to rant, once we have put these words out for all the world to see we have to accept that people can use our own words against us if they so desire. Those who understand us will accept that these posts are just ways to think out loud and work out our issues. Blogs are a way to journal and be able to look back and see how issues were resolved or not. Those who love and support us will allow us to do this without being judgmental or offended. But those who don't truly love will not understand our tone or our sarcasm or ever try to see our heart in what we write. Instead they will twist our words. They will read their own insecurities into our words. They will take things out of context. They will not refer back to previous posts to try to make sense of what we are writing.

My point? Assuming I actually have one, I suppose that it is: Writer Beware! Blog at your own risk. Think about what you write.

I find it very interesting that one person who has responded to a series of emails and posted comments on a blog has asked writers to think about how they would feel if people were saying things about them in this way. And then that person proceeds to attack people in much the way he has just accused them of attacking. Obviously he is not reading his own words. So I say to those who start emails or blogs and all those who add to the thread of comments: Try to find a way to convey your thoughts without belittling your opposition. In the words of Obama (which I do not claim to be an exact quote): We can disagree without being disrespectful.

Do Church People Make You Sick?

I will admit, that I often wish I could just puke after dealing with some church people. I understand why so many people are turned off by organized religion. Man.... What a self-righteous puffed-up bunch of idiots we can be. What I particularly love (please note the sarcasm) is that these people don't seem to understand that we are supposed to be striving to be Christ-like. Which means we are to be loving. Which means that we should be able to find a way to disagree without being disrespectful. And we certainly should not be underhanded, sneaky and manipulative.

Ironic that I should be irritated by people who attempt to manipulate others because I have been accused of such tactics on at least two recent occasions. Perhaps I should be flattered that some think I am capable of having so much power. But, in fact, I am a little irritated that people assume that (a) I would have the desire to manipulate the situations of which I am accused (b) the people that I am supposed to have manipulated are so weak and/or stupid that I would be able to manipulate them.

One of the poor saps over whom I allegedly I have so much power is a church associate. Some people do not like the direction we are headed, so obviously I have used my mysterious powers to brainwash people. I would just like to be clear that if I had that much power, there are a number of things we would be differently. Maybe appropriate secular music used in worship. Always using the entire liturgy for communion. Less Sunday afternoon meetings. Actual staff meetings. Disciple Bible Studies. Better communication. The list goes on.

But the church should really be worried if I had the power for which I get credit. In my personal life, the accusations go really extreme. Those accusations skirt right up to "casting spells" on people in order to take advantage of them - seducing them to my dark side. Let's face it - am just plain evil.

OK ladies. If I had all of this power, a lot of things would be different. First of all, as much as I have learned to love my current appointment, if I had such mind control, I doubt this would have been my appointment of choice. To be honest, if I was in control, I probably would never have wanted to leave HUMC. But if HUMC was not my option, I would be somewhere with a good alternative service, with a great technical set-up to be able to do some drama. I would have lots of children and youth. I would have a ton of talented actors. I would have people lined up to volunteer to help teach children and youth and work in the nursery. We would be doing innovative things in the community. We would rock. Everyone at my church would rationally discuss issues. We would all love each other. We would be spending all of our energy (usually used on conflict) reaching out in imaginative ways to make new disciples. church people would not be so stubborn and stupid. If only I had that power.

If I had the power you think I have, I would be free to pursue a certain romantic interest. Why the hell would I want to seduce someone with whom I can never have a real relationship. If I could really cast a spell - I would have gone all the way and either cast a spell on someone who is really available or cast a spell to make someone completely free and available to pursue a relationship.

If I had all of the power, there would be a cure for cancer.

If I had the power, Auburn would have a quarterback.

The economy would improve.

HUMC would be united.

People would truly be the church.

If I only had the power to control things the way people think.