Amendment A on Front Page of Kingsport Times-News

Becky Whitlock of the Kingsport Times-News interviewed a colleague and me regarding Amendment A. She wrote a nice article about it that made Thursday's front page.

Holston Presbytery urges ‘mutual forbearance’ on gay, lesbian pastor issue

Presbyterian Church (USA) on Tuesday became the fourth mainline American denomination to approve the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian ministers.
By BECKY WHITLOCK

The Holston Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has encouraged its members to “mutual forbearance ... about issues that threaten to divide us” following the denomination’s vote to approve the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian pastors.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) on Tuesday became the fourth mainline American denomination to approve the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian ministers.

The Rev. Tom Phillips, pastor of Colonial Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, said he thinks the decision won’t immediately affect local congregations.

For the Rev. John Shuck, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Elizabethton, the vote was good news.

“This is news I’ve not only been looking forward to hearing, it’s what I’ve been working for myself,” said Shuck. “I’ve been working to remove these barriers probably since I entered seminary in the ’80s. It’s a historic moment for our denomination.”

That history was made when the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in Minnesota became the 87th presbytery to approve the measure, called Amendment 10-A, which was approved by the denomination’s 219th General Assembly last summer. Following the 2010 vote, a majority of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries also had to approve the measure before it became official. The Holston Presbytery, which encompasses Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations in upper Northeast Tennessee, voted against the measure.

The Rev. Rich Fifield, executive director of the Holston Presbytery, referred the Times-News to the presbytery’s official statement on its Web site, www.holstonpresbytery.org, which reads in part, and quotes minutes from the 2010 General Assembly meeting:

“Some observers of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be quick to characterize this change in ordination standards as merely a way of ordaining practicing homosexuals to ministry and leadership in the church. In reality, the rationale for the change is that ‘(t)he integrity of the church demands that those who serve in ordained office meet high standards — always seeking to live according to the life and teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’ It is hoped that the new wording ‘would maintain high standards for ordination and installation by renewed focus on the (constitutional) questions candidates must answer, but without imposing a single, highly contested interpretation of Scripture on the whole church.’ While Holston Presbytery (the district of Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations in upper northeast Tennessee) voted to disapprove this change to the ‘Book of Order,’ we affirm the long-standing Presbyterian commitment to freedom of conscience and mutual forbearance when different convictions about issues threaten to divide us.”

Phillips said the “full intent” of the amendment was not “solely about the ability to ordain gays.”

“The amendment was really going back and picking up language that the church had used historically to describe those who would be allowed ordination,” he said. “In some ways, I understand that’s almost disingenuous because the folks who put forward this amendment had in mind that it would allow the ordination of gay individuals. But the way it works in the church, the way I’ll explain it to my congregation, we have an enormous amount of local discretion, which is to say that there is no one who is going to tell Colonial Heights Presbyterian that you have to ordain anybody.”

After completing a seminary education, a candidate for ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA) must pass a nationally standardized exam and then, after having a call to a local church, must be examined by the local presbytery’s committee on ministry.

“Once the presbytery is satisfied that the person has enough knowledge and maturity, then the church proceeds to ordain,” Phillips said.

The Presbyterian Church (USA)’s decision to ordain practicing homosexuals follows the United Church of Christ’s decision in 1972, the Episcopal Church’s decision in 2003, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s decision in 2009. The years following the decisions by the Episcopal Church and the ELCA have seen membership declines in and the departure of numerous congregations from both denominations.

While Phillips thinks there will be those in Holston Presbytery congregations who will not like the decision, he doesn’t believe more than one or two of those will contemplate leaving.

“Will it happen across the denomination? I fear it will,” he said. “I think we spent 20-plus years arguing about whether or not to ordain gay individuals when we should have been out there doing the mission of the church. I’d like to see us get back to the core values of who we are, reaching out in the name of the risen Christ and going about the task of ministry.”

Shuck believes that the way the decision was made — an affirmative vote by the national body followed by votes by local presbyteries — has resulted in a more stable process. However, he said, division does exist.

“We’ve been divided for 40 years. I don’t think this causes division. It recognizes that we have had division all along. ... Membership decline in mainline churches is very complex. You have to have lots of sociologists to explain what it all might mean. To blame it on being open to gays is very simplistic,” said Shuck.

And while Shuck believes some will leave, he also thinks the decision will draw others.

“I think our congregation is a testimony to that,” he said. “Since we’ve been openly affirming, we’ve gained a lot of people. ... It’s a common story: ‘I was out of the church for 40 years, but I can come back because this is an inclusive church.’ It goes both ways. I really affirm this decision. I’m excited about it, and I hope it will reach out to people who have been alienated. I hope this will be a healing moment for the church.”

Press Release for Ordination Change

I sent our media contacts a press release about the Presbyterian vote.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Removes Barriers to Ordination

The Presbytery of the Twin Cities became the 87th presbytery and thus cast the deciding vote to ratify an amendment that will remove the so-called “fidelity and chastity” clause in the PC(USA) constitution and open to door to ordination for those who have been excluded by this sentence in the ordination standards:

Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.

Rev. John Shuck, Pastor the First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, said,

“This barrier has caused great pain for our church and in particular for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their family members, and friends. We have lost many excellent ministers and officers because of our discriminatory policies. This change is a major step forward in accepting the diversity and gifts of all people.”

The change will go into effect July 10th, 2011. The denomination has been wrestling with the ordination question since the mid 1970s. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins other mainline church bodies, The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and The United Church of Christ, as open to LGBT people for ordination.

Michael Adee, Executive Director of More Light Presbyterians, an organization that advocates for LGBT people in the Presbyterian Church said of this decision:

"More people will be able to live the truth of their lives, parents will talk more about having gay kids and people will come out in Presbyterian churches."

The First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, is one of five More Light Churches in Tennessee and is open to full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the life of the congregation. The congregation is located at 119 West F Street in Elizabethton. Its webpage is www.fpcelizabethton.org.

*******************

If you would like more information about this historic milestone, contact Rev. John Shuck at 543-7737 or johnashuck [at] embarqmail.com. He would be happy to do an interview. You can also contact Michael Adee of More Light Presbyterians at (505) 820-7082 or e-mail michael [at] mlp.org

AMENDMENT 10A PASSES PC(USA)!!

We did it!


The 87th and deciding vote came in tonight from Twin Cities Presbytery!

Twin Cities voted overwhelmingly in favor of Amendment A, 205-56-3!


Barriers to ordination have been lifted.

Wow.






The movement for full inclusion of LGBT people began in the Presbyterian Church in 1973, when David Sindt held up a hand-lettered sign at the General Assembly that read "Is Anyone Else Out There Gay?".

Since that courageous moment, we have endured over 30 years of official prohibition.







The Definitive Guidance/Authoritative Interpretation which oppressed the church from 1978-2008 is gone.

Its evil companion, G-6.0106b, has been in the Book of Order since 1997. Three attempts were made to remove this "b in our bonnet" since then (1997-8, 2001-2, 2008-9).

All failed to pass the presbyteries. Many of us thought we would never get it through the presbyteries. Finally, in 2010-11, tonight, justice was served.

The fourth time's a charm.

Take a deep breath, advocates! This has been an incredible journey. The PC(USA) took the hard path. Our polity made it more of a challenge to remove discriminatory barriers as it needed to pass through the majority of presbyteries in addition to being approved by the national body. But because of that, this change shows that it reflects the will of the whole of the church.

This is not only important for the Presbyterian Church, this is a sign of change that is happening throughout our country. We now join other mainline church bodies, The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and The United Church of Christ, as open to LGBT people for ordination.

The struggle continues as I pointed out yesterday. Here are some helpful FAQs regarding the specifics of what this amendment means.

Today, finally, I can say that I am proud of my denomination.

On the Eve of Change

On Tuesday, May 10th, either Pacific Presbytery or Twin Cities Presbytery will be the 87th and deciding vote in favor of the new G-6.0106b. This amendment to the PC(USA) Book of Order will remove all official barriers to ordination for those who have been excluded by this statement:

Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.

That statement will be removed.

Those previously excluded by that statement, will in principle, be eligible for ordination to the offices of deacon, elder, and minister of word and sacrament. Here is helpful list of answers to frequently asked questions about what this change will mean practically.

This is a major hurdle that we will clear tomorrow.

It will go into effect July 11th, 2011.

Another hurdle the denomination cleared in 2008 was the removal of an official statement originally created in 1978. It contained some unenlightened statements about gay and lesbian people. The statement contained bad theology and bad science. Here is the story of its demise.

With those two barriers gone, the PC(USA) can begin healing. These barriers have caused great pain for our church and in particular for LGBTQ people, family members, and friends. We have lost many excellent ministers and officers because of our discriminatory policies.

Tomorrow will be a great day for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I will report the 87th vote with a big happy headline.

The struggle is not over. Bad legislation can always return. That is why even after we get the 87th vote we need to work in every remaining presbytery to make the presbytery vote total and the "popular vote" total as high as possible. This will show that this vote wasn't a fluke but a direction.

The struggle is not over. Just because the bad legislation is gone, that does not guarantee ordination. The work of changing minds and hearts and working with those seeking ordination continues. Helping people and congregations through the process of calling LGBTQ people could be our next important effort.

The struggle is not over. We need to change the definition of marriage and allow clergy and congregations to marry same-gender couples and we need to create liturgy for inclusive wedding celebrations.

The struggle is not over. We have reached the point where our denomination doesn't officially say bad and discriminatory things. We have a long way to go to say positive, true and affirming things. This has to do with changing our marriage liturgy, providing quality sexuality curriculum for children, youth and adults, being an advocate in civil society for justice, and helping congregations be intentional about their welcome and inclusion of all people.

The struggle is not over. Of course, there are those who do not agree with this decision. We need to be inclusive and welcoming to those who for whatever reason feel discomfort. Minds and hearts can and do change. We need to be gracious enough to allow that change to happen. We cannot, however, allow the discomfort of some to stop or slow the needed changes to take place in our churches.

I have been in this struggle since I entered seminary in 1989. The struggle has been going on long before I was around and will continue long after I have written or spoken my last word. I had no idea how central this struggle would be to my ministry. I am grateful for all the people who have had patience with me and pulled me along to be an advocate.

This is a milestone. This is a moment of grace.

On this eve of change, I am going to honor it.

A Friend at Midnight--A Sermon

A Friend at Midnight
John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee

May 8th, 2011
Mother’s Day

The Gospel of Jesus 18:1-5

Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend who comes to you in the middle of the night and says to you, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine on a trip has just shown up and I have nothing to offer him.’ And suppose you reply, ‘Stop bothering me. The door is already locked and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up to get you anything’—I tell you, even though you won’t get up and give the friend anything out of friendship, yet you will get up and give that person whatever is needed because you’d be ashamed not to.”

Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Gospel of Jesus (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1999), p. 75, Luke 11:5-8.

The parable of The Friend at Midnight is a bit of a puzzler. What motivates you to get out of bed and give three loaves to your friend who calls out to you at all hours of the night? If we can answer that question we can get a glimpse into the empire of God.

This parable is only found in Luke. That is an argument against its authenticity as a parable of Jesus. It may very well be a creation of the author of Luke. In Luke it serves as an illustration for the general admonition to be persistent in prayer. It follows Luke’s version of the Lords’ Prayer. You have the Lord’s Prayer then the parable of the Friend at Midnight. Then Luke has Jesus say:

So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if he child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

In this setting, The Friend at Midnight is about the importance of persistence in prayer. It is similar to Luke’s interpretation of the woman knocking on the judge’s door for justice. Eventually he gives in because she wears him out. For Luke these parables are about prayer. The parables move from the lesser to the greater.

• If an unjust judge will finally answer the woman’s request, how much more so will God?
  
• If a sleeping, crabby guy in the middle of the night will finally roust himself up to give you bread, how much more so will God?
  
• If you will give your child an egg instead of a scorpion and a fish instead of a snake, how much more will God give you what you need?
  

Take it to the Lord in prayer. You can stick most any parable in Luke’s gospel and it will be framed in such a way to be about persisting in prayer. With The Friend at Midnight, we have an allegory in which you are requesting bread from your friend who is God. Because of your persistence God will grant your request. Keep on praying. The persistent turtle wins the race. That is how the Church has interpreted this parable through its history.

I have said that whenever a parable appears to have a judge, an absent landlord, or a king as the god-figure we should be suspicious. Now I will add to that. Whenever we have a crabby, sleepy guy as the god-figure we should be suspicious as well.

Parables are rarely allegories. Even as the church, beginning with the author of Luke, has read this parable as an allegory to make the moral point of the importance of the persistence of prayer, we might get more mileage out of it if we read it differently.

The parables of Jesus tell us something about life. In particular, they tell us about economic life, the economy of God, if you will, as opposed to the economy of this world of injustice.

Everyone knew what the kingdom of Caesar was like. They lived in it. Everyone knew what life was like in the kingdom of Herod. Jesus, through parable, offers a glimpse of the kingdom of God.

The Jesus Seminar Fellows thought this parable--if we can wrest it away from Luke--may go back to Jesus. It isn’t about persistence in prayer. As important as that may be, this parable isn’t that. It does have something to do with how we deal with food, the neighbor, and the stranger.

Here are some background items. People baked bread a few times a week perhaps. Everyone in the village would know who made bread most recently. If you had a guest you wouldn’t give the guest stale bread, but fresh bread.

Bread is not the meal itself. Bread was used as a utensil. Everyone had a loaf of bread, like a pita. Everyone dipped into a common bowl, some vegetable or bean dish. Then you eat what you have broken off and dipped. That way the common bowl stays clean.

The request is for bread, but possibly for more as the last line of the parable states: You will give that person whatever is needed.

There is a word with which we have to come to terms. The word is anaideia. It means shamelessness. It is the name of a Greek goddess. Anaideia was the goddess of ruthlessness, shamelessness, and unforgiveness. Her companion was Hybris or the god of violence. Anaideia and Hybris run the world don’t they?

The NRSV (the translation in your pew) has translated anaideia as persistence. That sounds like a positive quality. Because of the persistence of the one who calls out in the middle of the night, the crabby, sleepy guy will respond. The problem is that anaideia, no matter how you twist it doesn’t yield persistence.

Anaideia is a bad thing. It means shamelessness. What is shamelessness? It is the lack of shame. For instance, Transocean is shameless when it reports that this past year was its safest on record. Yes, that is the same year of the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed eleven people and poured five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Their safest year. Have they no shame? No, they have no shame. The goddess Anaideia is the CEO.

There is a problem. In our parable we have this weird word, shamelessness, sitting there. It is a key word. The parable hinges on it. It is because of shamelessness that you are going to grumble and fuss and stumble over the kids and to try to find your glasses so you can see well enough to locate three loaves of bread in the middle-of- the-night-why-don’t-these-people- travel-in-the-daylight-are-they-a-bunch-of-owls-and –why-doesn’t-my-friend-bake-his-own-darn-bread.

The second problem is that we don’t know who is shameless, the friend who asks for the three loaves or you. Shamelessness is the motivator, but we don’t know whose shamelessness it is that will get you out of your bed. The grammatical structure of the sentence could yield either reading.

We have a couple of questions. We need answers. We are going to leave Anaideia sitting here. We are going to leave shamelessness for a bit, go this way and then swing back and pick her up.

We need to look at the values of a peasant society and Torah obligations.

In a peasant society the highest value is security. Peasants will accept a great deal of exploitation for safety. There is a relationship with the elites, that is the landowners. The issue is not how much the elites take but how much they leave. They need to leave enough for subsistence. If it gets to the point where peasants have to pay from their subsistence, their survival, then they call injustice on the elites.

There was a delicate balance between elites and peasants. The elites could take nearly everything but not everything. Especially in times of struggle, the elites’ fundamental job from the peasants’ point of view is the basic subsistence safety net. They would put up with a great deal of exploitation in exchange for security.

The second value within a peasant village is that the community is more important than the individual. William Herzog writes in his book Parables as Subversive Speech about the Limited Good Society. Everything in a peasant society--land, wealth, love, honor and so forth--is limited in quantity and in short supply. If one gains, another loses. An individual could only improve oneself at the expense of others. Herzog writes:

Therefore, any individual’s gain was perceived as a threat to the entire village unless that gain was used for the poor or the common welfare of the village, and even then, the benefactor would be viewed with suspicion….The peasant’s goal was to remain within the profile of village expectations, not to stand out from them. P. 204

Security and community. You never get rich or even get a break, but no one goes hungry.

The third value is reciprocity. The neighbor asks from you, bread, for instance, because the neighbor has a claim on it. You give to the neighbor, because the neighbor will now be obligated in the future. This also worked with the village as a whole. Every family was guaranteed a minimal subsistence from the village. In turn, they were obligated to the village.

Back to our parable. We have a traveler coming at night expecting hospitality. One of the primary Torah values is hospitality to the stranger. The model is Abraham entertaining guests who turn out to be angels. The opposite, the model to avoid, is the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rather than show hospitality they actually seek to harm the guests.

The requirement for hospitality is not on individuals or families, but the entire village. Here is a speech from Jesus to his disciples, who are all itinerants. He gives them this speech before they go out on the road. They are the ones moving from village to village. They are the ones in the parable who are visiting at night.

Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you. But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Luke 10:8-11

We can see that the requirement of hospitality is upon the entire town. So, one interpretation of this parable is an obvious one. If you didn’t get up in the middle of the night and get the bread, the word would get around the village and you would be shamed. That is the way the Jesus Seminar seemed to interpret it given the translation in the bulletin. You would be ashamed not to answer your neighbor’s call because you have a duty to the village. That is one possible interpretation.

It seems a little too obvious, and it doesn’t quite fit the structure of the sentence.

I think the issue is about villages not individuals. It is also about competing values.

Hospitality isn’t a given in every village. It appears from the speech that Jesus gave to his disciples that not every village does show hospitality to the stranger. Jesus can imagine, probably from experience, that not every town will fulfill its Torah obligation to welcome the stranger. Not everyone gets up in the night and calls to the neighbor and not every neighbor wakes up and gets the bread and whatever else is needed for the meal.

I think that is what this parable wants to address. Why? Why wouldn’t they?

Why wouldn’t a village always show hospitality to the stranger?

One reason might be scarcity. In times of scarcity, there is pressure on the peasant village to secure for itself. This put pressure on the requirement for hospitality. This made a conflict of values between peasants and elites.

Elites or patrons would not necessarily share peasant values or Torah values or at least this Torah value. The Torah values of the elites had to do with purity. Keeping ritually clean as opposed to unclean. Peasants were not able to do that.

Throughout the gospels we find Jesus criticizing the elites, the scribes, and religious leaders, for twisting the Torah to their advantage. That is for making much of the purity codes, and ignoring the weightier aspects of justice and compassion.

From the perspective of the religious leaders, the elites, the ones who have interpreted the rules, the idea that peasants would give their food away to begging strangers is shameless. William Herzog writes:

For the internal elites of Palestine, the primary value of living by the purities was that it permitted them to pursue their acquisitive greed while remaining Torah-clean. In pursuing the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the peasants and rural poor, they mimicked the behavior of their Roman overlords. …From the point of view of these urban elites, the hospitality of the villagers was shameless. It was expended on a virtual stranger and gained them nothing in return. The villagers would have done better to save their food for hard times rather than expect their social superiors to take care of them when their subsistence failed. They were fools for expending their necessities to feed a stranger off the streets. pp. 213-4

What Jesus has done in this parable is to turn the tables on what is shameless. Jesus uses irony. He is saying that the kingdom of God is shameless. Shamelessness has to do with breaking boundaries.

Jesus is constantly accused of having no shame, of being shameless. He is a glutton and drunkard. He eats with sinners. He lets the woman touch his feet with her hair. He heals on the Sabbath. He doesn’t have a job. He wanders around and tells stories and one-liners for food. He and his disciples do not ritually wash before they eat. They pick heads of grain on the Sabbath. He bypasses the authority of the Temple and its priesthood and forgives sins. "You can too," he says.

How do you build an empire on this kind of behavior? Shameless.

Shamelessness does not apply to the person calling out for the three loaves nor to the person who gets up and provides the loaves, but to the whole village who lives by these counter-intuitive values of hospitality. In a time of scarcity, hospitality is shameless. Shamelessness is a negative. It means without a sense of shame. Without honor.

But Jesus turns it around and he says this is what the kingdom of God is about.

Welcome to the glorious shamelessness of the kingdom of God!

Listen to this parable again, with my use of the word, shamelessness.

Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend who comes to you in the middle of the night and says to you, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine on a trip has just shown up and I have nothing to offer him.’ And suppose you reply, ‘Stop bothering me. The door is already locked and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up to get you anything’—I tell you, even though you won’t get up and give the friend anything out of friendship, yet because of shamelessness you will get up and give that person whatever is needed.”

This parable may be a praise parable of villagers who get it. They exhibit shamelessness.

The shamelessness of the kingdom of God.

You know why you will get up and be hospitable to the stranger even though you don’t have two sticks to rub together? It is because of shamelessness. It is because you have no shame. You have inherited the values of the kingdom. You’ll help anybody, even when you don’t have the means to help yourself.

The elites won’t help you. They didn't do it in the first century. They won’t do it in the 21st century. They will invent all kinds of self-righteous and religious sounding excuses for why they get to retain all the stuff and let you starve. They will invent all kinds of theories such as "trickle-down economics". They’ll call you communists. They will claim that you are lazy and shameless for trying to take their money.

Let them.

But you,

says Jesus with a smile,

are shameless. You’ll help anyone, no matter what. That is the kingdom of God.

Amen.

Plains and Peaks FLIPS!

The 19th presbytery to flip from no to YES is Plains and Peaks. They approved amendment A today, 73-51 moving us to just one vote from ratifying this important change!




Give Plains and Peaks the Flipper Award!







The tally is 86-62.

The passing vote likely will come on Tuesday. Either Pacific or Twin Cities will the be the 87th!

Looks like we will get to 87 before the rapture after all.

Check the schedule!

Challenging Our National Sacred Myth

Now that President Obama has opened up the 9/11 can of worms with his Osama Spectacle, it appears to be a good opportunity to revisit this issue. Here is a speech by David Ray Griffin that was made into a film, 9/11 The Myth and the Reality. In this speech, he exposes nine falsehoods that individuals embrace when it comes to the events of 9/11, shows why they are unfounded, and offers his best view why the official conspiracy theory is false.

Griffin is a philosopher of religion and a theologian. That gives him an interesting perspective on the role of Myth in our lives. The official 9/11 story, delivered by President Bush from the pulpit of the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. just a couple of days after the event has become our nation's sacred myth. September 11th has become our new "Good Friday" in which the righteous were massacred by the radical Muslim horde.

Challenging this Myth is therefore blasphemy.

According to the official story about 9/11, America, because of its goodness, was attacked by fanatical Arab Muslims who hate our freedoms. This story has functioned as a Sacred Myth for the United States since that fateful day. And this function appears to have been carefully orchestrated. The very next day, President Bush announced his intention to lead "a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil."1 Then on September 13, he declared that the following day would be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks. And on that next day, the president himself, surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, delivered a sermon in the national cathedral, saying:

"Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . . In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. . . . [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America."

Through this unprecedented event, in which the president of the United States issued a declaration of war from a cathedral, French author Thierry Meyssan observed in 2002, "the American government consecrated . . . its version of events. From then on, any questioning of the official truth would be seen as sacrilege."

While preferable to sit back and watch the whole film, I thought I would do the work for you and list the nine myths and show you where you can find each addressed in the film.

You can purchase the film on DVD. You will also find it at a number of places on line, but the best quality is the one I have embedded. You have to put up with some advertising. Those who want to snicker will get a kick that it is posted on UFOTV!

You will also find a transcript of his speech here.

Here are the nine myths and where you can find them addressed in the film.

Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing. (11:00)

Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. (13:14)

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now. (17:30)

Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed. (19:20)

Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden. (22:40)

Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration. (27:58)

Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted. (34:55)

Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. (44:18)

Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon. (57:35)

Here is your midnight movie.

Middle Tennessee Flips!

In a surprise move, Middle Tennessee Presbytery (Nashville and outskirts) approved Amendment A today, 93-86-1. That is a major improvement from 95-139 last time.




Let's give them the FLIPPER!




Peaks (western Virginia) voted no on the amendment today but with great improvement in the equality vote, 89-117-5.

The tally is now 85-62.

We just need two more YESes!

We could get it as soon as next Tuesday the 10th.

Plains and Peaks could flip Saturday.
Then, if either Pacific or Twin Cities holds on Tuesday, we got 87!

Nicely done.

Here is the remaining schedule.

The Osama Spectacle and the Silencing of Dissent

As regular readers of this blog are aware, I am one of a growing number of Americans who have serious doubts regarding the official conspiracy theory of what happened on September 11th, 2001.

I have written about this before and you will find links to those posts and to other resources at the bottom of the sidebar.

I have joined other religious leaders such as David Ray Griffin, John B. Cobb, Walter Wink, Carol P. Christ, and Marvin Ellison, in signing this statement. The above are religious authors who I respect for their theological work and now respect even more for voicing their dissent.

And now Osama bin Laden (we are told) has been killed in Pakistan, his body DNA tested, and buried at sea all before you can say 'media circus'. The bonus is that this all happens after Obama trumps Trump over the "birther" nonsense. Now the "birthers" and the "truthers" can be linked together as tinfoil hat wearing moonbats. If you see no difference between the two, then there is little I can say.

I don't expect, you, my progressive friends, to go there with me. It is a dark place. I have no interest in losing friends and allies surrounding those things we share in common. I don't insist on my views even as occasionally I feel the need to share them.

However, perhaps you have felt a pit in your stomach the past few days. Maybe it is the jubilation. Maybe it's the media frenzy. Maybe it is all of the dead left in our wake the past decade in supposed search of this individual and others in our endless "war on terror". Maybe it is the ongoing feeling of being duped but you aren't sure how or when. Maybe it is the feeling that if you express these feelings and don't chant "USA! USA!" your family members, friends, co-workers, or boss will stuff an American flag in your mouth.

A Tale of Two Tweets

What I find disturbing is the silencing of dissent. I have two stories. Both have to do with tweeting. Yesterday, Jeff Wattrick of MLive.com reported on a tweet by John Conyers III, the son of Congressman John Conyers. The son of the congressman sent the following tweet:

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS SOLELY BEHIND 9/11 AND THE US HAD NO INVOLVEMENT OR KNOWLEDGE. YOU ARE A FOOL.

Wattrick followed up on that contacting not only the congressman's son but the congressman himself. The congressman's office had no comment. This seems reasonable. As embarrassing as it may be for a congressperson, I don't think it is the business of elected officials to be responsible for things their relatives say. Wattrick wrote:

So, why does this matter?

For starters, yeah, it’s big deal when the adult son (with his own leadership aspirations) of a powerful Congressman claims the U.S. government was complicit in the bloodiest foreign attack ever on American soil. Try to imagine Senator Arthur Vandenberg's children claiming FDR had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack during or after World War II.

And for the record, MLive didn’t go looking for John Conyers III’s opinion. This isn’t “gotcha journalism.” We didn’t ambush him with a tape recorder or camera. He made the decision to broadcast his views on a public social media site for the whole world to see.

Conspiracy theories, particularly Conyers III’s brand, are becoming something more than mere nuisance. Skepticism is virtue, but not at the expense of reason.

What caught my eye were these last two sentences. If they "are becoming more than mere nuisance" then what are they? What are "more than mere nuisance"? Crimes? Is free speech "more than mere nuisance"? What are we to do about these nuisances who exercise their first amendment right? What exactly are you proposing, Mr. Wattrick?

We may not like "conspiracy theories". I certainly am no fan of the government's conspiracy theory. But people do hold them. If they hold them, they have the right to express them and as far as I am concerned, I have an obligation as an American citizen to defend that right.

The second tweet was featured in the sports section of today's Johnson City Press. Rashard Mendenhall, a professional football player for the Pittsburgh Steelers, tweeted:

“We’ll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.”

I am with you, Mr. Mendenhall, along with nearly 1500 architects and engineers. Apparently, the Steelers felt the need to respond.

On Tuesday, team president Art Rooney II released a statement.

“I have not spoken with Rashard, so it is hard to explain or even comprehend what he meant with his recent Twitter comments. The entire Steelers organization is very proud of the job our military personnel have done and we can only hope this leads to our troops coming home soon.”

What is happening here? Now Mendenhall and his tweets have turned into a media frenzy. Have we come to a period in time when not even sports figures are allowed to express dissent? Do those who fail to cheer the Osama Spectacle dishonor the family members of those who died on September 11th, 2001? Are those who express doubt and dissent regarding the government's storyline no longer Americans?

I hope we are not coming to that, but you might want to read the latest from David Ray Griffin before you decide.

I am thankful today for 911 widow and activist, Kristen Breitweiser and U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and the many, many others who are bravely voicing (and tweeting) their dissent.

These are the people who give me hope.

The Father's Imperial Rule? -- A Sermon

The Father’s Imperial Rule?
John Shuck

First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee
May 1, 2011
Pluralism Sunday

Litany
Billy Collins

You are the bread and the knife,
The crystal goblet and the wine...
-Jacques Crickillon

You are the bread and the knife,
the crystal goblet and the wine.
You are the dew on the morning grass
and the burning wheel of the sun.
You are the white apron of the baker,
and the marsh birds suddenly in flight.

However, you are not the wind in the orchard,
the plums on the counter,
or the house of cards.
And you are certainly not the pine-scented air.
There is just no way that you are the pine-scented air.

It is possible that you are the fish under the bridge,
maybe even the pigeon on the general's head,
but you are not even close
to being the field of cornflowers at dusk.

And a quick look in the mirror will show
that you are neither the boots in the corner
nor the boat asleep in its boathouse.

It might interest you to know,
speaking of the plentiful imagery of the world,
that I am the sound of rain on the roof.

I also happen to be the shooting star,
the evening paper blowing down an alley
and the basket of chestnuts on the kitchen table.

I am also the moon in the trees
and the blind woman's tea cup.
But don't worry, I'm not the bread and the knife.
You are still the bread and the knife.
You will always be the bread and the knife,
not to mention the crystal goblet and--somehow--the wine.
Billy Collins, Nine Horses (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 69-70.


Gospel of Jesus 15:1-11

One time, some members of the Purity Party started to argue with him. To test him, they demanded a sign from heaven. He groaned under his breath and says, “Why does this generation insist on a sign? I swear to God, this generation won’t get any sign!”

And turning his back on them, he got back in the boat and crossed over to the other side.

His disciples said to him, “When will the Father’s imperial rule come?

[He said], “It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘Look, over there!’ Rather, the Father’s imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.”

On another occasion Jesus said, “You won’t be able to observe the coming of God’s imperial rule. People are not going to be able to say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘Over there!’ On the contrary, God’s imperial rule is right there in your presence.”

Jesus prayed, “Father, impose your imperial rule.”

Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Gospel of Jesus (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1999), p. 83, 84. Mark 8:11-13; Matthew 6:10; 16:1-4; 12:38-40; Luke 11:2, 29-30; 17:20-21; John 2:18; 6:30; Thomas 113:1-4

Today is Pluralism Sunday.

It is not a big day on the church calendar but maybe it should be.

Pluralism Sunday is the dream of Jim Burklo of The Center for Progressive Christianity. Our congregation pays a modest fee once per year to be connected with this movement that is primarily a website. You can find the website at www.tcpc.org. It is money well invested as folks have found our church because they saw us listed there. We also make use of the eight points of progressive Christianity as a helpful signpost of what we value.

Point Two of the Eight points is this:

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us;

That makes sense to me. It doesn’t seem that radical, really. Yet in some circles even the suggestion that another’s spiritual path is as good as mine is heresy. So, yes, I guess it is a radical notion. Our congregation makes a mission of being radical. According to our mission statement:

[we] Honor our Christian heritage while we explore the knowledge and wisdom of multiple religions, science, philosophy, humanities and psychology to deepen and enrich our spiritual journeys.

The point here is that not only do we recognize the faithfulness of other traditions we explore their knowledge and wisdom because these other traditions may enrich us.

For instance, today, we are having a Beltane celebration. This is a coincidence that it happens to fall on Pluralism Sunday. Elaine organized it without knowing that I was going to emphasize pluralism. In fact, I forgot about the pluralism thing until the last minute. It goes to show that every Sunday is Pluralism Sunday whether we recognize it or not!

The Beltane service will be enriching. It is a Celtic festival that celebrates new growth and fertility. We will celebrate tonight with dancing and dining. It starts at 6 p.m. Bring a dish. Foods for Beltane are dairy or the season’s first produce. If the weather stays nice we will have it outside. Bring ribbons or flowers to decorate the festival site.

We honor our Christian heritage and we explore and celebrate other traditions. Not either/or but both/and. I am not bragging, just stating a value. Pluralism Sunday is a special day to remind us to be intentional about that aspect of our congregation’s mission. Perhaps you know of ways that we could be even more intentional about that.

Revisiting the figure of Jesus is an important part of this work of being intentional. Jesus has served too commonly, unfortunately, as an icon of exclusivity. “Jesus is the only way” and so forth. We all know about that. That is why scholarly work on the origins of Christianity can be a helpful tool in re-shaping the figure of Jesus for the work of peace and justice. That is good work. But it is up to each individual to find her or his own way. We find our own personal Jesus.

My personal Jesus doesn’t have to be boss of the planet. He is happy to share the space.

Here is a song about Jesus for Pluralism Sunday. It is called “I Love You and Buddha Too." I am going to play it for you, but I want to make sure you have the lyrics. It goes like this here:

Oh Jesus, I love You
And I love Buddha too
Ramakrishna, Guru Dev
Tao Te Ching and Mohammed

Why do some people say
That there is just one way
To love You, God, and come to You?
We are all a part of You

You are un-nameable
You are unknowable
All we have is metaphor
That's what time and space are for

Is the universe Your thought?
You are and You are not
You are many, You are one
Ever ending, just begun

And it has a catchy tune to go with it. This is Mason Jennings:




The Jesus that I embrace loves Buddha, too, and Krishna and Mohammad, and the whole gang. My personal Jesus, would, if here today, join us in our Beltane celebration. He would be all about dancing and dining with us.

I think he would be dismayed at the enmity between religions and would inhabit that place that is both beyond and betwixt them. He would be found dancing in our midst and inviting all of us to let go of our exclusive claims and honor the other. He would lightly poke fun at us and make us play together.

And he’d probably get crucified for it again.

But not even that would stop him.

That is why he is more than historical as are other figures and symbols in our spiritual traditions.

Jesus liked to talk about something that is translated “kingdom of God.” It is also translated as “realm of God” or “empire of God” or “the Father’s imperial rule” or even as we said in our communion liturgy last Sunday, the “kin-dom of God”. The way it is translated provides its nuance for you.

Jesus used playful parables, aphorisms, and other examples to point to this image. When people heard the phrase “kingdom of God” they had an association with it as we may have an association with it.

• For some it might have been the apocalyptic and triumphant return of the Israelite monarchy.
• The glory days of David and Solomon.
• Maybe it would be everyone sitting under his or her own fig tree.
• Maybe economic justice with poor rich and the mighty thrown from their thrones.
• For others, it would be the temple where the all the nations would come and worship.
• For others, there would be no temple at all.
  

Imagine the perfect world. What would it be like for you? Take a moment and do that. If all the politicians and world leaders suddenly did what you wanted them to do, what would the world look like? If you were the king or queen of Earth, what would you do? What would the world be like if God’s kingdom were to come on Earth as it is in heaven?

Take a moment and imagine it. Got something?

We all want the world better in some way. We all want the kingdom of God as we imagine it.

Jesus tapped into that desire. He played with that image, the kingdom of God. He toyed with it and told parables and aphorisms about it, because it isn’t something you can really define outside of playing with metaphor.

Folks would ask him, “When is this kingdom of God” this “Father’s imperial rule” that you keep talking about coming? How will we know? Or in the words of George Carlin, “When Will Jesus Bring the Porkchops?”

Jesus would just smile.

I included this poem from Billy Collins because I thought it was a fun, playful poke at that aspect of us that holds tightly to our treasured images. When our metaphors become too airtight, along comes the poet to pop them. When we get a bit too intense with our dreams and images, the poet and the teller of parables asks us,

“Are you sure?”

The poet says:

“You may think of yourself as the bread and the knife, the crystal goblet and the wine. OK. But it is also possible that you are the pigeon on the general’s head. But we’ll let you think you are the crystal goblet.”

The poet prods us about our dreams and visions. The poet says to us:

“In your dream of a perfect world, what if it was so perfect that there was no room in it for you?”

So when his eager followers asked Jesus,

“When will the kingdom come?”

Jesus replied,

“The Father’s imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.”

And at other times he said,

“It’s right here in your presence.”

At and other times he prayed,

“Father, impose your imperial rule.”

Still at other times he said it is a woman kneading dough, or a mustard seed out of control, or an empty jar spilling its meal on the road. He compared it to the Good Samaritan, your enemy helping you when you are in trouble.

Perhaps he even said it is the crystal goblet and the wine. If he did, I am sure he followed it up with the thing about the pigeon.

I think, at least my takeaway, is something like this. I think Jesus poked at his friends and he poked at that exclusive aspect within all of us, that part of us that wants the world to be better and wants the world to embrace our religion, our politics, our wisdom.

Maybe my personal Jesus is telling me something like this:

“If you want to change the world, John, that is cool. I do too. But as you go about it, don’t forget to look within. There are others who want to do the same thing. Who knows? They may have something to offer. Oh, and by the way, try not to take yourself too seriously. After all, there is a pigeon on your head.”

Amen.