Tag Archives: glbt

by

Friday Link Love

Away we go:

Man Barely Able to Stand Does the Unthinkable — YouTube

I would like to know more specifics about how the yoga teacher helped him, but yes. Amazing.

h/t: Teri Peterson

~

Neil deGrasse Tyson Gets Sidetracked While Singing Children’s Songs — McSweeney’s

They get his gee-whiz pegagogical voice just right:

Actually, some might call the wheels on the bus a “discovery” more than an invention, as most things in this world are a discovery of invention, rather than a fabrication out of nothing. This brings up something I want to discuss briefly here, if you will allow, because I think the misconception that a lot of people have, uh, concerning, concerning SCIENTISTS. Oooo, “Scientists.” That word. Strikes fear into the heart of some, and amazement into the heart of, well, me. And probably you, since you are here today in this planetarium, listening to me go on and on about my love for this… hang on a sec, let me… okay, so, we often find people BLAMING scientists for, for, for, these discoveries and inventions… being misused or being funded for misuse. We must remember that the discovery itself is not moral or immoral, it is the application of said discovery that is required to be held to that standard. Also, how cool are wheels on busses, right? And circles, in general. The fact that you can take a circle and divide it by its radius and you get pi, everytime, is astounding to me. Gives me chills every time.

More at the link. And for those keeping score, this is the second week in a row that I’ve featured NdGT on Friday Link Love. Why? Because he’s kind of a big deal.

~

The Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen — That Organic Girl

This post offers a list of foods that are most important to buy organic (if possible) and a list of foods for which organic isn’t that critical.

I’m a pretty half-***ed consumer when it comes to organic goods—I basically get what’s available and what my kids are likely to eat. (Caroline just informed me that she no longer likes the big three: apples, oranges, or bananas. C’mon, WORK WITH ME KID.)

~

Speaking of food,

The Anti-Diet — The Londoner

As I wrote on my Pinterest boards, “Best overview I’ve read on how to lose weight without dieting. Covers exercise, emotionally based eating, sustaining a discipline, the importance of enjoying food… I don’t know about the cravings piece (e.g. if you crave carbonated drinks you need more calcium) but it’s interesting.”

~

Traditional Marriage: One Man, Many Women, Some Girls, Some Slaves — Religion Dispatches

Just so we’re clear:

Time to break out your Bible, Mr. Perkins! Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)

But that’s not all. In biblical society, when you conquered another city, tribe, or nation, the victorious men would “win” their defeated foes’ wives as part of the spoils. It also commanded levirate marriage, the system wherein, if a man died, his younger brother would have to marry his widow and produce heirs with her who would be considered the older brother’s descendants. Now that’s traditional marriage!

More. Much more.

Last week a conservative member of my denomination told NPR, ”From the Old Testament and throughout the New Testament, the only sexual relationships that are affirmed in scripture are those in the context of marriage between one man and one woman.” To quote my friend Michael: biblical scholarship FAIL.

You want to be against gay marriage? You can do that. But the Bible doesn’t help you as much as you think it does.

~

And just for fun, and to fill my quota on posts from Colossal:

Gale-Force Winds Directly to the Face — Colossal

So very entertaining and bizarre. It’s exactly what it sounds like:

Have a great weekend, all.

by

Speaking of North Carolina… A Repost

This was the second post I wrote on The Blue Room, related to Prop 8 in California. It relates a bit to what’s going on down in North Carolina.

———-

Nothing like tackling a controversial issue on the second day of a new blog!

I’m not going to say much about Judge Walker’s decision declaring California’s gay-marriage ban unconstitutional. But I am thinking about a few things today.

I remember seven years ago this summer, going to the Fairfax County Courthouse to get authorized to perform weddings in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In accordance with Virginia law, I had to fill out a form, get a letter from my presbytery saying I was a minister in good standing, pay $30, and take an oath. I remember walking out of the courthouse afterwards, calling Robert and laughing: “Hey! I’ve got the ‘power vested in me’ now!”

Something about that whole transaction felt very, very strange to me at the time. It seemed quite odd that I, a minister called by God and ordained to serve a local congregation, was now in effect performing a service on behalf of the state… that a couple whose wedding I officiated would not be legally married until I signed the license and sent it back to the county.

I remember when Robert and I went to get our marriage license (sixteen years ago!), the clerk asked us a long list of questions that we had to answer with “I do” and the like. As bureaucratic processes go, it was unexpectedly moving. Almost… liturgical? We left, and one of us said to the other, Did we just get married? Because it kinda feels like we did. Hey, if only we’d kissed afterwards, we could have saved everyone a lot of time and money…

This was in Texas, where I’ve also performed weddings, but unlike Virginia, there were no legal hoops to jump through beforehand. I’ve often wondered why Texas doesn’t vet its clergy like Virginia does. Could it be that Texas’s requirements and processes for getting a marriage license are more stringent, making the credentials of the officiant less relevant? I haven’t gotten a marriage license in Virginia so I have no idea. I hope one of my smart readers has some info about this.

The point is this, however: seven years ago, when I got ordained, I had not given much thought to the nuances of how gay marriage could or would be enacted from a policy perspective. But it seems clear to me now, as many others have said, that we need to separate the religious service of marriage from its civil aspects. I believe it is the only way forward, and it also gets clergy out of this agent-of-the-state weirdness. Even some of the opponents to gay marriage acknowledge that the legal rights of partnership should not be denied to same-sex couples.

I’m thinking about a couple whose wedding I recently officiated. I woke up the morning of their wedding rehearsal with a start, realizing that I hadn’t said anything to them in our premarital counseling about getting a marriage license. It isn’t my job to remind them, but usually it comes up, and I tell them to bring their paperwork to the service, if not the rehearsal, so I can sign it.

At the rehearsal I mention this to the groom and he says, “Oh, we’re actually not planning to get a marriage license. We really don’t care what our status is with the government. What matters to us is that our union be blessed by God.”

Now, inside I’m thinking, This is a really, really bad idea. This couple already has children together, and let’s face it, there are tangible benefits to being “officially” married… which of course is a big part of why gay persons are fighting for this civil right. And I told some friends afterward about this and several suggested that they probably already were married and either didn’t want their family to know, or wanted the imprimatur of the church on their union. I also felt a little put out: then what am I doing here? Play-acting? Fake marrying?

Later I realized: they cared more about the liturgical and sacramental aspects of marriage than the legal ones. Isn’t that something? What I was doing there was not play-acting, but what I as a clergyperson am supposed to do: to ask God’s blessing on the union between two people, to pray for their welfare, and to support them as they pledge their lives to one another.

And whatever legal/contractual arrangement they have with one another, as important and beneficial as that is, is a separate issue entirely.

What do you think?

by

Frick and Frack: A Tale of Justice

Below is a letter I am sending to the president of Columbia Theological Seminary, Dr. Steve Hayner, and members of the “cabinet”:

~

I know you have been receiving countless communications about your recent announcement regarding Columbia’s housing policy. One of these letters is from my friend, Michael Kirby.

I write now, with his permission, to tell you a part of the story that he did not.

Michael and I were friends long before seminary. We met in Houston, Texas, both former Southern Baptists who attended the same church, St. Philip Presbyterian. Michael was an elder; I was a deacon and later a staff member. We were in Sunday School class together. We sang in the choir together. We went on young-adult retreats together (back when we were young adults). And, nurtured in the loving care of that amazing church community, we felt God calling us to ministry—not exactly together, but in parallel.

We were interested in some of the same seminaries, and happened to attend the same CTS Inquirer’s Weekend in November 1999. We didn’t talk much that weekend, giving each other space to discern, but I found myself wondering whether he was as lit up with excitement as I was over what Columbia had to offer. He was.

I still remember the tentative conversation with Michael the day the scholarship announcements went out, and the explosion of joy when we found out that we had both received identical scholarships. Over the years at Columbia, it’s fair to say that we competed, but in the best possible way: We drove one another to do our absolute best. We supported and encouraged one another and studied together. We gave each other tips for navigating our home presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry. We each found our own niches and leadership opportunities while drawing closer to one another. We remain close to this day. I celebrate his ministry in Chicago and across the larger church, particularly as a voice for justice and for the compassion of God that knows no bounds.

I’ll be honest. In my early stages of discernment, when I pictured myself in seminary, I imagined striking out on my own, not with someone from my hometown. But I cannot imagine my call story without Michael Kirby.

Our stories diverge in one important way. Michael, a gay man, arrived at Columbia unpartnered, whereas I came with a husband. And therein lies the cruel twist: despite our similarities in background, despite our mutual commitment to academic rigor and excellence in ministry, and despite our shared love for the church, had Michael been the one to arrive with a husband instead of me, he would have been barred from campus housing.

That, in short, is a travesty.

I do not envy you the many constituencies and interests you must consider in stewarding Columbia Seminary, an institution we all love and revere. But as you listen to the myriad voices on this issue, don’t forget the future Michael Kirbys out there:
folks who are just now feeling the Holy Spirit tug at them,
folks who feel most alive when they are serving the church,
folks for whom a seminary education may be out of reach financially if they are forced to live off campus…
And folks who will not consider Columbia Theological Seminary so long as they and their families are excluded from a vital part of campus life.

What profoundly gifted servants of God will you never have the opportunity to nurture and grow with as a result of this policy?

Thank you for listening.

Peace of Christ,

The Rev. MaryAnn McKibben Dana
M.Div. 2003

by

Friday Link Love

Right to it:

Beautiful Imperfection – O Magazine

This week, as the Miss Representation trailer has been zipping around Facebook, O Magazine hits the stands with a photo of a model with lines where she would need to be ‘shopped or sliced in order to look like Barbie:

I’m a little boggled that the model above is identified as being “plus sized,” and a few of the comments I read insisted that this beautiful gal was overweight and unhealthy. Aroo?

I hope this photo circulates widely. Kudos to photographer Matthew Rolston.

~

Coming Out as an Evangelical Supporter of Gay Rights – Mark Achtemeier

This Saturday I was privileged to speak at the ordination of a man I believe will be a wonderful minister. That man, Scott Anderson, happens to be the first openly gay person ordained in my denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), since a historic policy shift last July.

Scott’s congregation in Madison was bursting with celebration during the service. However, not everyone in our denomination felt joyful.

I understand this distress because, as a lifelong conservative Christian, for most of my life I would have felt the same way.

Thanks be to God for Dr. Achtemeier’s conversion and witness.

~

Laughing in Church – Faith and Leadership

Levity is still considered excessive in some churches. (Believe me, I’ve visited them and worshiped in them.) And when bishops, priests, sisters, brothers, ministers, pastors, elders, pastoral associates, music ministers, hospital chaplains, directors of religious education, and religious education teachers act as if they have the weight of the world on their shoulders, that no job is as difficult as theirs, and that they alone are responsible for doing God’s work, then we’re in trouble.

~

10Q: Reflect. React. Renew.

A place to write and reflect on ten questions, in commemoration of the Jewish High Holidays. Why don’t Presbyterians do anything this cool?

~

With Time Running Short, Jobs Managed His Farewells – New York Times

If you’re not tired of all the Steve Jobs articles, this is a good one. People wanted to give him awards and honor him at banquets, but near the end, he just wanted to have dinner at home with his kids. This is a good one about saying “No” in order to say a bigger “Yes.”

~

How Yelp Is Killing Chain Restaurants - Ezra Klein

Business at chain restaurants is decreasing as the popularity of Yelp increases. Good stuff!

We use Yelp a lot, and have even started using it on road trips, a practice Robert instigated. I often bristle at first, because local restaurants are typically a few miles off the interstate and I just like to get where we’re going. But it almost always turns out much better—more pleasant and interesting than the fast food options.

~

Pendulum Motion (YouTube)

This delighted my kids the other day:

Have a great weekend.

by

Friday Link Love

Chock full of linky goodness!

~

Street Signs, Made Better

These are street signs that have been vandalized upgraded in creative ways. A few favorites are on the right.

~

Christians Need a Ramadan

I wish Christians had Ramadan.   I think we’d be stronger, more faithful, more joyful, and better off for it.

We are all orienting our lives around something.  We are being habituated in ways that either bring life or death, or maybe something in between, like apathy.    It might surprise many of us to discover that the first Christians around Jesus called themselves The Way.     Being a Christian was about living in a certain way that was distinguishable from other ways.  It might surprise many of us to discover that Sharia, the law for Muslims so often used pejoratively in America, also means The Way.

Have we lost our way when we reduce Christianity to a belief?

Umm, yes?

~

Speaking of our Muslim friends:

A Fascinating Look at the Political Views of Muslim Americans

Muslim Americans are more likely than Christians or Jews to believe that targeting and killing civilians is never justified, whether it is done by the military or an individual. Put another way, Christians and Jews are more comfortable with civilians being targeted and killed by a wide margin.

Zoinks!

~

Two links from the Happiness Project site:

Reading Suggestions for Young Adult Literature 

I enjoy YA novels but always forget about this genre when I’m procuring books.

Also…

Make Something by Hand

I do so much thinking/head work that I find it energizing to tinker with hand-made stuff, whether it’s paper beads (which I made the other night while BFF and I talked late into the evening) or something in the kitchen.

~

And finally, I already linked to this on Facebook, but how about this for unbridled joy (pun intended)?
60 Awesome Portraits of Gay Couples Just Married in New York

Now does that look like the fall of Western Civilization to you?

Have an excellent weekend, loveys.

by

My Most Controversial PCUSA/10A Post All Week

Well, I think it is, anyway. I’ve written two other posts related to 10A this week. (Amendment 10A changes the ordination standards to permit gay and lesbian people in committed relationships to be ordained; more here.) But more than the other two, this post has me quaking a bit, because I want to be as precise as I can.

Preface: I am with Bruce Reyes-Chow, former moderator of the PCUSA, in placing a high premium on graciousness, even and especially when one’s point of view prevails. I write this in that spirit.

There’s a lot of stuff floating around the intertubes since this decision—here’s one great list of responses. There is a concern, or perhaps just an awareness, that congregations might be leaving the PC(USA) over this decision. Some already have—one estimate is that 100 congregations (out of our 11,000) have left in recent years over this.

One item zipping around the ‘tubes is a letter to those who are troubled by the decision—when I see a copy on the Internet I’ll link to it. It was written by a couple of pastors in Chicagoland, but signed by several other folks, including some friends of mine. I was asked to sign this letter but opted not to. This blog post tries to explain why.

In essence, the letter expresses gratitude for the passage of 10A. At the same time, it asks those who are disappointed not to leave the denomination. The PC(USA) would be poorer without you and your voice, as we believe it would be without us and our voice, the authors write. I have heard this sentiment expressed from many quarters—24 former moderators of the PC(USA) offered a similar letter, saying, We believe that the Presbyterian Church (USA) needs the voices and gifts of all of us, whether we agree with Amendment 10-A or not. Our unity is strengthened by our diversity, and vigorous debate as well as mutual forbearance is essential to the body.

This sentiment is practically sacrosanct in certain liberal circles (not that all of our former moderators are liberals). And I completely agree that a denomination is strengthened by hearing a diversity of voices. This is fundamentally theological: we are united in Christ through our baptism, not our opinions. We are adopted into this family, this crazy, cranky, contentious, sometimes and unexpectedly beautiful family.

And engagement with people of differing views helps strengthen and hone one’s own view. And sometimes, people’s hearts are changed. I need my heart changed on a great many things. Not to mention the fact that, while I might disagree with people about GLBT issues, I might agree with them, and even find common cause with them, around other issues. We are not a single-issue denomination.

That said, here are a few reasons why I can’t sign on to pleas for people to stay:

1. Public witness to those outside the church: Yes, community across theological lines is important. But at one point does unity compromise our witness? I have a number of friends, non-religious friends, who find issues of GLBT equality to be a complete no-brainer. (In fact, it’s worth mentioning that the number 1 view of Christians from young people outside the church is that we are “anti-gay”.) It’s hard enough for them to understand why I would remain in a denomination in which so many people oppose gay rights and the full equality and participation of gay persons. What does it say to them about my conviction on these matters when I start begging people to stick around who don’t value that? What does it say to GLBT people who have been hurt by the church?

This works the other way too. For people who feel that they are being biblically faithful by opposing GLBT inclusion in leadership, perhaps it dilutes their mission and ministry to remain in fellowship with me, who clearly interprets the Bible very differently. More on this in #5.

2. It acknowledges our post-denominational, decentralized reality. I recently heard a lament that there are 38,000 denominations world-wide. Though it might be heretical to ask this, why is this so bad? Is our goal really one big super-denomination? We already have that; it’s called the church universal. I think 38,000 denominations is a good thing. If anything, we could stand to be even more decentralized. The Internet provides manifold ways for congregations and individuals to connect—we no longer need a bureaucracy to do that work for us.

Also, if the Presbyterian Church down the street leaves the denomination, it’s not like I’m suddenly going to brand them as evil. They’ve just… left the denomination. They are still my brother and sister in Christ. Perhaps it’s because I’m relatively new to the PCUSA, but I simply do not understand the grief over this. This is not the Civil War. This is denominational affiliation—something people care less and less about when “shopping” for a church.

3. Theologically: it makes an idol of unity. We are called in our ordination vows to uphold the “peace, unity and purity” of the church. Pleas for people to stay seem to elevate unity over the other two. People have been saying, “this allows people to ordain those whom they deem suitable, but nobody’s going to be forced to ordain gay people.” I totally get that and am not arguing for quotas or anything. But isn’t this trying to have it both ways? Do we value the full inclusion of GLBT people, or do we only value it up to the point that other churches begin to leave?

4. From a systems perspective. Simply stated, I don’t know how a self-differentiated leader justifies going after people who threaten to leave, trying to talk them into staying.

Granted, I have only had one person threaten to leave a congregation. (I know, give it time.) Here is what I said to that person:

“That is a significant threat that you are making. I need you to know that I take threats to leave very seriously. And I will not try to talk you out of this. I will be sad to see you go, but you need to follow what your conscience leads you to do. Please let me know what you decide.”

I don’t know how a self-differentiated leader does otherwise. Sure, there are some issues that can be ironed out. I’m not saying you boot someone out the minute they make a threat. But let’s be honest. Some folks threaten to leave just to yank your chain, or to hold a community hostage. Others do it because they sincerely can’t go where you’re going. In both cases, it seems to me, the reaction should be the same—to take the request seriously and not be captive to it. Which leads to…

5. (and most important) It seems disrespectful to the other person’s point of view. To ask people to stay belittles how important this issue is to them. For many folks this is nothing less than an abandonment of biblical standards. While I obviously don’t agree, and can scarcely even put myself in the place of understanding such a view (though I try hard), it is nonetheless a deeply held view. It seems to me that saying “No no, please stay” does not honor the dignity of the other person’s deeply held view.

I hope it’s obvious that I’m not saying “We win. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Quite the opposite. I have quoted the Princess Bride many times on this topic, which I picked up from a training many years ago. That is, that if you sincerely feel that the Spirit is leading you a certain direction—as a denomination, as a congregation—and someone really cannot or does not want to come along, the most faithful response is to say, like Wesley, “As you wish.” And remember, “As you wish” always meant “I love you.” I love the people who are hurt by this. If they really and truly do not feel that they can remain in our denomination, then I want to bless them on their way.

One of the basic foundations of love is freedom.

Love does not make threats, but love does not beg, either.

by

Letter to the Congregation

Here is what I wrote to the congregation in an e-mail this morning…

Dear friends,

News of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has hit the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and many other news outlets. Let me tell you what I know and offer a word as your pastor.

Yesterday the Presbytery of Twin Cities Area became the 87th presbytery in our denomination to approve “amendment A,” which means that this amendment will become part of our Book of Order (church constitution) this summer. Amendment A removes language that prevents gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships from being ordained or installed as deacons, elders or ministers. In other words, GLBT persons can now be ordained in jurisdictions that elect to do so. Here is the new language:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

What does this mean in practical terms? I recommend the following article that describes what is different, and what is the same, under this new language:

http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/oga/pdf/10a/10a-faq.pdf

And here is a video message from our moderator, Elder Cindy Bolbach:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZcQa7fME8

I know that reactions across the Presbyterian Church (USA) are mixed today. For some people, this decision comes with grief and concern, even pain, that we seem to have abandoned scriptural authority in favor of cultural “relevance.” Others are celebrating the arrival of justice for those whom God has called to ministry, regardless of sexual orientation. For the former, the adoption of amendment A seems unthinkable. For the latter, it is a no-brainer that has been a long time in coming. I suspect we have both views represented at Idylwood Presbyterian Church.

One of the stated values of IPC is its diversity and inclusiveness. It is something you all lifted up in your Church Information Form when you were seeking a pastor, and it is a value that I hear you all talk about frequently. Here is our chance walk the talk, as we seek to be faithful toward those who differ from us.

I am available and happy to talk with any of you further about this shift, how I interpret it, and what it all means–and I’d like to hear your thoughts as well.

Peace,

MaryAnn

by

Here I Stand

I was sifting through some old writing recently and found a piece about some family friends that I am editing and updating a bit for today:

This summer will mark the 35th anniversary of D & B, who are family friends. Their daughter L was a playmate growing up. They lived in a small bungalow one street over from us, close enough that I didn’t have to cross the Big Street in order to walk there.

D & B are both attorneys, and they had given L a bunch of old textbooks which we used in our games of School. We spent many hours underlining them using a variety of felt tip pens. L also had an impressive assortment of Star Wars toys. My favorite was the Death Star trash compactor complete with spongy debris.

D & B were very calm and collected parents. One afternoon L and I got into the cookie dough while they were out on a quick errand. They pulled into the driveway just in time to see us through the window, closing the refrigerator and hustling back to L’s room. They came in and asked, “What were you all doing?”

The ritual at my house was to answer “Nothing” right off the bat, which both parent and child knew wasn’t true, but it was a way of easing into it. This time, my reflexive “Nothing” coincided with L’s “Eating cookie dough.” I looked at her in awe. Wow, she tells the truth the first time!

They taught her honesty and self-assurance both. One time we were kicking the football around in the front yard, being silly, when some older teenagers across the street burst out laughing. I decided they were laughing at us and wanted to stop playing our game. L was genuinely puzzled. “Why should we stop? We’re just playing around. Why do you care what they think anyway?”

Why indeed? I still ask myself that question.

Anyway, D & B have been together thirty-five years. I can’t quite fathom what thirty-five years is like, but they inspire me to give it a go. Robert and I are less than halfway there and it seems like we’ve already been through a couple of lifetimes’ worth of stuff. We’ll hit thirty five in the year 2029—we’re talking hovercraft and apes taking over the planet. D & B’s thirty-five years began in 1976, amid the red, white and blue of the bicentennial, I suppose. Now we have $4 gas and the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Thirty-five years. That’s more than twice as long as my parents lasted. Robert’s too. Which is peculiar, seeing as how our parents are all straight, whereas people continue to insist that the union of D & B could not possibly be blessed by the God of the Old and New Testaments.

I think those people are wrong.

Today, a vote was taken that clears the way for gay and lesbian Christians to be approved for ordination as leaders in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I know people who will be heartbroken at this shift. They are not evil, bile-spouting hate-mongers, by the way. And I also know others whose hearts were broken a long time ago when the church that baptized and nurtured them refused to affirm their call to ministry simply because of who they love and how they’re made. Some people find today’s decision unthinkable. And others find it a complete no-brainer.

As for me, I’ve studied the Bible, I’ve heard all the arguments, I’ve read the books and the white papers and the word studies. Like Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’ve also been very aware that in another time and place, it would have been my suitability for ministry that would have been up for a vote. It would have been my call that, when approved, was a grievous sign of our abandoning of biblical principles in favor of what’s culturally popular. So it goes.

I am sure some will read my little story about D & B and conclude that I have let myself be “blown about by the whims of culture” in supporting the inclusion of GLBT persons in leadership. In a denomination that affirms scripture as our authority, this is a serious charge. And sure, I am as much a product of my culture as anyone. But in fact these folks have it backwards. The God whom I encounter in the Bible and in the stories of Jesus of Nazareth becomes enfleshed in the lives of people who have nurtured me and shown love and faithfulness. D & B’s steadfast relationship is just one example of that. I’ve also seen this God in the lives of single people, divorced people, and countless others.

So today, I celebrate. I celebrate with gifted ministers like M and K and K and many others, and for folks I don’t even know.

I can do no other.

by

A Letter to Senator Webb

Every few weeks I try to contact a public official, whether it’s a phone call to a senator or a letter to a member of the school board. The topics are wide-ranging but I try to comment on a timely issue when I can. Some letters are more impassioned than others.

It’s as much a spiritual discipline as anything else. I am just one person, and I know that my letter is one of many and probably doesn’t make a tremendous difference. But it feels like an important thing to do. It’s my way of lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness. And we never know when we will be the tipping point.

Here is today’s:

—————-

Dear Senator Webb,

Justice delayed is justice denied. I strongly urge you to vote to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on Tuesday.

You have said in the past that you want to respect the process, that the members of the military need to have their say.

In response, I would ask you to remember the almost 14,000 troops who have been fired for being gay or lesbian–which in addition to being a disgrace, is tactically foolish while we’ve been prosecuting two wars.

I also remind you that a majority of Americans are opposed to DADT and want to see it end. Sometimes, doing the right thing for a minority puts you at odds with the majority. This is not one of those times.

Finally, I urge you to remember the oath you took when you became a senator. You vowed to “support and defend the constitution.” Voting to retain a form of discrimination that has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge is an affront to that oath.

It is also an affront to the 14,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers who uttered those very same words when they joined the military.

I implore you to show leadership on this issue.

In appreciation,
The Rev. MaryAnn McKibben Dana