|
ghosthouse
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Charles
Country: United States
State: New York
Gender: Male
Interests: Reading. Writing. Stories, poems, plays, essays, novels. Hiking the Appalachian Trail. Listening to music before everyone else discovers it. Still listening to it after everyone finally discovers it. Watching incredibly cool movies, regardless of the original language spoken. Rejecting political and social extremism of whatever kind. Seeking Truth wherever it may be found.
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
2/25/2006
|
|
| My apologies for the delay in this week's post. Toward the end of a semester, sometimes my free time comes in smaller and smaller doses, and I find myself finding it more difficult to sneak away from the work long enough to do routine things that happen naturally during the rest of the year. Things such as writing blogs. Because, of course, I have a lot to say about things happening in the world around us, as well as what I experienced at church this past Sunday.
Speaking of which. . . . Heading into Sunday morning, I was debating whether to revisit the Russian Orthodox Church or the Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Church, either of which I had last visited the least recently. Since I was slow in beginning my adventures for the day, I decided to go to the Lutheran church, whose service begins 15 minutes later than the Orthodox church, though arriving late to the Orthodox Church is not a particular issue: the service there is structured in such a way that latecomers can be readily incorporated, since the culmination of the service (communion) occurs at the very end. What caused me to hesitate about attending the Lutheran church was the possibility that the Presbyterian pastor who had preached the previous two visits would be preaching again. The last time, his sermon rambled across the landscape of the entire Bible for around 40-45 minutes and never seemed to reach any point. So I had decided that, if he were preaching again, I would sneak out and go to the Orthodox Church or maybe arrive early enough at St Paul's Catholic Church so I could have a seat at the 11:00 Mass.
When I arrived at Family of Faith, one of the women was in the narthex, arranging materials on one of the tables. She greeted me pleasantly and handed my the bulletin for the morning service. To my surprise and delight, the sermon was going to be preached by one of my colleagues, who happens to be Professor of Historical Theology at the college. In our conversation afterwards, I learned that he lives in the area and that he and his family are Lutherans of the Missouri Synod variety (at least that is where they have wound up in recent years). Though he is not a pastor, he is an excellent teacher, and he attends a different Lutheran (Missouri Synod) Church up this way--Trinity Lutheran Church in Walden. Though I had driven by that church a number of times over the years, as it stands prominently on NY 208 just south of Walden, the church had not surfaced on any of the Google searches I did for local churches--and I had centered one of those searches on Walden, too. Not to mention that the church does have a website. So I now have discovered another church worth visiting. (Amazing how new churches keep crawling out of the woodwork. I wonder how many more a tucked away in the nooks and crannies of Orange and Ulster Counties?) One of my other colleagues, who is a pastor of a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) congregation up toward the Catskills, told me last night that Trinity tends to be more charismatic and contemporary than more LCMS congregations. I had already picked up the contemporary part from the website, but the charismatic part fits, I guess. Evidently, from what I have learned, Trinity is no more a standard LCMS than is Family of Faith. But I am not hung up on whether a church fits its traditional profile or traditional expectations for a congregation of its denominational affiliation; what matters most to me is whether the authentic gospel is proclaimed, as well as whether that faith community is where I am supposed to be.
But all of that is fodder for another church visit, perhaps next week. Back to my observations from this week's Family of Faith service.
Though I had arrived a few minutes late, the service proper had not yet begun, and the elder who was presiding over the service was making the announcements. For the second consecutive visit there, they did not have the contemporary music praise band in attendance, which did not bother me a bit, since the praise music was not a strength of the service on my first two visits. Instead, they replaced the sung praise with a handful of praise testimonies from the congregation. The music otherwise consisted of hymns accompanied by an organ: "Come, O Precious Ransom, Come," "Hosanna to the Coming Lord," and "Hark the Glad Sound! The Savior Comes." All were Advent hymns, and all were thoroughly unfamiliar to me. But they were Advent hymns, and though they did not light it during the service, the Advent wreath had its two candles lit.
The Scripture readings (Malachi 3:1-4, Philippians 1:3-11, Luke 3:1-6) were appropriate for the lectionary for the 2nd Week of Advent in Year C. (I found the lectionary listed in the back of the hymnal, and so I doublechecked the readings against the list in the back of the hymnal.) Since this week there were few children, the woman who gave the Children's Sermon included all the adults as well; her brief talk was focused on explaining what Advent is and how and why the church does what it does to prepare for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. It was very well done and communicated the basics directly and clearly.
When my colleague stood to preach the sermon, I was not surprised to see him make use of a PowerPoint presentation via an overhead projector--it enabled him to highlight the main points he was making and hold the congregation's attention; he also presented on the screen the gospel text and had us read it together so it was fresh in our memory when he began preaching. (The second hymn had been sung in full between the initial reading and the sermon.) He talked some about the verses from the reading--about the whole idea of "preparing a straight path for the coming of the Lord"--but his sermon really focused on the 7th and following verses, where John the Baptist is delivering his message of repentance. (When I had opened my Bible and followed along with the initial reading of the Luke text, I was wondering why the lectionary selection stopped with the quote from Isaiah and did not include anything from john's message.) So the majority of the sermon focused on the idea of repentance, which was the heart of John's message: how it is the necessary way we can "prepare for the coming of the Lord" in our lives. How it is not a once-for-all action but an attitude of the heart and mind and will. And he contrasted false images of repentance we encounter in the world around us with the true idea of repentance from the Scriptures. While much of what he said was basic and familiar, the way he presented it and how he set it within an Advent context was refreshing. My colleague may not be a pastor, but I would gladly have a pastor who taught through his sermons, rather than a pastor who preached emotions every sermon (as some of the preachers I've encountered in the church search have done).
The only downside of the whole service was a comment made by the elder who presided over the service. While he was praying at length after the sermon, he prayed for President Obama, and he remarked that even though "the President doesn't view God the same way we do" he asked God to guide him, etc. What did the elder mean by that comment? Does he buy into all the nonsense spewed by the rabid right, who continue to froth at the mouth that Obama is really a Muslim? Or was he referring to Obama's views on abortion and other political issues? Or . . . ? How does he know how Obama views God? Would he have prayed the same way about George W. Bush, who seems to have believed that God condones the physical and psychological torture of our imprisoned enemies (and I still don't see how any Bible-believing follower of Christ could ever agree with that policy or the thinking behind it)? (I have not yet met a politician whose politics are 100% in agreement with biblical teachings on how we should live. Not one.) Prayer in a congregational setting should avoid any expressions of (divisive) political or social or cultural opinions. Otherwise, the person praying is causing division and disagreement within the faith community, and his/her prayer does not and cannot reflect the will and the desire of that community.
I recall after my 3rd visit I felt not felt particularly noticed or welcomed by any of the people I had talked with on my first two visits. But this time, during the coffee hour afterwards, several of them came up and chatted with me, before the members regathered in the sanctuary for a congregational business meeting. As I left, I could hear that the first item of business was the budget--that congregation, like several others I have visited in this search, has an income significantly below the projected budget this year. (Some of that is due to members' becoming unemployed or underemployed.) It is something to be mindful of: we expect much out of our churches, but they sometimes can only do as much as their resources will take them. (And I'm including the time and talents of the members in that consideration of resources, as well as their "treasure." In fact, churches are more in need of members time and talents than they need their treasure. But many folks on the fringe of faith community or who have lukewarm attitudes toward their church don't realize that fact.)
Anyway, I will keep Family of Faith in mind as I continue searching for a new church home. But I will also check out Trinity Lutheran Church, just because. (It is within my 15-mile radius, about as far in its direction as Family of Faith is from my house.)
After driving past Trinity to make sure I knew where it was, I went home. Except that I had a lot of work to do before Monday's classes, I had been thinking of going to St John's for their 12:30pm service. Later, I discovered that Sunday the 6th was the Sunday that Bishop Katherine Roskam was visiting St John's. I'm sure they would have welcomed me gladly, especially to have another enthusiastic voice in the choir. But given the Bishop's usual practice of sitting down to talk with the leaders of the congregation after the service and the coffee hour to talk about things impacting the parish, and given my feelings and thoughts (in general) about the Episcopal Church's loss of its moral and theological bearings, my absence was probably a good thing. At least for the Bishop's perspective on that congregation. (If I had been there, she might have thought they were a bunch of social sticks-in-the-mud who refuse to embrace the progressive agenda of the denomination. Then again, given my friends that remain at St John's, all of whom are more interested in hearing Jesus preached than in hearing any social or political agenda, I'm sure they raised enough questions of their very own. . . .)
Next week, weather permitting, I will attend the service at St John's, since they are celebrating Father Baroody's departure/retirement afterwards. But I will likely also attend another service earlier, closer to home. Perhaps Trinity. We shall see. | | |
| Heading into this morning, I was not sure where I would be going to church today. I had been giving it some thought and more prayer, but, to be honest, I have reached a point where I am faced with several viable and possible church options--the five I listed in my most recent post--but I have yet to have a clear and definite leading toward any one of them. Add to that the general end-of-semester malaise that sometimes creeps upon both professors and students, and toss in a poor night's sleep, and the temptation to stay in bed was rather significant.
But not to fear. I did climb out of bed, though not early enough to attend any of the 8:00am or 9:00am services.
Today was, after all, the First Sunday of Advent, the beginning of a new liturgical year (Year C in the Revised Common Lectionary and in the Catholic lectionary). There was no way I was going to be absent from worship somewhere, no matter how much in a fog I was moving.
Though I had a later start than I'd hoped (and a bit of a sinus/fatigue headache), I made my way to New Prospect Church (#1 on the video), the Reformed Church where I began my search on the first Sunday in February. This was my 4th visit, the first in a little over a month. I missed the first few minutes, which included the Call to Worship, the contemporary praise songs, and the lighting of the Advent candle. I walked in quietly in the middle of the announcements, which precede the offering. There were around 40-50 people present, much the same as I had observed on previous visits. The hymns we sang were accompanied by piano (the Doxology, "Give Thanks," and a reprise of "Give Thanks" during the postlude) or organ ("Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus"). The service bulletin had a Thanksgiving cover, and some of the parts of the service reflected that theme, but the Scripture readings and the sermon focused on the Advent theme of "Wait & Remember."
The Old Testament reading was Psalm 25 (in NRSV, which is the pew Bible), which was read responsively (pastor and congregation alternately) for the first 18 verses, and then we read verses 19 through 22 together. The New Testament reading was Luke 21:25-36, in which Jesus is speaking about His return. As he preached from the psalm, some of the things the pastor said include the following:
"Our God is a God who comes to us--that's the point of our salvation."
"We are a people who wait and remember. This is a way/path of life." (Though he did not seem to recognize that--since all of the references to "remember" in Psalm 25 seem to focus on God remembering us, not the other way around--would challenge his focus on us as the ones who "remember.")
"Waiting is a contradiction of the demands and expectations of the world."
"God's mercy and love toward us is the basis for our faith."
The things God remembers (according to Psalm 25)--(1) "He remembers His mercy and love toward us," (2) "He does NOT remember our sin/transgressions," and (3) "He remembers me."
This was the first time I had attended a service at New Prospect in which there was no communion, and the service was adequate without it, since the pastor's sermon was direct and on point, and the rest of the service was worshipful enough.
As I left the sanctuary, the pastor greeted me by name and asked how my Thanksgiving was. I decided not to stick around for coffee, since I wasn't sure caffeine would be the best thing for me this morning.
So I decided, completely on the spur of the moment, to see if one of the other Catholic churches in the area has a late morning Mass. Thus far, I have only visited the nearest parish--both the main church in town and the small "mission" chapel just around the corner from my house--but if I were serious about becoming Catholic at any point, it would not hurt to see what other local parishes were doing. So I went to a parish church I have passed by on a number of occasions: St Paul's in Bullville. (It is just down the road from the Assembly of God church I visited and the United Methodist Church I briefly considered.) Yes, they did have a 11:00am Mass, and I was only a couple of minutes late. (The New Prospect service finished in a little less than an hour.) The parking lot was rather full, but I did find a space on the periphery. I walked to the nearest door, which turned out to open into the overflow section; and the entryway was crowded with around two dozen people. After hearing the Scripture readings and seeing the space fill up even further as other latecomers arrived, I slipped outside and walked around the the front door. From the front entryway, which was empty except for myself, I could see how full the main sanctuary was, with some parents and children standing all along the wall just inside the door between the entryway and the sanctuary. My guess is that the sanctuary is about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the one at Church of the Infant Saviour, though it is probably at least 50% larger than the Chapel of Our Lady of the Valley. There were more than 100 people present, though I could not be sure of an exact number as I could not see all of the congregants. The priest who was giving the sermon--which sounded appropriate for Advent, though I could not follow all of it because I was still getting my bearings there--looked a bit like Bruce Vilanch, at least in body type and hairstyle, though again I did not get a close view. That was the impression I had, though his voice was much different. That parish is administered by the Carmelite Friars, about whom I do not know much, as of yet.
Because I would have had to stand for the rest of the Mass in the entryway and then deal with the hassle of exiting the packed parking lot, I decided not to stay for the rest of the Mass. But I took a copy of their weekly bulletin, which has a calendar of their upcoming services for the next month. I think I will pay them another visit--hopefully when they are not quite so crowded.
So there it is. I think that for this Advent season, I will focus on attending services where the season is recognized and celebrated. Of course, that will mean attending pretty much any of the churches remaining on my list, since even the Reformed churches appear to celebrate the liturgical seasons that I have grown to love during my 22 years in the Episcopal Church. . . .
| | |
| After last week's unexpected hiatus in the midst of the church search, due to the onset of a nasty episode of the common cold two evenings earlier, I approached this Sunday morning not sure of where I would be going to church this morning. Though my health was better this weekend, I still experienced a periodic cough, and my head was still somewhat congested. So that ruled out the Russian Orthodox Church, as the abundant incense used during the service would likely trigger even more congestion. Plus, I was not sure I could stand for the full two hours, given my general sleepiness during the past week. I was giving some thought to revisiting the Reformed Church, maybe even both congregations, but I wasn't sure. Or maybe visiting somewhere I hadn't yet been. Or somewhere I'd already been and had decided against, but perhaps should reconsider.
As I was checking e-mail late on Saturday, I read one by my friend Sue, who commented on how this Sunday is Christ the King Sunday--the last Sunday of the liturgical year, prior to the start of the new liturgical year next Sunday with the 1st Sunday of Advent. That started my thinking in one direction--something liturgical. I next checked an e-mail from the New York Diocese of the Episcopal Church, alerting me to the fact that the address given by Bishop Mark Sisk at the annual diocesan convention--held on that morning and afternoon (Saturday the 21st)--was now online. This was the first diocesan convention I have not attended in several years, as I had been the official delegate for both Good Shepherd (Greenwood Lake) and St John's-in-the-Wilderness for the past several years. Curiosity prompted me to click on the link and download the PDF file of the bishop's address. And then, a couple of paragraphs into the address, I knew why I had needed to look at his remarks: in the midst of his saying goodbye to people who have served the diocese faithfully for a number of years (but who are moving on to jobs in other dioceses or have been laid off from this diocese due to cuts in funding), he thanked in particular the priest of one of the local parishes near me, though not naming the parish--he was referring to this priest's regular weekday job as one of the diocesan administrators.
So I decided to revisit this parish, which had been one of my original preferences, until this priest's heterodoxy caused me to stop going there at the end of May. (This was the priest whose sermon on Pentecost focused on why he believes the Holy Spirit should be referred to as "she.") There were 20 people present, including the priest. The singing was accompanied by acoustic guitar, flute, and violin. The people were as friendly as before, and despite my six-months absence, they remembered my name and welcomed me as if I had last attended the week before. As I sensed on my previous visits--today was my seventh time worshipping there--I could very easily be at home there. Especially since they have not chosen to abide by the bishop's mandated rules, in which the Eucharistic minister bringing around the cup is supposed to dip the wafer in the cup for us and then place it on our tongues. No, at this parish, the individual worshippers are still permitted to intinct (dip) their own wafers, thank you very much.
The service ran about 90 minutes, in part because of the extended number of announcements prior to the offering--announcements which included the parish delegate's report on the diocesan convention. (It appears this year there were no sexual orientation items brought up to a vote, and so the most controversial issue involved the diocese's plans to confront and shut down parishes that persist in refusing to pay their annual assessment to the diocese--10% of all parish income.) By the way, in reading Bishop Sisk's address, I learned why there was no immediate effort to replace Bishop Taylor, who retired to pastor an inner-city parish in his native Jamaica: Bishop Sisk plans to appoint a replacement for Taylor, rather than bring up a vote for a new suffragan bishop--that is, a bishop elected (suffrage) by the people--because (1) he does not want to create confusion when, a few years from now, the diocese must elect his (Sisk's) replacement, and he probably wants to have the next bishop vote be for that replacement, and (2) any bishop elected right now is likely to be a divisive figure, as there exists a significant number of folks in the diocese (especially in Manhattan and Westchester) who will be demanding the next elected bishop be gay or lesbian--and most of the "upstate" parishes will resist that move, not by leaving the diocese as a parish, but by walking out the doors of their local churches and not returning. After the election of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, not only did whole dioceses and parishes around the country begin exiting the Episcopal Church, but all of the parishes with which I am familiar here lost between 1/3 and 1/2 of the regulars in the congregation. Imagine the fallout if the bishop election impacts the New York diocese directly. . . .
Back to the parish I visited this morning. I liked much about the worship, the people, etc. But the priest's homily reminded me of why I had not gone back after Pentecost. The Scripture readings--Daniel 7:9-10,13-14; Psalm 93; Revelation 1:4-8; John 18:33-37--all focused on Christ the King. Yet the priest began his homily pointing out how we go astray if we think of Jesus as a King because in His earthly ministry He ran as far away as He could from being crowned a King. And it is too easy for Christians to be caught up in the power trip that comes with our calling Jesus "King." We should instead only focus on the servant qualities of Jesus. . . . I know what the priest was trying to say, but the way he went about it was particularly grating. ALL of the references to Jesus as King in the later parts of the New Testament refer to Jesus being crowned King and reigning as King in His Second Coming, when the whole universe will acknowledge that He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. They do not suggest any pride on our part in the here and now: we do not have rights, as followers of Christ, to political, social, or economic power now because we are followers of Christ. Even in the end of things, God is the one who holds the power, not we human beings.
Given this priest's repeated contradictions of the Scriptures in his homilies, I rather expect he doesn't believe in the Second Coming. Or if he does, he hasn't given it very much thought at all. He is so focused in addressing the concerns of the world here and now that he fails to put those concerns in their eternal context, and as a result, his views of God and the Scriptures and traditional Christian doctrines remain skewed. Badly.
Will I go back there? I'm not sure. I like the faith community in that church. But I do not much care for the warped theology proceeding from the priest's thoughts and heart during his homilies. If it is true that he is moving on to another part of the country, perhaps his replacement will be someone more centered upon the teachings of Jesus--and not someone who is trying to reinterpret everything to fit his personal agenda or conclusions.
Because the coffee hour would be taken up by the congregation addressing postcards and affixing stamps to them--to invite all their neighbors in their local zip code to join them for Advent and Christmas services (though one wonders whether one should pray that the neighbors show up or not, especially given the priest's tendency to wander off into unbiblical territory)--I decided not to stick around, but instead make a visit to the other church I had recently discovered via the Internet but had not previously visited. This church is located on the east side of Wallkill, and it took me more than a few minutes to drive from the Episcopal parish to this independent charismatic/evangelical church.
From the website, I was led to believe it would be another megachurch--glossy and snazzy and crowded. This impression was immediately shattered upon my entering the parking lot, which, while paved, had grass growing through the many cracks in the old pavement. The main sanctuary, which has a subtly peaked ceiling covered in the same kind of coarse plaster texture that covers my living room ceiling, is wider than it is long, and though there were at least 50-60 people present, the place was only about half filled. The service had already begun when I arrived a few minutes late, but probably a dozen other folks arrived after I did, during the first hour of the service, which consisted entirely of contemporary praise music interspersed with occasional "words" from various members of the congregation--either Scripture verses or "words from God" that were delivered clearly and directly. The musicians on stage included a pianist (sitting at a grand piano which was dominant, even though the lid was completely down), an acoustic guitarist, a mandolin player, and a percussionist (who had variously portable hand-struck drums arranged before him--not a large drumset). All four musicians also sang, along with two other women. I didn't recognize any of the choruses we sang during that hour, probably because most of them appear to come from the Vineyard church--and I generally have found Vineyard choruses unmelodic and cumbersome in previous worship environments.
The sanctuary has two crosses, one of which was not revealed until they raised the screen on which the words to the choruses had been displayed. The other cross had a cloth draped over the crossbeam and a star of David on the vertical beam, just above the intersection with the crossbeam. Beside the American flag, to its right, stood a star of David flag (the national flag of Israel)--and the Boy Scout in me cringed because anyone who has ever learned the rules of flag etiquette knows that, when other flags are displayed with the American flag, none can ever be placed to its right. But I guess no one there had ever been a Boy Scout.
I said a moment ago that this was a charismatic church. I deduced that not from any out loud speaking in tongues, though during a couple of pauses between praise songs I could hear a quiet undercurrent of murmuring which usually is how those who speak in tongues do so in a group setting--quietly, almost under their breath. The pastor did mention the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues later in his sermon, but it was not the central point he was making. The fact that they spent the first hour of the service praising God through music and that, during the singing, a few of the worshippers danced around in the aisles, many raised their hands, and on the fringes of the sanctuary a few people waved flags about all indicated that "charismatic" is indeed the word to describe their approach to God.
By the way, I'm not sure where the whole "waving flags" thing crept into the contemporary worship experience. A few years ago in the campus chapel, there were a couple of students who waved flags during the praise singing part of chapel services, but to me (and, I guess, to some others) it seemed more a distraction than anything else. If anyone knows when and why that practice developed, I would be glad to become better informed. (Especially if there would happen to be a Scripture text that supports the practice.)
After the singing, there was communion--four elders distributed the bread (from which each person had to break off a small piece) and later the small plastic cups of grape juice, after which the acoustic guitarist (another of the elders?) read what the Apostle Paul says Jesus said about the bread and the cup, and then we all partook. It was in some way reminiscent of communion at the nonabominational evangelical church in which I was raised, except the praise choruses sung by the musicians during the distribution of each element obviously dated from a more recent decade.
Then came a time of announcements and praying over the children, who departed to church school. In between those two things came the "time of offering," during which everyone who had an offering stood up and went forward to place it in the baskets at the near edge of the platform. While that may have been the practice in the Jewish temple, it seems more distracting and attention-making than anything else. Handing around the offering plate may seem old and stale and too mainstream Protestant, but it does allow more anonymity for those unable to give much, if anything at all. (Best yet was the example of a Baptist church near Binghamton my friend Dave Francis attends, which had, for many years if not to the present, a slot in a wall near the entrance where all tithes and offerings were placed. During the service, one of the elders, I think, would collect what had been gathered there and bring it forward, where it would be blessed to the service of God. But no members of the congregation were ever made to feel out of place if they could not give as much as others. . . .)
The pastor's sermon was a through analysis of the last half of the Prodigal Son parable, focusing especially on the elder brother. (Last week, he had apparently spoken on the first half.) I was disappointed that, while he did quote a few separate verses during the sermon, he did not preface his sermon by reading the passage out of Luke. At times, however, it seemed he was reading from a written commentary on the parable--perhaps Timothy Keller's The Prodigal God, which he cited later in the sermon. (Keller is pastor and founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, about which I have heard many good things over the years. I have not read this book, nor his earlier one, The Reason for God.) Other references this pastor made included the films Witness and Amadeus and the Flannery O'Connor novel Wise Blood.
All in all, it was an adequate service. I can see why people would be drawn to this church because it would meet certain types of spiritual needs. The pastor's clear renunciation (in his sermon) of selfish pleasures and the whole "God exists to satisfy me with possessions" mentality suggests this church is solidly grounded in its theology, at least from the pulpit. But I know it is not necessarily where I am these days. The service lasted a little longer than two hours, and, to be perfectly honest, if I am going to spend two hours in a church service, I would rather do it in the Orthodox Church, where there's far more Scripture and about the same amount of repetition. (Except the Orthodox Church service repeats prayers to God, whereas the charismatic-style church repeats verses and refrains of praise choruses, only some of which could be construed as prayers to God.)
And, though the pastor's sermon denounced (directly or indirectly) a focus on material possessions and money, the back of the bulletin lists the "eternal investments" from the previous Sunday. And there exists a large gap between the 2009 offerings to date ($107,452.09) and the 2009 budget year to date ($151,800.00)--a gap of $44,347.91. If the attendance I observed today was typical of that congregation, then I wonder what they need $151,000+ for? A decade ago, when I was in a parish of 150-160 people, our annual budget ran in the $130,000 to $140,000 range--and that included a fulltime minister, a parttime organist/choir director, and a parttime office secretary. Given that that parish's budget is likely to have increased in the intervening decade, I wonder why a congregation that is between 1/3 and 1/2 the size of my old parish is attempting to expend $150K-plus each year. Certainly, especially in a difficult economic time as we are now experiencing, the church could cut back its expenses by trimming out the frills and by recognizing that less may be more when it comes to the church budget. (If money becomes a dominant concern for the congregation, it may push out the door those who are not able to contribute as much money now due to personal financial crises. . . .)
So, in the end, I remain much where I was two weeks ago: still considering one Catholic, one Russian Orthodox, one Lutheran, and two Reformed churches. I may go back and visit the Episcopal parish I revisited this morning, especially if I feel the need in subsequent Sundays for something liturgical during Advent.
But I am not yet really any closer to making that final decision: this is where I should be. . . .
| | |
| For the first time in months, I was not able to visit any churches on Sunday the 15th because I have been fighting off the common cold. It's just a cold, folks. But I didn't feel it was wise to show up at any churches coughing, coughing, and coughing. . . .
I will keep you posted on my plans for next weekend. | | |
| My original plans for this evening were to drive to downtown Nyack and revel in some live music. But I received a long phone call from a good friend with whom I hadn't spoken in some time, and by the time we finished talking it was too late to catch all the live music. Maybe next week. . . .
In the meantime, I have been wanting to say stuff about the weird behavior of the world lately.
************************************************************************
One thing I find particularly unpleasant includes celebrities who willfully promote themselves but then attack the media which conveys their gratuitous self-promotion. Take, for instance, the eversmiling and pageant-funds-enhanced Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who was asked about gay marriage by pageant judge Perez Hilton, who had more than an axe to grind by asking a question completely unsuitable for a pageant competition. While some of us were at first sympathetic for Prejean, especially as the radical pundits on one side abused her for her rejection of gay marriage--which, to this point, has been rejected by most of these 50 states--while pundits on the other side lauded her for her moral courage. That is, until the seminude and fully nude photos of Prejean emerged, the news of her breast-enhancements courtesy of pageant funds was leaked, and the various self-made sex tapes (made for a former boyfriend?) surfaced. Last night, Prejean showed up on Larry King Live! (who looks like he's been dead for a long time), and when King asked her about her feelings leading up to the lawsuit settlement (when she and the pageant officials settled her lawsuit against them for undisclosed sums of money and other terms), she told him his question was totally inappropriate and unhooked her microphone. Then she walked off the set. Uh, hello? King did not ask anything pertaining to the terms of the lawsuit; he was asking a legitimate question regarding her own feelings. All she had to do was say, "I'm sorry, but I'd rather not talk about that." Instead, she behaved like a spoiled brat of three or four years of age.
I think the world would be better off if other media purveyors took a lesson from Prejean's behavior on King's show and refused to give her any other microphones in the future. She wants silence: let her remain silent. Some children are better not seen and not heard.
************************************************************************
Then there's Lou Dobbs, who once was a valid journalist and an intelligent voice which spoke with a conservative tone. Then came the whole issue of illegal immigration, and Dobbs' monomania came to the fore. From there, it became increasingly clear that Dobbs had bought the Kool-Aid that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly (all voices of particularly acute insanity) were selling. And now, Dobbs has packed his bags and departed CNN for points unknown. (You can almost bet he will show up on Fox News at some point: all the discredited former conservatives-cum-pseudoconservatives eventually end up there. It's like FoxNews is a huge magnet attracting the worst dregs of ore imaginable.) I had stopped watching Dobbs at all once it was clear his balanced, nuanced style had been jettisoned for a far more rabid approach. In a sense, I remained surprised that he still had a job at CNN. They are, on the whole, a classier bunch than the FoxNews folks whom Dobbs was emulating.
Of course, now Dobbs is complaining that Obama forced him out of his job. Uh, really? Dobbs must mistake himself for someone who really matters and has influence in any public debate of today. Either that, or he views himself in the same light as the inept, incompetent GM CEO whose ouster earlier this year was laid at the feet of the President. (So Dobbs is an ineffective corporate executive who ran his company deep into bankruptcy and jeopardized thousands of American jobs? My, I always knew that cable news pundits had egos, but Dobbs' ego looks to be the size of a minor planet. Before we know it, Dobbs' ego will provide a second pull on ocean tides and shine a radiant light on lovers seated on park benches. . . .)
************************************************************************
And Sarah Palin has begun her book promotion tour. Any of you planning on buying and reading her book? (Besides you, Mark.) I'm not. I've heard more than enough from Palin already to last me a lifetime. Her interviews and speeches remind me of a speaker I once heard who went into an early onset dementia episode during her speech, and for forty-five minutes the audience was caught between horror and hysterical laughter as they witnessed the complete meltdown of a well-dressed, educated, professional woman. The first story, which lent a recurring image throughout the rest of her speech, involved "head lice." To this day, every time I hear the word "lice" I immediately think of that speech. . . . Palin's off-the-cuff speeches and talks sound like the same kind of sudden-onset-dementia that would cause a more self-aware person either to work harder to prepare her remarks before delivering them or to withdraw from public appearances altogether. Actor Charlton Heston, among others, when confronted with his gradual decline, withdrew gracefully into retirement and avoided situations which would have made a public spectacle of his illness. Palin should learn from those examples. . . . Or stop sounding as if she, who is around my age, were suffering from the horror that is Alzheimer's.
************************************************************************
One of the best things Obama may end up doing in his presidency is to reject the simplistic options for Afghanistan that his advisers and military commanders have thus far given him. Adding 40,000 additional US troops might have made sense had the recent presidential election installed a legitimately elected president in Kabul. But the election was even more fraudulent than a vote in Florida. And the incumbent, the Bush-appointed interim-turned-president-seemingly-for-life Hamid Karzai, has done little to root out the drug trade and the bureaucratic corruption which has permeated the post-Taliban Afghanistan. Supporting Karzai's government indefinitely with a huge influx of US troops is not a reasonable option. And since the government we are supporting is not doing its part to grow into its democratic role, we need to begin phasing out our involvement there.
Yes, we should have done more to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan in the years immediately following our invasion of that country. But Bush sidetracked us into Iraq, which could have waited. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan came to a standstill, allowing the Taliban not only to regroup and resume their fighting in Afghanistan, but also to begin the systematic takeover of remote regions in Pakistan.
In 2009, it is too late to fix the mess that our neglect of the Afghan war in 2003-2008 created. We should remove our troops sooner, rather than later. Because there's every sign we may need them somewhere else (Pakistan???) in the near future.
************************************************************************
The Ft Hood tragedy was just that: a tragedy. The Army is currently investigating the alleged shooter, Major Hasan, and today in a military court they charged him with 13 counts of murder. A number of pundits have been pronouncing his actions as "terrorism," because Hasan allegedly shouted the Arabic for "God is great!" before he opened fire on his fellow soldiers. But it is premature to label his actions as terrorism before the Army finishes its investigation. And on what basis do those pundits decree that shooting as terrorism? They have not made similar pronouncement each time a disgruntled worker walks into his place of (former) employment and opens fire. Do they believe Hasan was a terrorist simply because he shouted "Allahu akhbar"? I bet they would feel it was terrorism every time a Muslim greeted another Muslim with a loud shout of the same phrase.
Ignorance of other religions and religious rituals often results in ignorant assumptions about persons who adhere to those beliefs and participate in those rituals. When public figures on cable news make those kinds of ignorant assumptions on air, they do real harm to their audience by perpetuating ignorance and intolerance. If those pundits would only exercise caution and present facts, their audience would have the possibility of being enlightened.
Remember when FoxNews used to advertise that "We report. You decide"? They only advertise that slogan any more on radio, since it certainly would be exposed as a major fiction if they ran it on the channel in and among the pundits who decide for the audience. Their slogan today should be "We decide. You absorb."
************************************************************************
It is unfortunate that pundits like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, among others, have bought the Kool-Aid the "public option" supporters are selling. They should realize there do exist other possibilities than the massive new entitlement program that this public option would eventually become. And since the Bush-Cheney team oversaw the reckless spending of more than $5.5 trillion of unnecessary spending--all borrowed funds--we risk putting ourselves in the deepest financial pit imaginable by choosing a reform option that simply adds to the wasteful deficit spending practices of Republican presidencies since 1980. (I mention again the fact: In 1980, the cumulative federal budget deficit was $1.2 trillion. Today it is more than $11 trillion. The vast majority of that increase occurred under the watch of Reagan and both Bushes.)
************************************************************************
And then there's the Stupak Amendment, which found its way into the House healthcare reform bill that was passed this past weekend. It not only reinforces the existing situation--in which federal funds cannot be used to pay for an abortion--but it ups the ante by denying a woman who receives any federal reimbursement or assistance from using her money to buy health insurance which would cover the cost of an abortion. This would limit her freedom to buy insurance, regardless of whether she ever should want to have an abortion: she would simply be denied a lengthy list of insurance policy options, if they included insurance coverage for an abortion.
Uh, folks, we are trying to solve the healthcare crisis, not resolve the contentious and divisive issue of abortion. No one on either side of the aisle wants to change the existing situation (which does not allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions) in favor of allowing federal funds to pay for abortions. So why is this even an issue? If Congress wants to ban abortions, let them man up and create a separate piece of legislation that will seek to do exactly that. The GOP held full control of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007, and you could count the number of bills the Republican leadership proposed which would outlaw all abortions on the fingers of your hands if you were a double amputee.
This amendment is an attempt to undermine the healthcare reform legislation from within by moral cowards who do not have the courage or the numbers to defeat it in fair combat. The supporters of this amendment seem to be folks who support the existing situation, in which 45 million Americans cannot afford health insurance and thus cannot afford healthcare. They support the monopoly that the for-profit health insurance industry has in this country--a monopoly which thus far has had antitrust exemptions. Some states have one insurance company providing health insurance within most of that state, and the kind of rabid competition which keeps auto insurance and homeowners insurance premiums down is NOT available anywhere in this country.
That's why I think we may not need to go as far as create a "public option" right now. It may be enough to remove the antitrust exemption that the for-profit health insurance companies enjoy and to create a situation in which they are forced to compete with each other in each and every state. And they should also be required to pay everything their policies cover, without any hesitation or whimpering. The premiums we (and/or our employers) pay for should guarantee the coverage we have signed up for. And companies that, as one in New York state recently did, drop an entire line of policies to avoid paying the high costs associated with one person who held that kind of policy (he has muscular dystrophy) should be forced to pay out--and should be treated as thieves and robbers for having sucked in the premiums and refused to pay out (and/or canceling the coverage).
I find it odd that my friends who claim to be conservatives also claim to believe so much in the free market, yet they support policies and political agendas that actually deny us access to a free market as regards health insurance.
And would they really want a "free market" without any government interference? Keep in mind that the capitalism of the 19th-century led to such grotesque exploitation of workers that 12-hour days, six-day weeks were not uncommon. Healthcare for workers was quite limited. Child labor was legal in each and every state. The only people who had retirement incomes were the rich capitalists who had made their money off the backs of their workers, most of whom died in poverty. Free market, without government interference, is not much better than slavery for those who have the misfortune not to be among the less than one half of one percent who would comprise the capitalist class. And every one of my conservative friends would be part of the other 99.5%. As would I. | | |
|
