Author Archives: Tim MacGeorge

Homily for the 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time (August 21/22, 2010)

Posted on by

For the communities of Dignity/NoVA at Emmanuel Church-on-the-Hill in Arlington, VA and Dignity/Washington at St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, Washington, DC.

Readings: Is 66:18-21; Heb 12:5-7, 11-13; Lk 13:22-30

When I first looked at the scripture readings for this weekend a few weeks ago, I must admit that I wasn’t terribly inspired.  These readings – and especially our Gospel reading in which Jesus speaks of the challenges of entering the Kingdom – aren’t what I would call “comforting.” In fact, they reminded me of that saying that the purpose of the Good News, the purpose of the Gospel is “to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.” After listening to Jesus speak about what seem to be limitations on who does and doesn’t get into the Kingdom of God, is it any wonder that we might feel a little unease, a little discomfort?  And, it’s not surprising, then, that this discomfort is reinforced with Jesus’ own words in which he says that there will be “wailing and grinding of teeth” among those who don’t make the grade, those who are left out and are not admitted to the feast, that eternal banquet about which we pray and sing so often.

As I thought more about it, I realized that there were probably two things going on with these passages that contributed to my reaction.  First, I think most of us prefer to focus on those parts of Scripture which do, indeed, comfort us in our own afflictions. It feels good to hear the Sermon on the Mount when it speaks about all those who are “blessed” in one way or another; it feels good to hear passages in which God is depicted as all-loving and all-merciful and all-forgiving. Second, I also realized that I tend to gravitate towards and identify with those passages that have a more social dimension, ones in which Justice prevails, where Jesus especially turns the tables on prevailing social norms and values – doing so not just for the sake of doing it, but doing so because those tables needed to be turned upside down in a world and society that seemed always to be getting things not quite right.  Today’s readings, however, are much less social and much more personal. They speak to us not only collectively, but also to you and me as individuals.

Why do I say that?  Well, I think it’s because there’s really a question behind the question that’s put to Jesus in the Gospel passage we just listened to.  As Luke writes, “Someone asked him, ‘Lord, will only a few people be saved?’” I would wager that this “someone” wasn’t really looking for a number or some other measurement about who would and would not be saved. The question behind this “someone’s” question was probably, “Lord, will I be saved?” This is not to say that the question about “how many” wasn’t important to Jesus’ listeners.  During Jesus’ day, there were two concepts in popular rabbinical teaching that were probably at work in the background.  The first is the teaching of the rabbis that “all Israelites have a share in the world to come”; and the second is a passage from what’s called the 4th Book of Ezra, which is not part of the “Canon” of scripture, but which states, “…this age the Most High has made for many, but the age to come for a few.” (4 Ezra 8:1)  Stating that all Israelites would have a share in the Kingdom of God was the expected answer to this common question put to Jesus. But Jesus’ answer differs from the traditional answer.  That traditional response understood that the “few” would be all Israelites, God’s chosen people; and that “the many,” those who would not be saved, were those outside the community of Israel.

Like so much of what Jesus did, even in this question his response is unexpected. Not only does he not answer the question by saying whether few or many will be saved, he answers it a highly unusual way. Instead of saying that entrance into the Kingdom was based on who you knew, or what community you have been a part of in this life … he states that the heavenly feast is also open to non-Jews, non-Israelites.  “And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God.” Now, he doesn’t say in this passage exactly who those people will be – and so doesn’t answer the question, “Will I be saved?” – but he does suggest that old presumptions are out the window.  I guess this is one of the reasons why I always find it a bit offensive when those from some Christian traditions ask, “Are you saved?” or will declare with absolute certainty that they “are saved.”

The truly scriptural answer is – we don’t know. We certainly hope we will be welcomed to God’s kingdom, but it’s beyond presumption for any of us to declare it as a foregone conclusion. What we DO know, however, is that we are called to live lives in which – to use Jesus’ word – we “strive” to follow him and his teaching as best we can. The verb that Luke uses when reporting this answer of Jesus is an interesting one.  Jesus advises that one must “strive to enter the narrow gate.” The Greek verb agonizomai, “strive,” is used to describe what is required in athletic training.  It’s that discipline to which the author of the Letter to the Hebrews is referring. It’s that discipline that, “…seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it.” In this context, discipline means not punishment in response to a crime or offense, but rather is the discipline of training and preparation.  It’s the discipline that frees us from unnecessary baggage and burdens, that allows us to travel lightly in this life so that we will be able to enter unencumbered through that narrow gate and be recognized by Jesus as his true friend, his true follower, his true disciple.

So what do we do here and now to train ourselves so that Jesus will recognize us and claim us as his own? How do we live our lives today so that we are not turned away and the door not closed in our face? Fortunately, ours is a rich heritage with many, many spiritual traditions and practices.  Hopefully, some of these have a place in our daily lives as we exercise and strive to grow as disciples of Jesus. As with physical exercise, there’s probably no one single path, no universally-applicable routine, that all of us follow. But there are, I think, some common indicators that can help us see how effective our training and exercise are. I’d like to end with a brief story that might serve as just one such indicator.  When I first read this story and thought about the world of today – so filled as it seems with conflict and division everywhere we look – it occurred to me that we have quite a ways to go on our journey to the kingdom.

A Hasidic rabbi asked his students how to determine the hour of dawn and to know when night ends and day begins. One answered, “Is it when from a distance you can distinguish a dog from a sheep?” “No,” answered the rabbi. Another offered, “Is it when you can distinguish between a fig tree and a grapevine?” Again the rabbi said, “No.” “Then tell us,” asked the students, “how can you know when night ends and day begins?” “You’ll know that the sun has risen,” said the rabbi, “when you can look into the face of every other human being and have enough light to recognize that person as your brother or sister. Up until then, it is night, and darkness is still with us. Only when you can see every other person as your brother or sister, only then will a new day have dawned.”

Bishop Dowling and Church Trends

Posted on by

Bishop Dowling form South Africa reflects thoughtfully and insightfully on current trends in the Church.  I think he’d make a good pope!  Here’s just one paragraph to give a sense of his perspective:

“The rise of conservative groups and organisations in the Church over the past 40 years and more, which attract significant numbers of adherents, has led to a phenomenon which I find difficult to deal with, viz. an inward looking Church, fearful of if not antagonistic towards a secularist world with its concomitant danger of relativism especially in terms of truth and morality – frequently referred to by Pope Benedict XVI; a Church which gives an impression of “retreating behind the wagons”, and relying on a strong central authority to ensure unity through uniformity in belief and praxis in the face of such dangers. The fear is that without such supervision and control, and that if any freedom in decision-making is allowed, even in less important matters, this will open the door to division and a breakdown in the unity of the Church.”

… and …

“What we should have, in my view, is a Church where the leadership recognises and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local Church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the Church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the believing, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk. The Church could be enriched as a result through a diversity which truly integrates socio-cultural values and insights into a living and developing faith, together with a discernment of how such diversity can promote unity in the Church – and not, therefore, require uniformity to be truly authentic.”

Homily for the 14th Sunday in Ordinary Time (July 3/4, 2010)

Posted on by

For the communities of Dignity/NoVA at Emmanuel Church-on-the-Hill in Arlington, VA and Dignity/Washington at St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, Washington, DC.

Readings:
1 Is 66:10-14c; Ps 66:1-3, 4-5, 6-7, 16, 20; Gal 6:14-18; Lk 10:1-12, 17-20

Before I get to the heart of what I want to say, let me make one comment about the reference Jesus makes at the end of this passage from Luke – a comment that perhaps might be of help if ever you find yourself in a “discussion” – and hopefully it will be a “discussion” and not an “argument” – with someone who is claiming that “the Bible itself condemns gay people.”  As many of us know, there are just a small handful of passages from the Bible that many people have used to condemn God’s gay and lesbian children – passages that we generally consider to be incorrectly taken out of their historical and cultural context, and thus misunderstood and misinterpreted – and one of them has to do with Sodom. This perhaps is the most well-known, the most notorious, because the word “Sodom” (which comes from the Hebrew word for “burnt”) found its way into English with the ill-defined words of “sodomy” and “sodomite.” You recall the story from the Book of Genesis in which two divine messengers come to the town of Sodom and are greeted by Lot. As was so important a custom in that part of the world, Lot extended a welcome to these strangers, offering them that life-giving hospitality without which travelers in the harsh terrain could perish.  Hospitality also placed a responsibility on the shoulders of the one who extended it; and that responsibility was to protect those to whom shelter and welcome were given.  Now, for unstated reasons, the citizens of Sodom come to Lot’s house and demand that he bring out these strangers so that they might abuse, probably rape them. And so the debate has been – is this passage about homosexuality, or is the true sin of the people of Sodom the fact that they turned their backs on the custom of hospitality and the responsibilities that come with welcoming the stranger?

So if you do find yourself in that discussion, you can and should point to this passage from Luke.  Because here, in the words of Jesus, we have a reference to Sodom, that city which God destroyed.  In making this reference, is Jesus speaking about sexual behavior? Clearly not. Jesus is making a reference, an allusion that was probably well-understood by his hearers, simply by naming the town. That reference, that allusion, is in the context of the lack of welcome, the lack of hospitality that his disciples might receive as they go about their mission of preaching in those towns and villages that Jesus intends to visit. And so, Luke chapter 9 supports the claim that the real sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sexual behavior, but was their lack of hospitality and caring for those in need.

So … moving on… we have this weekend a collection of readings that don’t necessarily have a common thread or theme that jumps out at us.  In fact, these three passages have a wealth of ideas that we can reflect on, but the one thing I would like to draw our attention to is what Jesus instructs these 72 disciples – going out in pairs – to do when they enter a village or a town.  He tells them that they are to:

  • head directly to their destination without being side-tracked along the way;
  • accept hospitality in whatever way it is given;
  • cure the sick and tell them that God’s Reign is at hand
  • but … their very first words are an offering of Peace.  “Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’ If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.”

Much of Luke’s Gospel is focused on Jesus’ “going up to Jerusalem,” and this story from the 9th chapter of Luke is set n that context.  In the previous chapter – chapter 8 – Luke tells us that the time had come for Jesus to be taken up, to be “lifted up,” Jesus decides it’s time for him to go up to Jerusalem, the place where Jesus knows he will suffer and die, where he will be lifted up on the cross. And so, it’s in this context that we have this story of Jesus sending out the 72 … the context of going up to Jerusalem — in Hebrew, Yerushaláyim – the city whose very name means, “the abode of Peace,” or the “the dwelling place of peace.”

Earlier this week I was listening to bits and pieces of the testimony before the Senate about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. After her own testimony and questioning, the Senate Committee listened to various panelists presenting their views, people who both support her nomination and who those who oppose it. As I listened to the testimony of one particular person – someone who heads an organization with roots in conservative Christianity and whose stated mission is “Defending Family, Faith and Freedom,” – he was making the argument that he believes the nominee is anti-military and opposed to veterans and military service. In saying this, he said something that I found very striking. “War is the most difficult human activity, bar none.” When I heard that, I was puzzled, and I thought – Really? Is that really true? Is war the most difficult of all human activity? Now, I don’t mean to dismiss or overlook the countless sacrifices made and burdens borne by the hundreds of thousands of men and women – and their families – men and women in years past and even in our present day who have stepped forward to – as the saying goes – “stand in harm’s way” so that we might enjoy the blessings, the liberties and freedoms that we celebrate as a nation this weekend.  War is, no doubt a very difficult and even a terrible thing.  But when we look at the whole span of human history, we humans have been pretty good at fighting war.  And so when I heard that statement – “War is the most difficult human activity, bar none,” … my immediate reaction was to ask, “What about peace?” It struck me that if we look at this from the perspective in which “success” or “failure” is a measure of difficulty, isn’t Peace a more difficult human activity? Isn’t it more difficult to follow the command of Jesus to be bearers of peace, to be sources of peace, to be instruments of peace?

Many of us will remember a time when the collective voice of the Bishops in our country had a weight that, for various reasons, seemed stronger than it does today. It was 27 years ago, in 1983, that the Bishops issued a Pastoral Letter on War and Peace entitled, The Challenge of Peace:  God’s Promise and Our Response. And while this pastoral letter reflected the time in our nation’s history in which it was written – a time in which its focus was not so much on the type of wars being fought today, but rather focused on the possibility of nuclear war and issues surrounding nuclear deterrence – the guiding principles articulated in that letter are still worth remembering.  If you’ve never read this document, I encourage you to do so. It’s not light summer beach reading, but rather is a thoughtful and in-depth discussion of war, of peace, and what we as Christians can and must do to further advance that Reign of God which, while still close at hand, sometimes seems so very far away.

Let me close by reading one brief passage in which the Bishops remind us of some core values and perspectives:  “At the center of the Church’s teaching on peace and at the center of all Catholic social teaching are the transcendence of God and the dignity of the human person. The human person is the clearest reflection of God’s presence in the world; all of the Church’s work in pursuit of both justice and peace is designed to protect and promote the dignity of every person. For each person not only reflects God, but is the expression of God’s creative work and the meaning of Christ’s redemptive ministry..” [emphases added].

“The transcendence of God and the dignity of every human person.” As we observe the 234th anniversary of that day in which our forebears declared to the world that “All people are created equal,” let us pray that we will never forget that “All” means “All” and that as followers of Jesus who suffered, died and conquered death so that we might have peace and the fullness of life, that we also have what it takes to engage every day in that most difficult of human activities, bar none … the activity of being instruments of God’s peace every moment of our lives.

Live in Virginia? Eat at home tonight!

Posted on by

The Washington Post reports that today is the first day a new law goes into effect in Virginia. Effective July 1, 2010, carriers of concealed weapons will be able to go into establishments that serve alcohol — that is, as long as they have a valid permit and, more importantly, they don’t drink!

Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine wisely vetoed previous efforts to make this legal.  His successor, however, apparently had fewer qualms about the reasonableness of such a ban. Enacted earlier this year, the legislation signed by Governor Bob McDonnell takes effect today. 

The Post reports that, “About 300 gun rights supporters plan to celebrate Thursday night by visiting restaurants that serve alcohol while carrying their weapons.” While I had no plans to cross the state line from DC into Virginia today, one wonders if simply “visiting” these establishments will satisfy their desire to “celebrate,” or if a few might be tempted to raise a glass and toast their new-found right? And besides — if the weapon is “concealed,” how will a waiter or bartender know if they’re packing heat?  Is it the establishment’s responsibility not to serve such folks if they see an unusually large bulge where you wouldn’t expect to see one, or is this law enforced by the honor system?

I think I’ll stay home.

Following the Good Shepherd’s Example

Posted on by

Fr. Joe Palacios, who teaches sociology at Georgetown University and whom many of us know, is quoted in an online article from Religion Dispatches about immigration reform proposals and the rights of same-sex couples.

In addition to referencing Fr. Joe’s advocacy work, the story also quotes Sr. Jeannine Grammick speaking very clearly about the opposition of US Bishops to “Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)—which would close a loophole that currently prevents US citizens in same-sex, committed relationships from sponsoring their undocumented partners for citizenship.” Says Grammick, “I find their arguments specious and I think their stand, personally I find it scandalous.”

What is most heartwarming, however, is the reference to two Catholic women who seem to have found a Catholic parish and pastor that welcome them and accept them — and their family — as they are.

Fr. Piers M. Lahey is the pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd Roman Catholic parish in Pacifica, California. Fr. Lahey lived up to the name of his parish when he went out on a limb and wrote a letter to U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein in supporting her efforts to seek legislation that would provide individual relief to one of his parishioners, Shirley Constantino Tan. Tan and her partner of 24 years are active members at Good Shepherd, but she was subject to deportation after her appeals for asylum were denied. Fr. Lahey wrote that Tan and partner Jaylynn Mercado are “wonderful Christian partners, parents, role models for their two boys, and, as Scripture says, ‘living stones’ helping to form and build up the Church, the Body of Christ, in today’s broken and violent world.”

God bless Fr. Lahey for following the example of the One True Shepherd.  His example of supporting those entrusted to his pastoral care speaks volumes when viewed next to those who claim the title of “shepherd,” but whose actions seem less than shepherd-like.

Texas Republicans & “Birthright Citizenship”

Posted on by

I try my best not to use sweeping generalizations or to speak about huge groups of people as if they all held the same world view or acted in the same way.  I cringe when I hear someone begin a sentence with, “All men are …” or “Women just…” or “Kids these days are…”  The same is true when people start these generalizations not with a trait or characteristic over which we have no control (like our gender, our race, our age or nationality), but also when the “label” is of a more voluntary nature, such as one about our choice of religion, athletic interests, or political persuasion.

Today, however, I’m going to make an exception.  Texas Republicans are nuts!  Their 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform is xenophobic, homophobic, hate-filled, anti-intellectual, self-aggrandizing and just plain stupid. The HRC’s latest mailing highlights the anti-gay elements (see this version, with offending texts highlighted, starting on p. 6).  Well beyond their condemnation of same-sex marriage and a desire to re-criminalize “sodomy” (whatever that is!), are positions from the ridiculous to silly to just plain mean. On the heels of stating that they “deplore all discrimination,” they immediately state that they also “deplore forced sensitivity training.”  So, in their judgment, acts that actually cause harm to people — like discrimination in employment, education, housing, etc. — are assessed with the same moral judgment (i.e. “deplored”) as are attempts to provide education and training to help people understand what such discrimination might look like and how it can occur?

But beyond this sort of silliness, these Texas GOP folks also want to change the Constitution. However, they want to do so not by amending the Constitution, but simply by having the three branches of the federal government “clarify” it.  And what, exactly, do they want “clarified”?  Apparently the language of the 14th Amendment is not very clear to them, though perhaps it’s because their own command of the English language isn’t all that good, which is somewhat surprising, since the Platform also calls for the adoption of “American English as the official language of Texas and the United States”; but I digress.  The Texans want Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to be understood as conferring “birthright citizenship” only on the children of current citizens.  Here’s what the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says:  “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” [emphases added]. Now, I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but I do understand English, including American English.  To me, that language is pretty clear: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen.

Texas GOPers want this “clarified.”  And just so I don’t misrepresent, here’s their full platform plank:

“Birthright Citizenship – We call on the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of these United States to clarify Section 1 of the 14th amendment to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a citizen of the United States: with no exceptions.”

If their view of the Constitution were the prevailing one, how many of us would not be citizens because our parents or grandparents or great-grandparents were born to immigrants who had not yet become naturalized citizens? The vast majority of Americans are the descendants of immigrants — from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and every corner of the globe. This openness to the foreigner should be reflected not only in the welcoming symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, but in the very laws that govern our land. America is, always has been, and always should be, a country that sees immigrants not as threats, but as assets; not as people to be feared, but as new neighbors to be welcomed. For Texas Republicans, however, the light’s been turned off and the welcome mat removed.

Southern Baptists and "Don’t ask, don’t tell"

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Post reports that the large number of military chaplains from the highly conservative Southern Baptist Convention may have a disproportionate influence on the debate about repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” “‘If a policy makes it more difficult – in fact, discourages – one of the groups that provides one of the largest numbers of chaplains to the military community from continuing to engage in chaplaincy ministry, that should raise significant concerns for them about the…spiritual well-being of our men and women in uniform,’ said Barrett Duke…” from a Southern Baptist research institute.

Well, if the quality of that ministry is such that they need to perpetuate prejudice and bigotry based on a few misunderstood and misinterpreted passages from scripture, then perhaps the loss of their “ministry” to those in uniform might not be such a bad thing.

Social Workers Sponsor DC Mayoral Candidates Forum

Posted on by

Last evening I attended a Mayoral Candidates Forum sponsored by the DC chapter of the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) PAC called PACE (Political Action for Candidate Election). The invitation-only event had announced that all five candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the September 14, 2010 primary — incumbent Mayor Adrian Fenty, City Council Chair Vince Gray, former newscaster Leo Alexander, real estate agent Ernest Johnson, and accountant Sulaimon Brown — would be in attendance. Unfortunately, Fenty was a no-show and no explanation for his absence was given.

Considering the context of this election (Washington DC) and the audience of the forum (social workers), there were no major surprises in any of the candidates’ answers to the several questions offered by the three-person panel. Here are some thoughts on the event::

  • This was a forum held in DC for a DC election. I had naively assumed that most attendees would be DC residents, eligible to cast their vote for one of the candidates. I was wrong. While no poll was taken, it was clear that a number of people in attendance were residents of either Maryland or Virginia, and that they merely worked for a DC government agency.
  • Ernest Johnson, whose campaign literature refers to his as an “anointed campaign,” seemed like a 2010 version of Marion Barry. He comes across as a friendly sort, but he seemed much more focused on attacking what he called the “Fenty-Gray administration” than with offering anything positive. His website pictures a smiling Johnson attending a “Say NO to Same-Sex Marriage” rally, and he favors a referendum to put this issue “to the people.”
  • Sulaimon Brown seemed ill-prepared and out of his league, so much so that I felt embarrassed for him. He apologized several times, saying that the notebook that contained his “research” had been stolen during a home break-in only hours before. But he seemed to lack even a basic understanding of issues, asking several times for questions to be repeated and for terms to be explained (e.g. “What’s a BSW?” Answer: “Bachelor of Social Work”).
  • Leo Alexanderis a polished and well-prepared candidate.  He is articulate, thoughtful, and presents strong and reasonable arguments for his candidacy’s platform — arguments that might not be so well-received by some, because of his focus on “the root causes of poverty,” including the breakdown of the African American family in DC. He had a facility with numbers and statistics, and seemed to have a systemic, “big picture” view of the interconnectedness of social problems that most social workers would subscribe to.  He also had some concrete plans if elected, including a promise to hire an “army of social workers” to be involved in schools and other agencies, and build a single DC government complex to reduce the rent paid by agencies dispersed throughout the city. Two things, however, made me cross him off my list of possibilities:
    • Immigration: his rhetoric on the high unemployment rates among African Americans in DC seemed pulled straight from Sarah P.’s playbook.  The reason for such high rates? Undocumented or illegal (read Hispanic/Latino) immigrants are hired for unskilled labor and construction jobs at wages that are apparently too low for others;
    • Same-Sex Marriage: not only does he not support DC’s recently-enacted law extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples, he also favors a referendum to put this issue to the voters (despite the fact that there have been 3 judicial rulings saying that such a referendum cannot go forward, as it would be against the fundamental human rights provision of the DC Charter).
  • Vince Gray found himself among a familiar and friendly crowd. He showed himself to be the seasoned politician he is, responding vociferously to Ernest Johnson’s accusations about cronyism and no-bid contracts, but deflecting the accusations with the same low degree of specificity. He responded to questions directly, highlighted his experience and accomplishments, and came across as someone who can get things done.
  • Perhaps my strongest disappointment was the lack of any discussion — either initiated by a question or in a candidate’s response — about taxes and the city’s finances. DC is among America’s most expensive places to live and is among the top ten states when comparing the total tax burden on individuals. So much of the conversation seemed to be about ways in which DC government and its agencies could do more and more to solve problems, without any discussion about how much these “solutions” would further burden DC residents, not all of whom are K Street lobbyists.