Headlines that We Would Like to See Versus

Headlines that We Would Like to See Versus Headlines We Will Probably See

Recently, I got to thinking recently about headlines that would be good to see versus those we will probably see in the days ahead.

We Would Like to See

Jerusalem, July 18, 2017: Prime Minister Martha Swartz announced today that a permanent peace agreement has been reached between Israel and the State of Palestine. In the agreement, both parties have agreed to keep Jerusalem a free city open to all visitors. Israel has agreed to cease expansion of new towns into the West Bank, and Palestinians have agreed to a peaceful recognition of Israel’s right to exist. “What were we thinking?” The Prime Minister said in her opening remarks before the Israeli Parliament . . .

We Will Probably See

Jerusalem, June 1, 2020: Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza early this morning as Israel launched a pre-emptive strike again Hamas to punish them for rocket fire against Israeli settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu said “It is time Israel shows our determination to . . . . .

We Would Like to See

Karachi, Pakistan, March 15, 2015: Pakistani and Indian representatives announced a wide-sweeping peace agreement between these two long divided nations which includes disarmament of nuclear weapons by both sides. In a joint statement, the leaders declared, “Each of our nations have enough problems of poverty and poor education than to waste our time and energy building up huge armies and weapons in a battle that neither of us could win.” Military leaders from both countries hailed the . .

We Will Probably See

Mumbai, India, March 16^th, 2019: India began retaliatory shelling across its disputed borders with Pakistan today in reacting to the recent alleged state sponsored terrorist attacks in the major cities of . . .

We Would Like to See

Kabul, Afghanistan, September 15, 2021: Free and democratic elections in this troubled state have led to the election of the first female Prime Minister. “This is a victory for reform and the rights of all the people of Afghanistan” said the new leader as she . . .

We Will Probably See

Kabul, Afghanistan, September 20, 2030: 87 year old President Hamid Karzai was re-elected today in an election marked with extensive fraud and violence. President Karzai now presides over one of the most corrupt governments in the world while three of the Provincial Capitals are now held by a resurgent Taliban. After the election, President Karzai committed himself to the on-going reform of his government and said that, “All our present troubles are directly the result of decisions by the U.S. government to . . .

What We Would Like to See

Oslo, January 20, 2030: World scientists acknowledged today that “We are seeing the beginning of the reversal of recent global warming as Nations adhere to the New Paris Accords on limiting CO2 gas emissions combined with the growing use of cold fusion energy developed in 2019 by a team of renowned international scientist at the Institute of . . . “

We Will Probably See

Miami, Florida January 20, 2030: The City of Miami was officially abandoned today after extensive efforts to hold back the affects of increased ocean waters failed. This makes the 7^th major world city to be washed over due to the effects of global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. Meanwhile, both the U.S. and China announced their planned veto of a U.N. backed resolution that called for a 3% reduction in . . .

In Remembrance of My Father, Glenn Martin

My favorite picture of my father was taken just after he entered the army in 1943. He was 18 years old, good looking, and oh so young just like so many of his generation. Next to this picture, my wife has placed his Purple Heart which he earned at the battle of the Bulge in a shelling in the Ardennes forest. Dad hit Normandy on D-day plus 6 with the 251^st Artillery Division. He found through to the end of the war. He was truly one of the Greatest Generation.

He seldom talked about his war experiences. He never talked about his Purple Heart and when I first found it, he passed it off with “I was luckier than a lot of guys.” Recently, I learned of the many unit citations his group received. He was silent on all this. I do know that his best friend died the same night he was injured which is why I think he never talked about this.

Dad returned home to build a life after the war. When he could not break into the meat packers union in Cleveland, he packed up his young family and moved to Dallas. Here he taught himself to be a machinist eventually becoming a Master Machinist with Texas Instruments. After I entered the ministry, he admitted to me that he had hoped that I would become an engineer. He always let me know, however, how proud he was of me.

For many of my early years, he worked two jobs. I seldom spent time with him. Of course, this was before quality time and bonding. Truth is we really never connected until I was over 40. The older we both became, the better our relationship.

My dad never really wanted much to do with the Church even when my mother and I became quite active in the Episcopal Church. This was probably a reaction against the hell-fire and brimstone religion of his Southern Baptism mother. When our Rector found out that dad was a machinist, he asked dad to help him with the restoration of a pipe organ. They spend hours together in the evenings working on it. One day, to our amazement, dad announced he was going to church because he was going to be confirmed. He never missed a Sunday after that until illness prevented it. I found out recently that he often double dipped on Sundays taking communion from one of our LEMS at the Cathedral and then getting it from the Disciples of Christ folks at the nursing home.

My dad was, according to everyone including most recently his nursing home aids, “a good man who never complained.” He would have quite literally given someone the shirt off his back. He taught me to never regard someone’s income or race, and to be fair to all. He often ended conversations with “don’t worry about your mom and me, we will be alright.”

My dad never hired anyone to work in our home. He did everything and taught me to do so too. From him, I learned the dignity of hard work. It seemed every weekend as I child, I watched him doing repairs on something or improving our home.

Then when I turned 12, he took up golf. He took me with him, and this became the one really bonding experience between us. The last few years, our visits at the nursing home were punctuated by watching some tournament together. “Great shot,” he would often say. Last Christmas, a visiting church group asked “Mr. Glenn” what he would like. He asked for a new pair of golf shoes and to everyone’s amazement, they brought him a pair. He wore them regularly while being pushed around in his wheelchair.

After an emergency trip to Baylor Hospital last month, his doctor told me that he simply could not drink or eat enough to sustain himself any further. Reluctantly, we discontinued any further treatment, returned him to the nursing home to be close to mom, and we engaged hospice. While I had long expected this to come, I wept. My mom has no short-term memory and serious dementia. She does recognize “her honey” and he always smiled when she came into his room. They had a long love affair that lasted 67 years.

On November 6^th, my dad passed from this world. I will miss him, but I am not worried, as he often told me, he will be alright.

Extending Communion to All Present

There is serious debate taking place among Episcopalians about what is commonly called “Open Communion.” This means that we should invite all persons present at a Eucharist to receive communion even if they are (a) not baptized or (b) a member of a different faith community. I would like to suggest that our current discussion about communion might be moved to another level if we consider our present situation in light of, and contrast to, that of Bishop Cranmer’s.

Cranmer’s problem was definitely not ours. Nothing reveals this more than the fact that baptism was never a concern in the matter of the reception of the communion. He could assume that everyone in an Anglican Church, indeed the Nation, was baptized. His concern was whether the baptized were actually Christian. From his theological viewpoint he had many in the Church who were "sacramentalized," but not evangelized. They were at best “cultural Christians.”

We must all remember as members of a highly liturgical church that one of our most vulnerable areas is that liturgy, once it becomes familiar, can also dull our senses to what is actually happening. For Episcopalians the prophetic words that “these people honor me with their lips, but there hearts are very far from me” could have direct application to us.

In contrast to this, Cranmer made his invitation to confession – the prerequisite for receiving communion. Remember the words?

“Ye who do truly and earnestly repent of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: Draw near with faith and make your humble confession to almighty God devoutly kneeling.”

Where is baptism in all this? Cranmer’s concern was that the baptized person look inwardly at one’s own heart and examines oneself as to our willingness and intention to receive the Lord’s Supper with a right attitude and disposition. Now, personally I am a Cranmerian when it comes to this issue.

Consequently, I think the emphasis on baptism leads us in the wrong direction. Mostly, what I hear now in Episcopal Churches, or read in the bulletin is something like this: “We welcome all baptized Christians (which should be “baptized persons”) who wish to receive communion to come forward and to the altar rail and join us.” I think all of us clergy rightfully avoid the awkward addition from the House of Bishops directive “who are able to receive communion in your own church.”

At the heart of my discomfort with all this wording in our attempt to be gracious and inviting is two-fold. First, our world is not one in which all are baptized. Even more importantly as the House of Bishops directive indicates, our emphasis at that moment becomes “membership” in a church. This is precisely what I think a seeker person hears from us. I think Cranmer would be astonished to discover that his descendents are more concerned with membership than attitude. Again, his theological perspective was largely one of the heart.

All this is made more complex by the fact that we now live in what is clearly both a post-Christendom world and a post-denominational culture. No wonder we are confused, life has gotten very complex. In the midst this complexity, we stubble over trying to be Episcopalian in welcoming and being inclusive toward others.

I would like to see our House of Bishops theological committee construct a brief paragraph that could be placed in our bulletins that expresses our theology, that all who are baptized are one. It also needs to express our pastoral reality that as a Eucharistic-centered community we welcome, in the Lord’s name, everyone who wishes a deeper participation in Christ and desire to follow him in his ways. This means that in our world we will inevitably have non-baptized seekers as well as non-Christians in our midst. Excluding those seekers from receiving communion may not be in our Lord’s best interest. Not clarifying the need for repentance and renewal may not be in their best interest whether they are seekers or members of our or some other church.

Holy Women Holy Men Revisited

At General Convention in 2009, the church passed a large number of additions to Lesser Feasts and Fasts, our commemoration calendar.    Even though some of the names suggested met with serious objections, the resolution passed overwhelmingly.  On June 30^th, the year trial usage ended, although the resource will continue to be used with its passage in 2012 nearly assured.  I voted against it, and the more that I have thought about this, the stronger I feel about this issue. 

Until recently, the Church’s commemoration calendar has been a slowly evolving item.  It took time for a consensus to emerge for a particular person to be added to the commemorations of the whole church.  Take the failed efforts of some quite well-meaning church members to place King Charles the alleged martyr to our corporate prayers. 

Then the Standing Liturgical Commission came up with a long list of new names for us to remember.  Intuitively, my radar when up.  Here is what I concluded.  Only a church led by baby-boomers would be audacious and self-centered enough to believe that we are entitled to add to our commemorations so many people at one time.  Past generations exercised restrain and modesty in adding people (and removing them.) 

As a boomer, I have known for some time that my generation believes itself the most enlighten that has ever lived on the planet.  I would contend that Holy Women, Holy Men says more about our generation than the people we intend to honor.  It has been said that tradition is the living vote of those who have gone before us.  Most boomers consider those who have gone before us as not worthy of a vote.  No wonder we find such blatant inflation of the list by those believing ourselves most worthy of choosing. 

In addition, the criterion seemed to be one of the ever invasive “inclusiveness” that now dominates the thinking of current church leaders.  Not only are many of these persons not Christians, but several were openly hostile to the Christian Church.  Why should we commemorate them?  No other organization would make its honor roll of those who wished their own organization cease to exist. This is not a list of “Holy” women or men.  Holiness in any classical sense of the term was never a serious criterion.  The better title should have been “Women and Men of Good Intentions and Deeds.”  

The historic commemorations include people who were saints in the very sense of the word.  They are martyrs, witnesses and servants of extraordinary sacrifice.  When we think of Francis, or Anthony, or Hilda, or Constance, we are thinking of people through whom the light of Christ, their savior, shone brightly. They did not just do good things that should be appreciated by other humans.  They led holy lives that pointed to something, or rather someone, beyond themselves.  

Lastly, I would point to the consequence of this sudden inflation of names.  In a very real sense, the saints are the most valuable commodity of God’s reign on earth in every generation.  They are the examples that point all of us to a further life of service and holiness in God’s Kingdom, as the old hymn says, “And I want to be one too.”  They tell us, to paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and therefore not tried.  The saints and those we commemorate in the old Lesser Feasts and Fasts, give us a glimpse of what can happen if Christianity, true discipleship, is found hard yet lived.  These folks are in a very real sense the currency of the Kingdom.  As we all know, when a nation or community decides to simply print more currency, it does no spread the wealth.  The consequence is exactly the opposite, it devalues the currency. 

This is my most serious objection to the well-intended Holy Women, Holy Men.  Its consequence is not to inspire the kind of holiness of life that our former commemorations did for us.  Its true consequence is to make the term holy almost meaningless. 

I draw one last consolation in all this.  History has taught me that a future generation, perhaps not very long from now, will simply look at our actions in this matter and ask, “Who did these people think they were?”  That may be the most important question raised by this action.  Not who were these people we added in so great a number, but who were we to act in such a self-centered and self-absorbed way?    They will only need to look at how few saints our generation has produced to grasp the answer.  

Tiger's Achilles Heel

Actually, as it turns out, Tiger Woods’ Achilles heel is not his heel, but his knee. He has had four surgeries to repair damage done to his left knee because at impact in his 120 mile an hour swing, he violently kicks his left knee strait. This means his left knee has to absorb the full impact of his champion swing. What does all this have to say about congregational leadership? It says a lot if you stay with me.

In Tiger’s own book on the golf swing, he describes this “violent kick” as a distinctive part of his way of doing things. Of course, today sports physiologists shake their heads at what he does and the damage it has caused him, but my point is that he told us 10 years ago his rationalization for doing so. It is a unique characteristic of his swing. Despite three well publicized coaching changes, he still repeats this action. As Lee Trevino said recently, “Either he will stop doing this, or his career is over.”

Often, I have found clergy leaders, even very outstanding leaders, who have a unique habit (dare I say flaw?) that they justify as simply part of their individual style. In other words, they view, what is really a fault, as a strength. For example, I remember a Bishop with a notoriously bad temper who explained to me that “When I am mad at one of my clergy, I sure let them know it It clears the air, and afterward it is over and done as far as I am concerned.” Of course, it wasn’t over and done as far as many of the clergy on the receptive side of the interchange were concerned, but my main point is that this leader saw such behavior as a unique part of his own style that was beneficial in some way.

I also remember a vestry person in my first congregation that would regularly tell me her frank opinion about most church issues. She would fire off a broadside followed by her comment that “You may not like it, but you always know where I stand.” I can tell you that her husband, her children, and her employees also always knew where she stood, and most had long since stopped caring.

In the long run, such justifications are just that, justifications. They are used to rationalize behavior that one should change, but many leaders use their strengths to justify such things as a virtuous part of their personal style. I know that I have done this. I am a mild introvert on the Myers-Briggs personality index. One day a clergy friend pointed out to me (painfully, I might add) that I sometimes used this as an excuse for not more positively engaging people on Sunday mornings. At first, I thought my friend was unkind for saying so, and that he did not really “understand me.” After time, I came to realize that I was using my introversion as a justification for not carrying out one of my primary jobs of as a leader, namely, showing people that I genuinely care about them. I cannot say it was easy to change this behavior. I would say that realizing that it was a problem, and that I needed to address it, rather than justify it as a part of who I was, became an important step in learning to be a more effective leader.

Let’s face it, personal insight and commitment to change is hard. God grant it to us, and God give us also truthful friends who care enough to give us such feedback. Recently, a colleague shared with me a remarkable book about just such issues. It is Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: How to become an Effective Leader by Confronting Potential Failures by Gary McIntosh and Samuel Rima. If you are a leader committed to growing as a leader, you may want make this part of your summer reading.

Forgive me Oprah, I Have Sinned

Yesterday, as the whole world knows, was Oprah’s last show after 25 years. After all the hype, she effectively stood on stage by herself and urged all her audience and millions of viewers to essentially find their passion and make a difference in their world.

For years, folks have laughed and cried with her while identifying with her personal struggles and many triumphs. She is one of the richest people in America, and without a doubt, one of the most influential. She has used this influence to help elect a President, help people discover the joys of good reading, and provided hope and comfort to millions suffering from all kinds of afflictions and addictions. It is probably fair to say that Oprah and her therapeutic spirituality have a greater audience then any religious leader in our culture. She is loved and respected by Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and millions of seekers.

I acknowledge this openly, although I have a confession to go with this. My first year at the Cathedral, I made an offhanded and denigrating remark about Oprah. One good lady here took me to task afterward for speaking despairingly about a woman who had helped millions of individuals and especially millions of women find their voice. As I reflected on her comments, I had to admit I had taken a cheap shot.

Not that Oprah is perfect by any means. In fact, it is her imperfections that are part of the power of her influence. How many over-weight folks have watched her many programs on losing weight and exercise, only to be comforted later by her weight gain – “see, she can hope, try and even fail, just like the rest of us.” My personal gripe with her was a series of remarks she make about the impossibility of people remaining in long-term marriages these days. She explained that life-long marriage was an idea created by folks living in a world where the average age was 25. Good point, but what she omitted, and is omitted by everyone who speaks popularly on this topic, is that most first time marriages, the vast majority, remain long-term commitments.

More importantly, I had to reflect in all this about “where” I was coming from that morning in the pulpit. I concluded that I had unconsciously betrayed one of the foremost biases of Episcopal clergy. I was, of course, being elitist. It was precisely her popularity that bothered me. Not that I begrudge an African-American woman getting a piece of the American pie. It was that she had gotten a large piece of the popular American pie. Forgive me Oprah, I had sinned.

One of the reasons that Episcopalians are becoming such a rapidly extinct species is precise what I showed that day. We are, generally speaking, deeply out of touch with common people and their needs, hopes and aspirations. Oprah is not. Oprah got constant feedback on this and it is called “ratings.” Ours is slower, but it is called “attendance.” As the ratings war goes, we are losing.

Many think we are losing because we use the wrong music style. Others, such as our own Presiding Bishop, think we have grown old and do not reproduce in significant numbers. Dissenters think we have all plunged down the slippery slope of liberalism and moral relativism. I think it is deeper.

Jesus came to the earth, lived among ordinary people, and preached the Kingdom (or reign) of God using illustrations taken from everyday life. Most Episcopal leaders that I know live in the realm of esoteric ideas, cast out theological concepts that are too complicated, and offer preaching and teaching that has almost no “take home application” at all. If you believe us, what would you do? I once heard a prominent Episcopal leader say that “application in a sermon is trivial.” Guess we can tell you what to think, but do not ask us to tell you how to live.

We might all take a lesson from Oprah. Want to help our people and at least keep the folks we have?  Then, come down from heaven and live on the earth with the rest of the folks. Jesus did.

Clergy and Marriage

One of my pet peeves in life is the fact that more and more Episcopalians, even clergy, are taking a Roman Catholic view of the sacraments rather than an Anglican one. I saw this as candidates before the Standing Committee in Dallas would explain their view of the Eucharist. I wonder if this is not part of the current debate about so-called “open communion.” If one believes that the Eucharist will benefit a person no matter what their own personal spiritual situation, then by all means go into the local market and give it to everyone.

Another area is that of marriage, and this is most illustrated regarding married clergy. I find that most Episcopalians that I know view married clergy from a Roman perspective. What I mean is that Episcopalians see our clergy as Roman priests who are allowed to have a live in companion. This is ok as long as we spend 50 to 60 hours a week attending to parishioners and their needs. Yes, Episcopal leaders will often acknowledge how hard being a Priest is on one’s family, and there is the problem.

Let me be absolutely clear about this. My being married and my marriage to Sharon is central to my vocation as a priest. If I am to be the shepherd that I am supposed to be for the people of the congregation, this flows out of my vocation as a husband (and a father.) Being married is not something that I am allowed to do in addition to being a priest.

If I have any regrets about being ordained, the main one has to do with my relationship with my sons. I wish that when I was younger that I had given them more quality time. I was off overworking in parishes and I justified this by saying that I was trying to be a good parish priest. In the Anglican view, as I give myself to my family, I am giving myself to my vocation. It was a wise older priest who taught me this hard lesson.

I remember an incident in the Diocese of Texas that deeply troubled me. One young clergy family was faced with a major medical crisis with their son. This demanded them spending many hours at the hospital and in therapy helping. After a while, the Vestry asked the Bishop to remove the clergy. “After all,” they argued, “We brought him here to minister to us and not his family!” It never occurred to them that God had brought that particular family to them for their opportunity to offer ministry. When the Bishop heard this, he shook his head and said, “They just don’t get it.” They never did either and eventually forcing him to resign.

Having said this let me ask how clergy are to model the Christian vocation of marriage if we do not get this ourselves? One of the critical issues in our success driven meritocracy is that men and women are consistently asked to sacrifice their marriages and family at the altar of success. Christians should be a counter-culture to this and it could start with our attitude toward our clergy.