A Post-Election Prayer for a Christian? Nation

The election is over, and we know the results.  This is good news even if for only one reason ~ that we won't be inundated with political advertising until at least after the inauguration.

Like many of you, my seven readers, I've been sickened by the amount of partisan bickering that we've been exposed to over the course of this election cycle.

More than that, I've been sickened by the amount of money that has been spent on advertising.  What if only 10% ... or even just 1% ... of that money had been set aside for the poor and vulnerable instead of going to line the pockets of executives and investors?

Now that the campaign and election are over, I suppose that my prayer would be this:

• that no matter what laws are passed or repealed; 
• that no matter what policies are implemented or what compromises are struck; 
• that no matter which person or party is seen as the winner or loser on any particular issue 
• that, above all, the priority of the government, and of our nation, would be to care for the poorest and most vulnerable populations.  

This alone, in my opinion, would make us a Christian Nation.

$0.02

Politics

There's a very basic conversation that ought to be happening in our nation these days. It's a conversation centered on whether government ought to be larger and have a more significant role in daily life, or whether government ought to be smaller and have a more limited role.

The trouble right now is that the only potential conversation we're even thinking about having is related to how much we ought to hate the other candidate. I've heard that one of the candidates for president is too wealthy, and therefore out of touch with the realities of the everyday life that most of us live. I've heard that the other candidate hates America, and all of his policies are designed to ruin this great country of ours.

I've heard that both are hypocritical ~ that they make promises they have no intention of keeping. I've heard all these things and more … plus, I've heard similar accusations thrown back and forth about the vice-presidential candidates.

I'm sick of all this accusatory nonsense, and I imagine I'm not the only one.

Part of the problem is that when we hear the major candidates and their surrogates vilifying their opponent, we feel like we have permission to do the same. When our co-worker has a different opinion from ours about foreign policy, or taxation, or abortion, or who ought to have the right to get married ~ when we disagree about anything, we have permission to hate our co-worker.

Obviously we don't actually have permission to hate our neighbor ~ but our political atmosphere seems to tell us that we do.

I would love to have an national conversation about the role of government. I would love for that conversation to be respectful, polite, and rational. I would love for people on opposing sides of that (and any other) issue to recognize that the other person is a real person.

I would love for to recognize the holiness of our opponent ~ in my own Christian language, I would love for us to recognize each other as children of G-d.

I would love for each side to remember, and to believe, that their opponent truly does have the best interest of our nation and of generations to come at heart.

I'm not holding my breath.

$0.02

It's Beginning

The earnest presidential campaign, that is.  Of course, the candidates have already been campaigning, but it's beginning to start to ramp up.  I see this, and I hardly every watch broadcast television.

But despite the fact that I don't watch much TV, I still get to hear some of the rhetoric and the name-calling and the political maneuvering and the criticizing of the other candidate's position on whatever issue.

Most of it bothers me ~ but what might bother me the most is the accusations from one to the other of being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on an issue. 

What bothers me more than the accusations, though, is the reaction of the accused ~ most of the time, the reaction is to try to explain away their previous positions.  I'm sure someone must have done it at some time in politics, but I've never heard a candidate say, "Yes, that was my position at one time.  Now, though, I see things differently.  Let me explain why I've changed my mind, how I've grown, and why I believe my current understanding is better."

Personally, I'd rather elect someone to office who honestly embraces the struggle and the moral uncertainty of real life, and would rather not elect someone who pretends like their positions haven't changed an iota since they were 25 years old. 

Plus, if we were a little more honest and humble about our own position, we might be a little more respectful of someone else's position ~ which just might lead to a growth in civility within our national political discourse.


As I go back and read this post, it seems like perhaps I'm looking and hoping for, dreaming about, honest politicians.  Is it too cynical to say that, perhaps, that's a pipe dream?

$0.02

Bishop's Election, Part Ten

When we first started the process to prepare for the election of a new bishop in our synod, I was skeptical. I was primarily worried that the people who were lifted up early in the pre-process would have greater name recognition once the process actually started at the assembly.

I'm still skeptical, since there seems to be some confusion about the process we're going to undertake in the very near future.  

See, here's the deal. About six months ago (maybe longer, but I can't remember), people in our synod were invited to submit the names of pastors who they thought might be a good bishop. The current synodical leadership tried to make it clear that those individuals weren't actually nominated ~ they were simply identified as potential candidates.

These potential candidates were invited to submit biographical information, and were invited to answer a number of questions about their vision for ministry in the synod. Seventeen potential nominees submitted information responses, and this was published. I believe that the synodical leadership was interested in trying to make the process as clear as possible.

Unfortunately, though, it seems to me that many people believe that they have seventeen people to choose from; namely, the seventeen who submitted biographical information and answers to the questions. And, despite the fact that every single time I talked about the bishop's election with people in my congregation, I made the point that these seventeen have not been nominated, and that others who aren't on the list might be nominated ~ despite my repeated reiterations, there are quite a few people from the congregation I serve who are wondering which of these seventeen will be bishop.

People don't seem to understand the process. And it didn't help even a little bit that the biographical information and responses from the seventeen are included in the pre-assembly packet. Including that information simply makes the misunderstanding about the process even more blatant.

The thing is, constitutionally there can be no nominees until the assembly begins. Further, the nominations for bishop are made by ecclesiastical ballot ~ which means that the first ballot is a blank sheet of paper, on which voting members may write down the name of any person eligible for the office (in this case, any ELCA pastor in good standing).

The field is wider open than the seventeen whose names are in the official pre-assembly materials.  I really hope this truth is clearer to most people than it seems to be to me.

$0.02

Bishop's Election, Part Nine

At the end of this week, we (in the Rocky Mountain Synod of the ELCA) will know who our new bishop will be. This week we meet together in assembly, the business of which will be the bishop's election.

I'm a little surprised by the agenda for this event. In the weeks before the assembly, we usually have a handful (or more) resolutions to read through and prepare to deal with. Often the resolutions are relatively innocuous; sometimes they're potentially contentious. I'm always interested to read them beforehand ~ partly so I can think and pray about how I might vote, and partly so I can try to predict who will be arguing for & against the proposal, and to guess about how long the fighting will go on.

This year, though, there is not one single resolution that's been submitted ahead of time. This is a really unusual situation. I wonder if we're all so preoccupied with the election of a new bishop that we're not considering what other changes to our life together that we might talk about.

On the one hand this makes sense. It seems appropriate to see who the new bishop will be, let that person take on that leadership role, and then determine the necessity for communal discernment about the direction of ministry in the synod.

On the other hand, this seems to me to be a cause for concern. Yes, it's important to see what kind of leadership a new bishop will provide. At the same time, the ministry of our synod is not all about the bishop. In fact, the polity of the ELCA seems to identify the congregation as the primary locus of ministry.

As I've stated before, I believe the primary role of the office of the bishop should be to facilitate connections between congregations, and after that to be mostly invisible. If we really are a priesthood of all believers, then the identity of the person being elected to be our next bishop should not stop us from considering the rest of the ministry of our syond.

In my opinion, we ought to be discussing resolutions this week, along with the election of a bishop. Of course, I didn't submit any resolutions, either.

For those who are interested, I'll be doing my best to offer my reflections on the election process. You can find them here at this blog, or you can follow shorter, more pithy comments on twitter and facebook.

$0.02

It's about to begin

Soon enough it will begin.  I'm thinking about the presidential campaign.  Obviously I realize that one party has been campaigning already, working to decide who will be their nominee. 

I paid a little attention to the primary contests, mostly out of curiosity.  It was interesting to watch the potential candidates work to position themselves in what they thought was the best way; working to convince voters which of them would be the best candidate for their party to put forward in the fall. 

Now that most of the doubt about that issue is past, I suspect the two major parties will begin taking earnest and sincere jabs at each other; and I have to say, even before it's really started, I'm kind of sick of the mean things they'll say about each other. 

I'm going to try really hard to not listen.  Except, I will be listening for one particular item.  I'm going to be listening for whether the only Christian values mentioned have to do with sex and marriage.  I don't even care which 'side' talks about sex and marriage, or how they talk about sex and marriage.  I don't care whether I agree with their perspective or not.  I don't want to hear about sex and marriage, particularly as Christian moral issues. 

When it comes to Christian moral issues, I say we should follow the bible.  It's fine to talk about sex and marriage, since the bible talks about sex and marriage.  But the bible also talks about the moral issue of poverty.  In fact, the bible talks about poverty over 2000 times, and about sex only a handful. 

I'm pretty sure, based on the bible, that poverty is a more important moral issue than sex of any variety.  So, let's talk about sex and marriage, but I'll be listening for the candidates to alleviate poverty first (or at least talk about poverty as an issue of faith and morality) ~ that seems biblical to me. 

$0.02