So Them

So Them, originally uploaded by kate e. did.

Two of my favorite people in the world asked me to take photos of them, so we had a quick shoot last night. This is one of my favorite photos from our time because it paints a brilliant picture of their relationship and personalities.

Also, it had been almost nine months since I took photography seriously and this shoot with Daniel and Megan reminded me of how much I love it.

Chapel Sermon

Hey, it's been an insanely long time since I've updated, it's true. But, just when you thought I was gone forever, here I am with a new distraction.

I preached in Miller Chapel on my birthday and if you click here, you can download the file to take a listen. It's only about ten minutes long and included my friend, Matt, reading the Scripture text. Unfortunately, the wonderful singing was not miked and is, therefore, not included.

Enjoy!

Purpose-Driven Choice?

I know I haven't posted in a while. Get over it. I also realize that I haven't followed through on my promise to write about my view of homosexuality...I'll get to it. Just let me find the words. Right now, I have something completely different on my mind.

I'm a little riled up about something; more riled up than I ever would have expected, actually. I'm rather disappointed in Obama's decision to have Rick Warren pray at his inauguration. There are many reasons why people object to this choice. Some are displeased because he has a problem with homosexual behavior. Others are upset because they don't think religion should be included in civil ceremonies. I have to admit, I agree with both of these groups a bit.

But, that's not my main objection to Senator Obama's choice. I think his choice is bland, made for political reasons and, thereby devoid of positive spiritual meaning. There's no way Obama could make a choice that would please everyone, but this choice may please too many. To my mind, Rick Warren represents pop religion. Honestly, I would be very surprised if Obama had been impacted by him in any significant way and that seems dishonest.

I am aware that Rick Warren has done charitable work in Africa and other places, but so have many other spiritual leaders that Obama could have chosen. I also realize there is something important about reaching out to and representing different demographics during the transition to a new administration, but I wonder if prayer is the proper venue through which to do so. And, if it is the proper venue, shouldn't he choose someone who would appeal to an even broader demographic than Rick Warren, such as a Catholic priest or a woman?

This morning, as I was discussing this choice with a friend and her parents and I was surprised to find that I began tearing up as I mused about why Obama hadn't chosen Jesse Jackson. Jackson wept over Obama's election, it would be a brilliant and meaningful statement to have him pray over Obama's presidency. Rick Warren just feels like the same old thing to me instead of a representative of the change our new president promised.

This doesn't seem like enough, but I think my thoughts might come together better in conversation. So, I'd love to hear what you think. Does it matter who prays? Should there even be prayer during civil ceremonies?

Are We Killing Babies

This week, in my class on Christian ethics, we've been discussing abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The reading has been interesting and compelling on both sides, but in the final analysis, I like to label myself pro-choice and anti-abortion. This means that I think abortion is a tragedy, especially when it is used as contraception by people who are simply careless, but I'm not ready to tell a woman who is impregnated by her rapist that she is bound to carry that child to term.

The questions of embryonic stem cell research have raised different questions for me, though. Several of the authors we read discussed the large number of embryos left over after fertility treatments (as many as 100,000). These embryos will never be implanted. In fact, many of them would not be viable even if they were placed in a womb that could nurture them. Since this is the case, debaters ask, shouldn't we make the most of these leftovers for research? Maybe you'd like me to discuss this question, but I'm more interested in why we have so many leftovers.

Fertility treatments are amazing, no doubt. The fact that science can "create life" is fascinating and provides the hope of having biological children to many. My question is, why are we all so intent on having genetic children? Is there really some biological imperative to spread our DNA? If there is, should we, as reasonable human beings, allow this imperative to determine our actions in such a way that we create multiple potential lives for every one that will come to fruition?

What does it say about how we think of children that so many American insist on having biological children? that so many Americans go to incredible expense to make that desire a reality? When we procreate, is it because we want to love and nurture young human beings or because we want a new accessory? If we place a priority on the former, the genetic make-up of the child we raise should carry little weight. However, if we want the 2.3 kids, kids that have mom's eyes and dad's chin, that every American is supposed to have, we might place a greater priority on genetics.

No, I haven't dealt with fertility issues, but I am getting older with no current prospects of marriage. It's possible that one day I may struggle through the pain of not being able to become pregnant. If that happens, rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and creating multiple embryos, that may or may not live, I would hope to have the presence of mind and compassion to pursue adoption, even adoption of an already fertilized egg that would otherwise be discarded.

Am I being harsh? Some might think so. But, shouldn't our views of embryos and fertility treatments and abortion be commensurate with our view of the purpose of having and raising children?

On a related note, one of my classmates made the claim that the discussion of personhood is a scientific one. I didn't get a chance to respond to this particular comment, but I would like to claim "person" as a sociological/psychological/social science term. The natural sciences might be able to determine whether a fetus is human, but beyond biological designations, I think natural science has little to say about who is and is not a person.

Too Late, My Friends

So, the whole point of blogging is to write about things when they happen rather than more than a month afterward. That's probably why I'm a failure at blogging. I like to have time to think and process, which takes a little longer for me that some people. On September 11, I began writing a post about a sign in the audience of the Republican Convention. Unfortunately, nearly six weeks have elapsed, and even though I remember what I was going to say, it doesn't seem like it would have the same power at this late date. Let's just say I think the idea of peace through power or force is a poor idea, one that will never have lasting results. Some of John McCain's supporters seem to have different ideas.

There have been a lot of things happening in my life in the past year that didn't seem appropriate blog fodder and now that there are some, I've gotten out of the habit. I'm going to try in the next few weeks to be more disciplined about the practice in an effort to determine whether I am at all interested in continuing this exercise. Maybe my first post (after this one) will fulfill my long-ago promise to write more about my views on homosexuality.

As Promised...

Here I am to give you some insight into my changing opinions. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm going to post a paper I wrote this summer during field ed. Hopefully, this will give you a better idea of how my thoughts have been developing. This particular piece was written as I considered my view of biblical authority, which has become a key issue in the debate over the acceptance of homosexual people into full fellowship in the church.

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

“Word of God” and “Bible” are not synonymous. The word of God can be found in and through reading, studying and meditating on the biblical text, but “word of God” is a more specific term, which can be applied to words on a page but primarily refers to the person of Jesus Christ.

The word of God is living and active. Life involves constant movement and adaptation. Relying on the Bible as a source of authority must take this into consideration. It is tempting to let the words on the page become hardened, retaining interpretations that no longer hold meaning for new situations, which the authors and editors of the Bible never even considered much less encountered. Consider, the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture in which women tended to be illiterate. It would have been irresponsible to have those who could not study biblical texts in leadership, which led some authors in the New Testament to prohibit women from being elders. However, in our culture, women are just as educated as men, forcing us to reconsider the prohibition on women in the pulpit as it applies (or doesn't apply) in our own churches.

The words in the Bible were inspired, not dictated, by the Holy Spirit. Though we are frail and prone to error, God used human beings to write the words of Scripture and continues to use us to interpret them. Knowing this, we must make allowances for the human elements in Scripture, being careful not to turn description into prescription. Care should also be taken in not adopting the cultural prejudices of the biblical writers or characters as our own (e.g. racism, sexism, shunning the poor, disabled, and diseased).

Some people think of the Bible as an instruction manual for life. Thinking in terms of the text from Hebrews cited earlier, which compares the word of God to a sword, it seems more appropriate to think of it as a tool. The instruction book model may leave the impression that the Bible gives an easy and obvious answer for every life situation. On the other hand, a tool model gives the idea that the words and ideas contained in the Bible enable us to live a more faithful life. Such a model also serves to remind us that the Bible is not a fit tool for answering every question. For instance, the Bible is not a textbook which can be used to support scientific research. However, it is a tool which can be used in dealing with the ethical implications of applying scientific discoveries.

Further, viewing the Bible in too simplistic a way does not follow with the interpretive traditions of the Jewish rabbis, the church fathers, the reformers, or modern theologians. The Bible is something much more complex than a yardstick.

Given the way human contexts have varied over time and space and the depth of meaning to be found in the biblical text, it seems reasonable to assume that there could be many different and faithful interpretations of the same text. There are not unlimited faithful interpretations of every text, but neither is there one unquestionable interpretation for any. For example, a community of people living with AIDS in South Africa and a small congregation of farmers in rural Idaho will likely have differing interpretations of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Ultimately, the Bible only has authority in the lives of Christians if it can offer guidance in living faithfully toward God and one another in our time and place. In order for the Bible to function in this way, we must consider both the context of the author and our own. We must allow the text to challenge our assumptions and we, in turn, must challenge the text's assumptions. And we must remain dependent on the Holy Spirit, who can enlighten our hearts and minds to find what the text is saying for us, for now.

The Bible doesn't give us easy answers. We are held responsible for immersing ourselves in the texts of Scripture as often as we are able in order to discern its meaning for us and for our communities. Unfortunately, the busyness of our lives often keeps us from pursuing deep study and reflection. It is tempting to rely on notes at the bottom of the pages of our study bibles or the interpretation provided by the familiar voice on the radio or face on the television. Listening to alternative voices is an important part of biblical study but as much as is possible, we should examine what familiar voices tell us in light of what we see in the text ourselves.

This is a work in progress, which makes it a bit stilted, but I trust that as I have more time to consider the question of biblical authority that my ability to express myself on the subject will improve. I'm interested to know what any of you might think about what I've written here whether you agree with me or not. Thanks for taking the time to walk with me.

The Three Most Controversial Things Happening In My Brain...

Controversy has always been my most feared opponent. I hate it with a fiery passion because being controversial often leads one down a path toward confrontation, another thing I avoid at most possible costs. But, though peace can be a wonderful thing, constant avoidance is exhausting. What's more, most people never get a chance to see who I really am and to know what I really think. So, throwing a lot of caution to the wind, I'm going to make myself vulnerable here and write about three things that will surprise some of my readers.

Let's start with what will probably seem least surprising to most of you. Over the past few years, especially my time here at Princeton, I've been forced to consider what my next step in life should be. For many years, I was convinced that one day I would be a professor. The field of study I was interested in changed, but the end goal remained the same: Ph.D. and professorship. This summer, however, I decided to begin the process of ordination in the PCUSA. It's a step I never expected to take. I never fought it in the sense that some of my friends fought their callings to ministry, I just never really considered it. First Pres of Salem did a number on me, though. Up until my arrival there, almost all of the people in my life simply supported my opinion that I was not cut out for full time ministry. But, week after week in Salem, dedicated members of that congregation, including several retired ministers, people who had no idea what my vocational goals were, constantly affirmed my gifts for ministry. Scary step, yes, but I think I need to take the wisdom of these encouragers seriously. Also, active participation in worship from week to week was something I enjoyed more deeply than I ever expected. When we had communion, and I couldn't even serve the bread, I felt profoundly sad. Though I still wonder whether ordination should really be necessary to participate in that way, it is right now, so I'm going to work with the system.

I still can't picture myself in parish ministry, but I suppose that could change in the next few years as I walk through the steps of the ordination process. My supervisor in Salem actually suggested becoming a campus chaplain, a position that would allow me to combine my love of academia with my desire to work with folks face-to-face. I would still love to get my Ph.D., and expect I will sometime in the not-too-distant future, but studying for and taking the GRE, researching and applying to programs, and learning German won't all fit on top of the million other things I have to do this year. Instead, I'm going to take a few years off from school and get a job in a church, to gain some experience and remain engaged in "professional" ministry, and (possibly) a second job, which will help me pay the bills.

Moving on to my second item... one that will probably seem least controversial to some and most irritating to others: I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. Perhaps I have taken a little sip of the kool-aid on this, but let me tell you, it tastes good. I almost wrote "pretty good," but that would be a serious understatement. Most of my years of political awareness have been spent in knee-jerk support of conservative candidates because that's what you do if you're from my city, my church, my college, but I'm done with their pragmatism. I don't actually think that Barack is just a starry-eyed optimist, but if he is, so what? My life could do with a little more optimism. Believe me, I can supply all the pessimism for myself and three other people. Keep the pragmatists in the trenches getting things done, but give me a leader who can dream.

I'm not supposed to say this, but I'm okay with having higher taxes if it means children will get health care or that we will wean ourselves from oil so that our earth can begin to heal or that students who come after me won't have to go into serious debt to finance their education. Sure, I don't really want to surrender half of my salaray, but I can live in a smaller house with less stuff if it means that a family down on their luck won't have to live on the street.

Finally, and with little explanation because that will come later in it's own special post, I think it's okay to be gay; not a sin or a problem. I don't love homosexuals despite their "lifestyle," I love every part of them and encourage them to make wise and healthy decisions, just as I would a heterosexual person. There is a lot of thought behind this statement, but I'll lay that out more fully in a forthcoming post. Before that, I'll be posting a paper I wrote this summer concerning my view of biblical authority, which will probably help clarify why my thinking has turned in this direction. But, for now, I leave you with enough to chew on for a few days.

Things Are Looking Up

Things Are Looking Up, originally uploaded by kate e. did.

I took this photo the weekend before I left Oregon at the wedding of two folks I know from seminary. It was a lovely event. Too bad my social awkwardness and introversion led me to leave before they cut the cake.