Home Runs, Dance Steps and the Issue of Gender

This past weekend my wife Linda and I attended our niece's four-hour dance recital.  Yes, you read that right--four hours worth of student dancers!
  Some as young as two or three, others in their twenties and thirties.  Mostly children, though, with a few adults thrown in for good measure.

All told, there were sixty-three different numbers.  They ranged in style from classical ballet to hip-hop--so the accompanying music ranged from Tchaikovsky to . . . . well, your guess is as good as mine.  Maybe better!

Some dancers were part of one or two numbers, while others showed up multiple times.  Some of the older dancers, not the adults, the older kids, had solos.  Most did not.  Some of the choreography was actually quite original, and three or four numbers verged on stunning.  One in particular, based loosely on the themes in the holocaust novel The Boy in Striped Pajamas, was very moving.  And very surprising.  One does not usually think of such a serious piece being part of a kids' dance recital. 

Most of the performers--some sixty or so in total--were girls and young women.  As one would expect.  But about eight or nine of them were boys.  I must say, I have the same kind of respect for boys who take dance lessons as I do for girls who play Little League baseball.  And even more than that, I have a real; appreciation for their parents.  Not all moms and dads are supportive of their children when they want to take up an activity that crosses traditional gender expectations! 

As I watched the various news reports this weekend and considered the journey Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner has undertaken, I couldn't help but think of those dance recital boys.  When, I wonder, will we get over our preconceived ideas about gender?  Clearly, it still matters--gender that is.  But how, and why?  What does it mean to be male?  What does it mean to be female?  Have we moved beyond biology?  So many questions! 

I guess, for me, it comes down to this:  what does it mean to be human?  Ultimately, that is the real question.  And how do we nurture girls and boys, gay, straight, bisexual or transgendered, as they grow into adulthood?  Letting them dance if they want to, letting them slide into home plate if that's their desire, and supporting them in their efforts, like the hundreds of family members who filled the auditorium at the dance recital--it's not all of it, but it certainly is a start!

So Many Books . . . So Little Time: A Reader's Lament

Maybe you have the same problem I have.  Too many books, too little time!  My good wife is constantly wondering why I take books out of the library on a regular basis when I already have several piles waiting to be read at home and at the office.  (Truth be told, I am a regular patron of two libraries, and a card holder at two more!)

My stack at home is largely fiction.  Novels I have been given (or occasionally have purchased for myself) waiting for the mood to strike.  Which doesn't mean I don't read much fiction.  I do.  Lots of it.  Most of those books checked out from the Sanibel Library or the Lakes Regional Library in Fort Myers are novels.  I have three of them at home right now.  Sara Gruen's latest, At Water's Edge, Jodi Picoult's most recent volume, Leaving Time and a real gem that I've almost finished, Marilynne Robinson's Lila.  (Robinson is such a fine writer!)

Here at work I have three stacks.  The books are mostly ones that have been given to me.  Some have been written by parishioners or their offspring.  I've got one by Robert Dornberg that I keep intending to get to called A Nation of Sheep.  He's a lovely fellow, and a thoughtful human being.  I may not agree with some of what he has to say, but I suspect it will be very well thought out.  I've got one by the son of parishioners, Dan Maurer, called Far Away.  Dan's a good writer--I've read one of his other books.  I keep stalling though on this one as it's about human trafficking.  I suspect it will be tough sledding.

The stacks also include a variety of things I want to read for professional reasons.  Parker Palmer's healing the Heart of Democracy, for instance.  I've dipped into it a bit, and as usual, Palmer is extremely trenchant.  "When we hold our suffering in a way that opens us to greater compassion," he writes at one point, "heartbreak becomes a source of healing, deepening out empathy . . . ."  (22) 
Good stuff!  But wait, there's more!  Aging Well, by George Vaillant, The (Un)common Good by Jim Wallis, and the list goes on!

And then there is the stack for my upcoming sabbatical.  Books related to my work on the abolition movement.  I'll be focusing especially on John Quincy Adams and his role in the anti-slavery movement, so Harlow Unger's biography of Adams is on the pile.  But so is Frederick Douglas' autobiography. 

One of the greatest pleasures in life, for me, is reading.  In fact, I can't imagine life without books.  And maybe that's why I have so many stacked up waiting to be read.  Maybe subconsciously I believe that as long as I've got at least one more book to read, I'll live to see another day.  Instead of the fountain of youth, I've got a bookcase of youth. 

Thirty-Five Years and Counting

June 1st I will celebrate the thirty-fifth anniversary of my ordination to the  Christian ministry.   It was the twenty-fifth anniversary of my father's ordination.  He was already serving student parishes when I was born.  For all of my almost sixty-two years I have been a part of this institution, so I am hardly an objective observer.  But I am an experienced one.  I have been a preacher's kid, a lay person in  the pews and a pastor in the pulpit.  I've seen the local church from most all angles, and while it is far from perfect, indeed at times very flawed, it is also an institution which has the capability of being an enormous force for the good in our world today, even as it has been in the past.

My PhD studies focused on church history, in particular, American Church History.  I asked my seminary president what he thought I should major in for my doctorate, New testament Studies, Church History or Theology.  He asked me how I was with languages.  I said, "It's not my favorite part of being a student."  "Well," he said, "if you go into any of those fields you'll need at least two languages, but except for American Church History, you'll need three or four languages."  I opted for American Church History!

In my course work and writing my dissertation, I was reminded over and over again of the many ways we have failed as an institution, how all too often we have been on the wrong side of history.  While the church led the charge in the abolition movement, much of the church vigorously defended slavery for decades.  While some in the church were part of the women's movement, patriarchy was often the rule rather than the exception.  It still is in parts of the church.  While there were and are compassionate folks in the church who have helped address the AIDS pandemic, some in the church have seen it as a punishment for persons living in ways of which they did not approve.  You get my point. 

But all that said--and there is much more that could be said--I remain firmly committed to the church, for I believe that it is an institution that has the capacity to being open to the stirring of God's Spirit.  I believe that it can be (and often is) a source of healing, reconciliation, forgiveness and grace in a world sorely in need of all the healing it can get.

But, as I said, I am far from objective !

Strong . . . or Wrong?

Two years ago, a few weeks after the bombing at the Boston Marathon, I received a package in the mail from my daughter Liz.  She lives in metropolitan Boston, and shares my enthusiasm for the Red Sox.  So I was both surprised and pleased when I opened up the small box and found a cap she had bought for me with the Red Sox "B" logo and underneath it the word "STRONG".

In the weeks and months following that senseless attack, I would occasionally see news articles about how very people who had been impacted by the bombing we living out the Boston Strong motto.  I was especially impressed by the amputees and others who ran in the marathons in 2014 and 2015.  The strength of character demonstrated by such folks truly enhanced the city's reputation.

Then in recent months as Dzohokhor Tsarnaev was tried for his role in the tragedy I once again witnessed various persons showing real spiritual, emotional and psychological strength as they took the stand and testified to what they had seen and experienced on that April day in 2013.  Such testimony always calls for real courage in the face of fear and sorrow.

On the day that Tsarnaev's sentence was to be handed down, I noticed at least one Boston Strong sign among those who waited outside the courthouse.  But, I wondered, what does Boston Strong mean in such a context?  Some have suggested that passing down the death penalty is a show of real strength.  We'll show terrorists we mean business.  But the way I see it, the death penalty is never a symbol of strength.  At best it is a symbol of frustration, at worst, it is a reminder that the human need for revenge can, at times, be overwhelming.

Don't misunderstand, the guilty verdict was clearly the right verdict.  And the jury demonstrated strength in their willingness to sit through testimony that was at times most painful.  I applaud their willingness to serve their community.  And under the circumstances, I can understand their desire to mete out what they perceived to be the most severe penalty for such an atrocious act.  They wanted to be Boston Strong.  But the death penalty isn't strong.  In fact, it is weak, for when it is administered we human beings are giving in to our basest emotions.  Yes, Dzohokhor Tsarnaev should be locked up for life, with no chance of parole.  But putting him to death only reinforces a cycle of violence that leads to more violence.

I will continue to wear my cap.  I will continue to be proud of a city I love dearly.  But each time I wear it I will pause and consider what it really means to be strong.

Needing Some Truth, Needing Some Reconciliation

I recently came across a quote from Desmond Tutu which struck a nerve.  "If you are neutral in situations of injustice," he said, "you have chosen the side of the oppressor.  If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." 

As I think about the ongoing conversation in our nation about police relations with minority communities, I can't help but wonder what it means to remain neutral.  Clearly, there is a measure of injustice at play.  Clearly, racist attitudes impact such relations.  If remaining neutral means saying, "well, there may be injustice here, or maybe not"--then I am most certainly not neutral.  There is injustice.  Black detainees have been mistreated.  Being stopped and frisked does happen for no other reason than a driver is a young black male.  If being neutral means saying those things may or may not happen, may or may not be fueled by racism, then count me out!  I'm not at all neutral!

But, if being neutral means recognizing that no social ill can be explained away with a simple answer, if being neutral means recognizing that cops are people too, if being neutral means recognizing that many, maybe even most, police officers are doing their job faithfully and well, then count me in.  I am more than willing to take sides about the issue. But I want to make sure we don't demonize either side.  Members of minority communities are human beings.  So are cops.  And we must never forget that. 

But, we must also remember we have a very real problem.  The very ones police officers are sworn to serve and protect often feel they are neither served nor protected.  Indeed, they often feel they are considered less than human.  And often for good reason, for the treatment they receive is at times sub-human.  And no one--no one--should ever feel that way. 

Desmond Tutu was instrumental in helping establish the Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa.  A process  that led to genuine understanding and healing between persons who were at least as estranged as cops and minority community members are in our country today.  Perhaps we need to look there for a model.  Certainly we could use some truth.  And a little reconciliation would be a good thing too.  For mice and for elephants--and for all the rest of us as well.

And So We Wait

So, the arguments have been presented and now we wait for the court to make it's decision.  Will the judges allow for marriage equality across the land?  Or will they place limitations on it, maybe even eliminating it altogether?  While the later seems highly unlikely, stranger things have happened over the course of history.

How often do we find ourselves in just such a place?  For me, and many others, I'm sure, the days of waiting are often harder than anything that follows.  I have heard more than one person waiting biopsy results say they just want to know what's going on so they can move forward with their lives.  If it's good news, wonderful.  But if it's not, well then, they can begin to address it.  But this waiting, Pastor.  This is hard!

And so it is.  I've never been known as a patient person.  My seminary president once wrote in one of my first professional references that I was a very gifted person, but--and it was a big but--"but John will need to learn that everything can't happen all at once."  It's a lesson, some thirty-five years later, that I'm still trying to learn!

So we watch and wait as the court makes up its mind.  We've been in this place before, and we'll be in it again.  It may not be marriage equality, or cancer tests, but it will be something.  Because my old seminary president was right, everything can't happen at once.  And sometimes, sometimes, the greatest lessons happen in the gaps, the in-between times, the transitions, the times of waiting.

A Tale of Two Women, Part II (with thoughts about Indiana)

There's good news and bad this week.  First the good.  My daughter Liz, her partner Erica and their two children have found an apartment just two blocks from their daughters' school.  It's a bit smaller than where they are now, but they are pleased to have the matter settled.

The further good news is the incredible amount of support they received as they dealt with the blatant bias exhibited by some of the folks they encountered during their search.  In a Facebook post Liz wrote:  "This past month and a half has wreaked havoc on my spirit. I've almost lost faith in [our city], organized religion, humanity in general but you all haven't let me. You've offered prayers and thoughts, legal and tenants' rights advice and referrals, babysitting, storage, guest rooms, and even short term rentals. . . . Thank you all for being there."  I add my thanks as well!  I'm glad my kid and her family have such a supportive network--including her church!

But there is bad news as well.  For religion is still being used as an excuse for biased behavior.  I refer to the so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"(RFRA) just signed into law in Indiana. 

I looked up the legislation itself, and found this summary of the legislation's purpose: "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act .  Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is 10 essential to further a compelling government interest; and 20 the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest."  The summary goes on to describe legal actions that can be taken if the law is violated.(iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568)

The bill itself contains definitions of "exercise of religion" and "person" among other items.  I know I'm asking you to wade through a lot this week--but this is important!  Here's the definition of "exercise of religion" put forth in the legislation.  "'Exercise of religion' means the practice or observance of religion.  The term includes a person's ability to 1) act; or 2) refuse to act; in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person's sincerely held religious beliefs regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."

Now don't misunderstand.  I am a big fan of religious freedom!  I think it is essential and have stood up for it more than once.  But that said, religion should not be used to fuel bigotry. A person may believe that black folks are all damned by God, but that doesn't give such a person the right to deny housing or service at a restaurant to African-Americans!  Someone may believe that God demands that women be subservient to men, but that doesn't give such a person the right to refuse promotions to women in business based on their gender!  (I realize such things happen--but they are illegal!)

Part of the issue in the case of the Indiana legislation as it currently stands is that sexual orientation is not a protected class like race or religion or ethnicity.  It is not illegal (in Indiana) to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.  Which opens up the possibility that the RFRA can be used to protect folks like the potential landlords who told Liz and Erica that they wouldn't rent to them because of their "lifestyle" was contrary to the religious beliefs held by the landlords.  

No doubt "fixes" to the legislation will be instituted in the days and weeks ahead--the potential financial cost to Indiana is too great to let it stand!  But Arkansas is considering a similar bill--and across the country, religious freedom is being pitted against civil rights.  And it is one of my core religious beliefs that that is just plain wrong.