As I write this, the Ecumenical Advocacy Days conference is winding down in Washington, DC.  This is an annual event drawing hundreds of Christians to the nation’s capital to learn about and express their views on issues before Congress and the American people.  I attended the conference in its prior iteration, when it was known as IMPACT.

During those days I lived in upstate New York, and, along with a few others from among the churches there, I got to know our member of Congress, Stan Lundine.  On numerous occasions we went to speak to Congressman Lundine when he was back from Washington.  I’ll never forget Lundine’s comment one day as we made our points about poverty and federal budget concerns.  Almost wistfully he remarked, “The poor have no voice.”  Translation:  they have no influence or clout with those making the decisions, so they’ll lose out again.

After a while, I became acquainted with the scheduler at Lundine’s local office, and one time as I was preparing for a trip to Washington for IMPACT, I called ahead to his Capitol Hill office to schedule an appointment.  When I identified myself to the person I spoke with she said, “Oh yes, you’re from the church in (that town).”

That particular year, the Iran-Contra issue was on the front burner and there was a huge national debate.  It seemed those in power tried to demonize objectors and vice versa.  It was a very contentious subject and time.  I knew where Congressman Lundine stood on the issue, and I felt it important to let him know people like myself were backing him up.  I also wanted to talk with him about the Gramm-Rudman budget proposal, about which we differed.

I attended the plenary sessions and workshops at the IMPACT briefing.  There were a few others there from the 34^th congressional district I didn’t know beforehand, but we hooked up and planned for the meeting with Lundine.  The morning of the appointment, Mary told me that during the night before I was talking in my sleep about the issues.  I guess I was primed.  Maybe I had an incubating case of Potomac Fever.

At the appointment with Congressman Lundine I complimented his position on Iran-Contra, which obviously pleased him, but when I challenged him on Gramm-Rudman, he made a face and took a breath, but maintained his cool.  We had a cordial discussion, but I didn’t change his mind.

There are helpful approaches to “lobbying” members of Congress.  Mainly, start with an area of agreement or support, and then raise concerns in an organized, concise way.  Never make it personal.  Just stick to the issues and why they are important to you.  Also, make it clear who is being represented, i.e., what constituency is spoken for in the visit, and why the issue is important to them.  Tell the member of Congress as specifically as possible what you think they should do and why they should do it.

Of course, in this case, given our numerous prior interactions, Lundine knew who stood with me and why we were concerned.  An on-going relationship with the legislator is useful, and we were fortunate that Congressman Lundine was receptive to us. 

Good guy, Stan Lundine.

I really have nothing against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and expect him to put forth an honest effort and run an honorable administration if he is elected president in November.  He took the low road, though, in his recent response to criticisms of John Hagee’s endorsement of his candidacy.  I mentioned this endorsement and my feelings about it a few posts back.

Sen. McCain said he rejected Hagee’s views “IF they were anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”  I made the emphasis on the “IF.”  This remark says to me either McCain doesn’t know Hagee’s views, or he isn’t sure whether Catholics find them offensive.  The Senator must not know who is endorsing him and what that person said, which is well-documented.

Actually, I recognize this as the “non-apology apology.”  McCain, and anyone who uses this technique, really is never at fault.  The problem always lies with someone else who may happen to take offense at words or actions, for which really, the offender is not responsible, in his view.

“I’m sorry if YOU are upset because of what I said or did.  I am not sorry for what I said or did.  You are the one who is upset or hurt, not me, and I didn’t do it, because you’re the one who decides to go negative about it.”  Happens all the time.

Additionally, McCain was quoted as saying, “It’s harder and harder trying to do the Lord’s work in the city of Satan,” meaning Washington, D.C.

That’s a new one – Washington is the city of Satan.  Nice try, Senator, but you and countless others have spent decades there contributing to the conditions that you now are blaming on Satan.  Hear that?  Blaming problems, immoral behavior, greed, etc. on Satan.  Again, it’s a denial of responsibility.

“I’m just trying to do ‘the Lord’s work,’ but Satan stops me, so I am exempt from blame for the problems that exist.” 

No doubt a thorough examination of statements by the other candidates would reveal the same tendency to side-step responsibility for errors in judgment, and the avoidance of personal responsibility for offensive actions and words.

Besides, I love Washington.

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau made numerous films together, and were beloved by many as a team, as well as individually.  A story is told how one time on a movie set Matthau fell and broke his leg.  An ambulance was summoned, and as Matthau lay on the floor waiting, Jack Lemmon leaned down over his pal and asked, "How are you doing?"  Despite his discomfort, Walter Matthau kind of shrugged and replied, "I make a living."

Another story, definitely fictional, along the same lines, this time featuring the duo Pat and Mike:  The boys were working construction.  Pat fell off the scaffolding and was knocked out.  A doctor examined him and said, "He's dead."  Pat regained consciousness a second or two later and said, "Hey, I ain't dead."  His buddy Mike, ever-helpful, said, "Lay down, Pat.  The doctor knows best."

This Sunday's Lectionary takes us to John 11, and the story of Lazarus.  He and his sisters Martha and Mary were close friends of Jesus and are mentioned elsewhere in the Gospels.  In this account, Lazarus was desperately ill and word was sent to Jesus, asking him to come.  Jesus delayed his arrival, and Lazarus died before he showed up on the scene.

Martha and Mary separately told Jesus, "If you had been here my brother would not have died." The sisters (and Lazarus) obviously were people who held faith in Jesus, but it appears their faith only went so far.  It also appears they were of a mind to set some terms on their faith ("Jesus, come when I call you."  "Jesus, you didn't do what I wanted, so things turned out wrong.").

Jesus demonstrated that the power of God is stronger and more effective than we might imagine or decide.   Lazarus already was dead four days, a significant aspect of the story because people in that time and place thought the soul "hovered" around the body of the deceased for three days.  On the fourth day, the person really was dead.  Jesus ordered the stone in front of the tomb rolled away, then called out in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." When the previously-dead man staggered out of the tomb, Jesus further ordered, "Unbind him and set him free."

To me, we learn in this story that God exceeds our expectations and even our faith to bring new life into situations where it appears that death has taken hold.  It tells me that no matter how much we try to limit God and God's impact on our lives, God is free and unbound.

It tells me also that God chooses the same for us.

In a classic scene from Seinfeld, several of the characters are hanging around, as usual, in Jerry’s apartment.  At one point, George asks Jerry’s neighbor Newman, “Just what is it you do for a living, anyway?”  Newman responds, “I’m a United States Postal Worker.”  George replies, “Aren’t those the guys that go crazy and bring a gun to work and shoot up the place?”  Newman narrows his eyes and says, “Sometimes.” 

Amid much canned laughter, Jerry asks, “Why is that?”  Then, Newman goes on a mini-tirade:  “Because the mail never stops,” and he goes through a recitation of all the various regular items people receive in the mail in mass volume that have to be processed and delivered, losing control along the way, and concluding with, “and then it’s Publisher’s Clearing House day…”  He barely can stand the thought.

It turns out the U.S. Postal Service is staring down a $1 billion deficit, unless something can be done to reverse the trends.  Meanwhile, as many as 18 states are considering legislation to accommodate consumers who desire a “Do Not Mail” list along the lines of the wildly popular “Do Not Call” program that eliminates most solicitations over the telephone.

People are getting fed up with all the junk mail, including the never-ending stream of catalogues, credit card offers, and other advertisements that litter mailboxes every single day.

One of the difficulties is that with email, online bill paying, and competition from private delivery services, post office revenues from first class mail and parcel delivery have taken a dramatic plunge.  Over the previous three-year period, the number of items mailed first class has nose-dived by two million pieces.  Junk mail has increased by three billion pieces. Income from last year’s holiday season was less than the year before, a first in post office history. 

The Postmaster General is tearing his hair out trying to think of ways to overcome the projected deficit and establish additional revenue streams.  One idea is to have retail outlets inside post offices, renting space.  Think Starbucks or your local bank having a counter at the post office.  Rules regarding the use of federal property would have to be bent to the point of breaking in order to allow this.

Is it worth all the junk mail, with the destruction of trees for paper production, the use of environmental-unfriendly inks, stickers, plastic bags and other accoutrements related to many of the unwanted items delivered to our homes, in order to keep the post office in business?  How would prices of consumer goods be affected if the costs from printing and mailing were significantly reduced for retailers?  How much more breathing space and time would folks have if there weren’t so much junk mail piling up around us?

You know, when I think about it, this whole issue is kind of a metaphor for Lent, and the spiritual discipline of clearing the decks in our lives, eliminating the junk that suffocates our hearts and minds, in order to make more room for a meaningful relationship with God in our lives.

Whether or not Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rejects the endorsement of Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee is up to him.  I personally believe Sen. McCain when he states that Hagee’s views do not all represent his own. 

It’s a good thing.  In one news account, Hagee is quoted as referring to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore,” and that it was the Catholic Church that shaped Hitler’s anti-Semitism.  Of course, Hagee is mystified why anyone imagines him to be anti-Catholic.  Why, some of his best friends are Catholics.

In another news account, Hagee is reported to have blamed Hurricane Katrina on “God’s retribution for homosexual sin,” and linked the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazis when they tried to exterminate Jews.  Democrats, naturally enough, are being as helpful as possible in dredging up the hate spewed by Hagee against women, and in reminding the world of his “flip remarks about slavery.”

Classy guy.

It’s frightening, though, to think that someone can spend so much time reading and talking about God and the Bible and be so mean-spirited and filled with animosity toward those different from himself.

What scares me even more is that there are people who actually take Hagee seriously – attending his church, watching him on TV, and sending him money – believing that he speaks truth from God’s word.

Sen. McCain may be trying to raise his profile among evangelicals, but it looks to me like he’s taking quite a risk by allowing himself to be aligned in any way, shape or form with such a person as John Hagee.

The amount of time, energy and brainpower spent on useless, irrelevant, vain, and destructive pursuits is impossible to quantify, but without question is staggering.  Think of the trouble to which many people go to "try to beat the system" through financial manuevering or criminal activity.  How many of us wish we had back even a portion of the time spent "surfing the Internet."   Some folks go out of their way to think of and spread negative comments and impressions about others.  This last one, especially, is common in churches.

The local newspaper today has an article about a man who has devoted his life to discrediting, smearing, and spreading vindictive rumors about both Clintons, but is especially gearing up his efforts to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president.  This person is quoted in the paper as loudly declaring in a restaurant that Sen. Clinton (D-NY) "was sleeping with both of her law partners, Web Hubbell and Vince Foster.  And she's a lesbian, too."  He proclaimed that daughter Chelsea was fathered by someone other than the former president.

The person making these claims, according to the article, is a "perpetually indignant, single, 43 year-old," and "pretty much devotes his life to hating the Clintons and spreading wild, unsubstantiated allegations about them."  He lives off an inheritance, holds no job, and spends as much as ten hours a day engaged in this "hobby."  He hounds media personnel with emails and telephone calls, and even paid for recorded phone messages to flood potential primary voters in South Carolina with damaging accusations about Sen. Clinton.

If Sen. Clinton loses or is eliminated from the race, this guy plans to "take a vacation."  From what?

It's sad to see so much emptiness in the lives of people that they fill themselves -- and try to fill others -- with useless, pointless, distracting, or hurtful nonsense.  It's especially sad because they so often have no clue as to what they are doing or why.  Loneliness and isolation generally are the results, which likely is part of what they are trying to overcome.

Lent calls us to empty ourselves -- to take out the trash from our lives, so to speak -- and as we engage in spiritual focus and discipline, God will fill us in new, beneficial, positive and blessed ways.

Lent can be a time to shake things up in our lives, as it is a period of reflection and penitence.  Hopefully, when Lent concludes with the glorious celebration of Easter, our lives, our faith, our outlook, and our sensitivities are different from what they were on Ash Wednesday.  Lent is a time of transformation.

In her book Unbinding the Gospel:  Real Life Evangelism, Martha Grace Reese offers a suggestion to stimulate that transformation (and it can be done anytime, not just during Lent).  At the end of Chapter Five, she writes, “Let’s try to scramble your patterns!  Change something in your way of interacting with God.”  It is entirely possible to get into a rut in our spiritual lives.  Perhaps the more familiar and well-worn our spiritual practices become, the less impact they have on our hearts and minds. 

Reese offers some alternatives.  If our prayers usually are focused on the needs of others, then, she suggests, we should pray for insight into how we’re selling ourselves short in our relationship with God.  She encourages us to uncover and acknowledge “an old hurt buried in you,” and lay it before God for healing.  Reese nudges us to take up a spiritual discipline we have not practiced before, such as keeping a spiritual journal.

Perhaps we should spend time in meditation, as a new approach to prayer.  She offers the “Jesus Prayer,” and the use of prayer beads as means by which to explore new aspects of spirituality:  be relaxed in your breathing, work a bead in your fingers, and pray, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.”  Repeat the process for each bead on a necklace or other string of beads (even Mardi Gras beads will work!).

Reese says to switch up the music we listen to, or the Bible translation we read – in short, anything that might give us a fresh perspective and new energy for our spiritual lives.

Lent is a great opportunity to take her advice!

Last year I attended a workshop in which the speaker indicated things were up for grabs as far as the church was concerned.  We needed to evaluate what we were doing and look for new ways to be the church and to make our witness to others.  The whole idea, though, was that we would go about the business of making disciples, as Jesus commanded prior to departing the earthly realm.

OK, fine.  No problem – except that this person was not willing to give up his denominational identity.  When I asked him why the upheaval stopped short of denominations, he said something along the lines of, “I don’t want my denomination to go away.  I love my denomination.”  Same here, but if God has something else in mind…

It turns out plenty of folks don’t care whether their denomination stays or goes, because they are just as likely to switch churches as they are to try a different make of car when it comes time for a trade-in.  Perhaps, more so.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a gigantic survey (35,000 adults) and peeked into the confusing landscape of American religious life.  Over 40 percent of those polled indicated they no longer were affiliated with the church of their youth.  People are opting for a more personalized religious experience, and holding membership in a church means virtually nothing to an overwhelming number of people.  Among the unaffiliated, many consider themselves spiritual, but not religious.

More than one-fourth of the survey respondents said they had switched faiths:  from Christian to Jewish, from Orthodox to Roman Catholic, etc.  Some gave up on religion and faith altogether.  One person included in the survey sample was raised as a Buddhist in Vietnam; became a Catholic as a teen in the United States; and now says she has no affiliation.  She is uncertain whether she even believes in God.  But, she and her husband  “make our own faith within what we can do for ourselves in our own lives right now.”

I don’t even know what that means, except to say that God is pushed aside, if not completely out of the picture.   It seems that God is relegated to a less-than-worthy status in all of this, as church, faith, and spirituality are seen as matters of convenience, preference, or expediency.

In my view, the Religious Right of the last thirty years or so has done more harm to the church than it has done good in the world.  Whether or not the Religious Right is clearly and properly understood, my sense is many, many people have associated it with the church in general, and they are negatively impressed.  The caricature is of hate-spewing money-lusting hypocrites who wish to impose their ultra-conservative opinions on everyone else, in the name of Jesus.  Did I get it right?

If indeed this is somewhat close to accurate, lots of folks consequently are turned off by the church, as they perceive it to be represented by the loud mouths of the Religious Right.  The Religious Right has been an albatross for the rest of us, as we are put in a position of demonstrating we are not numbered among its adherents.  Often, we never get the chance.

The current national election cycle is focusing light on the widening cracks in the armor of the Religious Right.  No one Republican candidate caught the fancy of evangelical voters.  The endorsement of Rudy Giuliani by Pat Robertson resulted in barrel bottom-scraping support.  Younger evangelicals are refusing to have the lid of their elders’ box clamped down on them.

David Kuo suggests that the nominating process for the Republican presidential candidate is more about determining the future direction and leadership of the Religious Right.  According to Kuo, the cemetery and the pasture are the places to look if you want to find the fading leaders of the Religious Right.

He predicts that this segment of the population will, in the not-too-distant future:

1. Probably be more progressive;
2. Likely not be Democratic – yet;
3. Be more spiritually cautious and politically shrewd;

Kuo indicates that younger evangelicals see more to be concerned about than abortion and same-sex marriage.  Poverty, HIV/AIDS, immigration, human rights, and the environment are among the justice issues to which they want to apply their understanding of the faith – without being as heavy-handedly political as their forbears.  Cameron Strang, founder and publisher of evangelically-oriented Relevant magazine suggests, “Young Christians simply don’t seem to feel a connection to the traditional religious right.  Many differ strongly on domestic policy issues – namely issues that affect the poor – and are dissatisfied with America’s foreign policy and the war.”

To me, this is a sign of hope.  If thoughtful, caring people of faith can address pressing issues and concerns with intelligence and discernment, then it reflects positively on the whole church.

The story and teachings of Jesus really are difficult for people in a wealthy nation with a success-oriented culture. 

The Old Testament text for Sunday is a story from the Exodus, and the good folks rescued by God from slavery and misery in Egypt are not happy campers, out there in the Wilderness of Sin (what a name for the place where this story occurs).  They don’t have water, and of course, they are thirsty.

Rather than turning to God in prayer, maybe with a little fasting thrown in, they turn on Moses, who was appointed by God to lead them to the Promised Land.  It’s difficult to blame the people too much, but God saved them and set them on their journey, making promises of provision and care.

It just wasn’t happening in the way the people thought was appropriate or expedient.

It turns out that being set apart as a “people of God,” with promises of a new homeland, an identity, and a purpose given by God does not mean that everything will be lollipops and roses.  Maybe we think that’s what it should be, but instead we discover that there often is conflict, tension, stress, uncertainty, and the necessity of sacrifice.

Jesus himself spoke of sacrifice, alienation even from family members, the reality of suffering and death, but again with the promise, and ultimately, with the example from his own case, of God’s care even to the point of new life.

God’s people, from whatever era, spend a good bit of time shuffling around in the wilderness – sometimes because that’s where God calls us to go, and sometimes because we lose sight of who we are and whose we are.

Meanwhile, a so-called “prosperity gospel” sells pretty well to folks like us.  Declare your faith in God, or embrace some doctrines (usually that somehow end up demonizing others while helping us avoid responsibility for our own sinfulness), or proclaim the inerrancy of scripture, and God will bless you with financial and material rewards.  This approach can be hard to resist.  It puts one in control of his or her fate.  We like that.

More than once, the folks in the Exodus wilderness realized that the “prosperity gospel” was nowhere to be found, but in the end, God was there.  Sometimes proponents of the prosperity gospel forget about God altogether.