Sheri Klouda teaches Hebrew and Aramaic.  She lost her job a couple of years ago when her employer, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, elected to not renew her contract.  The basic reason for the non-renewal was that Klouda is a woman, and as such, should not be teaching men.  You see, there is a verse in the Bible, in I Timothy, that supposedly was written by the Apostle Paul, in which he states, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” 

When Klouda took the Baptists to court, the case was dismissed in U.S. District Court because “federal courts try to avoid becoming entangled in matters dealing with religious institutions,” according to Klouda, who was not surprised by the ruling.

So, after six years of service on the faculty, Professor Klouda was cast aside.  I’m not sure why it took so long.  Maybe the boys in charge needed to work up their courage to carry out their convictions.  Maybe there was no readily available qualified male replacement until 2006.  Maybe a male student objected to being taught by a woman who knew more than he did.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

You know, the Baptists can do what they choose to do.  That’s their right. 

It’s ironic, though, that a verse from the Bible, written in a time when girls and women were considered little more than possessions, and were prohibited from formal education, would be applied to someone who obviously is intelligent and has much to offer the church and its leadership.

It’s also ironic – at least to me – that these scholars so enamored with a line from a letter written in the 1^st Century would ignore a stunning bit of evidence found in all four Gospels:  the first people who received the word of God that Jesus was raised from death – the very first witnesses to the resurrection – the ones who first saw the risen Christ and who were instructed to tell the men who were hiding behind locked doors because they were so afraid, were women.

But then, God seems to love irony. 

The children were old enough that they were familiar with Jesus and with numerous stories about him, but I think they also were young enough that they had a bit of difficulty separating what they learned from the man who was present.  Jesus seemed very real to them. 

I think all of the children had a sense that Jesus was someone special, that he was God’s son, and that even though the events in the life and ministry of Jesus happened long ago, Jesus still was very much alive to them.  As young as the children were, they knew this about Jesus -- God raised him from death. 

This hope, I believe, really is not out line.  It’s not unreasonable.  It isn’t too much to ask, because Easter tells us that the tomb is empty.   Jesus is not there.  He lives – and because he lives, we don’t have to be afraid.

Today I am giving over this space to Evelyn Bence, who has written a piece about her experience of Easter.  You can find it here.

Have a glorious, hopeful, and renewing celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.

Another court case about public prayer.  Another indignant Christian bristling at the limits of a “free society.”  Another reason for me to shake my head and wonder, “Why does it make so much difference to people, anyway?”

In Fredericksburg, Virginia, there is a city council member who also happens to be a Baptist minister.  A few years ago, he was to offer the opening prayer at a council session, but was prohibited from referring to Jesus in his prayer.  This, of course, “violated his free speech rights, and infringed on his religious beliefs.”  The council has a governing resolution that disallows sectarian prayers. 

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat on the bench of the appeals court where the case was argued yesterday.  I guess it’s her privilege to do such a thing as a retired member of the high court.

On the one hand, lawyers argued that anything a council member says during a council session is considered official speech, and is necessarily subject to applicable laws.  The Baptist’s attorney made the point that city government has no constitutional authority over the content of prayers.

All of this once again points to why I feel public prayers in an “official” public setting are akin to taking the Lord’s name in vain.  The prayer has to be watered down, generic, non-offensive to anyone who conceivably might take offense, and comes off as a secular, human-directed slogan not much different from wishful thinking.  Why bother? 

Instead of offering a “prayer,” why doesn’t the chair of the meeting, whatever it is, say something along the lines of, “Let’s all do our best here today to live up to the highest standards of conduct and behavior so we can do what is best and right for our community.”  Isn’t that what they are after anyway? 

If they want to bring God into their processes, they might better think twice, because God isn’t all that enthralled with worldly power, be it economic, political or social.  God isn’t interested in expedient and artful compromises or in the maintenance of human-made structures by which some “have” while others don’t.

To me it just reflects yet another attempt to domesticate God, and to urge God to bless what we want, what we intend to do, and how we see humanity and the world, which generally is pretty self-serving.

Prayer – wherever it is offered in sincerity and openness to God – is not about manipulating and controlling God.  It is about a relationship with the One who sees so much more for our lives than we can ever imagine ourselves.

I once knew a woman who remembered a trip she and her family made from Missouri to Oregon, when she was just a small child.  They traveled by covered wagon.  The woman’s name was Margaret, and when she died several years ago, many people were disappointed – not only that she was gone, but that she didn’t quite make it to the age of 100.  She came very close, however.

I was in awe of Margaret, and of others like her.  She lived through virtually the entire 20^th Century.  During what other period of the human story has life changed so dramatically?  When else has the world undergone more of a transformation?

When Margaret was growing up, women were not allowed to vote.  Now there not only are a number of female U. S. Senators and Representatives, a woman is running for president.  Think of the evolution in the world of communications during Margaret’s lifetime:  everything from telegraph to Internet, from lots of wires, and poles to hold them up, to invisible signals firing information in every direction at the speed of light.  In her lifetime, Margaret witnessed covered wagons, the Model A, the VW bug, Hummers, Lincoln Continentals, railways above and below ground, the exploration of space, even human beings walking on the moon. Wars defined generations in various ways. Fashion, social mores, gender roles, and entertainment all look nothing like they did when Margaret was a child.  Knowledge increased exponentially during the 20^th Century.  Truth changed.  What an exciting time it was to live one’s life.

There is a Disciples church in Havana, Illinois with an average Sunday worship attendance of 55, including two women who have lived 100 years, with another poised to join the ranks.  The pastor finds it “exceptional” to have these ladies in the church.  You better believe it, brother.  He said, “These centenarians bless our lives with their faithful examples and we pray God’s continuing blessings on them.”

A few years ago, the United Church of Christ launched a national advertising campaign called, “God Is Still Speaking.”  The idea was to let folks know that the UCC was an open, progressive church.  Their television ads were seen as controversial by some, however, and were pulled from the air by stations and networks across the nation.  You probably can see the ads on the UCC official website, or maybe on YouTube.

Now, there is another ad campaign falling into the lap of the UCC.  It is Barak Obama and his presidential campaign, for Sen. Obama (D-IL) is a member of the denomination.  The timing is beneficial to the church, for the UCC’s membership, like many other mainline churches, declined by forty percent over the last forty-some years.  As of 2006, they were standing at about 1.2 million members.

“Obama’s campaign has given us in the United Church of Christ a wonderful opportunity to tell our story,” remarked the head of the denomination, Rev. Dr. John Thomas.  “While it is exciting for many of us to have a member of our church running for president, what excites many of us the most is seeing a candidate who is promoting progressive values based on his Christian faith.  Obama reminds us that Christianity is not owned by those on the far right politically, but can provide a spiritual foundation and moral vision for those across the political spectrum.”

Apparently, there is some evidence that new people are finding their way to the United Church of Christ because of Obama and his campaign.  The church’s evangelism director maintains that the candidate is inspiring young people to either re-consider the church discover it for the first time.  While the UCC is interested in more than just filling the pews on Sunday mornings, it helps that there are seekers knocking on the door.

I’m glad that Sen. Obama’s presidential bid has this side effect.  It’s refreshing to have a public witness to the reality that the church is not limited to what is shown on television or defined by the loud-mouths on talk radio.  People actually can find churches where they are accepted and embraced despite not measuring down to the standards of Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson.  They actually are able to hear a word from God that isn’t strained through an American flag.

I think if Jesus were more accurately and faithfully followed and portrayed we would have difficulty finding a seat for everyone that would run to churches on Sunday mornings.

I am of an age that I can remember sit-ins as a form of protest.  There were sit-ins at lunch counters protesting racial segregation.  There were sit-ins on college campuses protesting the Vietnam War.  Sit-ins happened in many places for a variety of causes, with some of the sitters singing, “We Shall Not Be Moved;” and when the cops showed up to roust them out or herd them into the paddy wagon, the protesters went limp like a dog who knows bedtime means the kennel.

There is a woman in San Diego who is trying to organize a sit-in these days.  I don’t think she’s a hold-over from the ‘60’s, however.  She wants people to sit on public benches in three-hour shifts so homeless people won’t sit there.  Got to keep them moving, and maybe they’ll shuffle right out of town.

Let’s see.  Maybe she could get everyone to go down to the library and occupy all the chairs there, too, while actually reading a book or a newspaper.  Or perhaps she should encourage people to visit the public restrooms around town and occupy the stalls and stand in front of the urinals.  I know – she could round up volunteers to stand at the intersections of the main roads, so panhandlers have to keep moving.  Better still, why not get some nice folks to occupy the cells at the city jail.  Sorry, vagrants – no room for you there.  Don’t forget those luxurious shelters, either.  Anyone ready to sign up for a few nights on a cot in a crowded room?

The person so concerned about those smelly undesirables is named Esther Viti, and she sent out e-mails demanding that the recipients “OCCUPY THAT BENCH…to prevent that homeless person from sitting on that bench.”

It’s not that Esther Viti doesn’t want people hanging around downtown, apparently, it’s just certain people she doesn’t want to see there.  I don’t know if she simply doesn’t like homeless people, or whether their presence reminds her of the ills of our society and the growing economic disparity that is pulling our nation apart.  I guess we would have to ask her.

So far, no one has signed up for their three-hour sit-ins.  I don’t know this for a fact, but maybe some of them have been parking themselves elsewhere – like at church.

Then again, perhaps not.  Sanctuaries seem to have a lot of open seats, even on Sundays.

There actually now are websites where people can confess their sins and have someone pray for them.  Sites such as mysecret.tv and ivescrewedup.com were created by Christians that are among a growing segment of evangelicals now embracing more traditional or even ancient faith traditions. 

“We do believe there is value in confessing our sins to each,” states an Oklahoma pastor whose megachurch sponsors mysecret.tv.  In less than two years, 7,500 confessions have been entered on the site, with ministers and others praying over them as they are posted.  “This process may be a more modern way of people discovering the value of that tradition.”

Other usually non-evangelical expressions of faith are gaining acceptance among the faithful.  Observance of Lent, and the idea of fasting, or “giving up” something for the season is increasing.  Weekly communion is becoming more common.  Following the Liturgical Calendar is practiced in churches that never did so before.  Even monastic-style communities are being formed among evangelicals.

Informed observers see the trend toward such practices as an indication that people are growing weary of the “contemporary, shopping-center feel of the megachurches embraced by baby boomers, with their casually dressed ministers and rock-band praise music.”  Folks are looking for a deeper level of spirituality and a more meaningful sense of God’s presence in their lives.  Church history professor Chris Armstrong of Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MN notes that some are turning from “churches that look too much like the rest of the world – a little too much like malls or rock concerts.”

Not all evangelical Christians are on the bandwagon, however.  The Dumbowskis of Oregon are so alarmed at this “mystical spirituality” that they established a web site, publishing house, and e-newsletter to combat the trend.  They feel it is a denial of the gospel message and is not Christianity as presented in the Bible.

I’m not sure how they can deny that weekly communion is non-scriptural, though.  The reformers who launched the movement that became the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) reached the conclusion from their study of the New Testament that the early disciples of Jesus practiced “the breaking of bread” when they gathered “on the first day of the week.”

Deanna Doan, a founding member of an evangelical worship group that practices weekly communion said of the practice, “In a church like ours, it serves the role of being that anchor that continually ties us back to the larger Christian church and to Christian history.”

We in the Disciples tradition have been saying that for almost 200 years.

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.