Recently in relationships Category
Year C, Third Sunday after Pentecost.
Scripture: 1 Kings 21:1-21a, 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Those of you who are liturgically inclined may know that we're in "the season after Pentecost". This, and the season after Epiphany, are considered "ordinary time". "Ordinary time" just means we're not in a special fast or feast time like Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter.
The lectionary is a set of readings on a three year cycle. Many churches use the lectionary to determine what scripture will be read each week; some, like Hope, don't always follow the lectionary.
In ordinary time, the lectionary ordinarily provides two sets of old testament readings: one that follows the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, and another that chooses readings based on harmony with the new testament theme.
Ordinarily, only one old testament reading is used.
Ordinarily, the two old testament choices do not line up.
But this is no ordinary church, we are no ordinary people, and this is no ordinary set of readings.
Scripture: 1 Kings 21:1-21a, 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15
Those of you who are liturgically inclined may know that we're in "the season after Pentecost". This, and the season after Epiphany, are considered "ordinary time". "Ordinary time" just means we're not in a special fast or feast time like Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter.
The lectionary is a set of readings on a three year cycle. Many churches use the lectionary to determine what scripture will be read each week; some, like Hope, don't always follow the lectionary.
In ordinary time, the lectionary ordinarily provides two sets of old testament readings: one that follows the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, and another that chooses readings based on harmony with the new testament theme.
Ordinarily, only one old testament reading is used.
Ordinarily, the two old testament choices do not line up.
But this is no ordinary church, we are no ordinary people, and this is no ordinary set of readings.
Continue reading I Want That.
I originally posted this on Pam's House Blend
So we now have several states where we can get married.
It's time we start thinking about how to have good, healthy same-sex marriages.
I am no expert, but my partner and I (we've had a Holy Union and are hoping to take an out-of-state nuptial trip next year) have been together for over two decades. I'm going to share what we've learned, and hope some others will share as well.
Progressive churches need to build up support for all families, not just the most common constructions.
(More after the page break. If you're reading this on a mirrored site like community.ucc.org or facebook.com, click the title to see the rest)
So we now have several states where we can get married.
It's time we start thinking about how to have good, healthy same-sex marriages.
I am no expert, but my partner and I (we've had a Holy Union and are hoping to take an out-of-state nuptial trip next year) have been together for over two decades. I'm going to share what we've learned, and hope some others will share as well.
Progressive churches need to build up support for all families, not just the most common constructions.
(More after the page break. If you're reading this on a mirrored site like community.ucc.org or facebook.com, click the title to see the rest)
Continue reading Tips for a happy, life-long same-sex marriage.
I'm rarely this eloquent, but every once in a while I accidentally say something I feel is worth repeating. The following is from a post I made on a United Church of Christ discussion board:
True, marriage is a legal term in the United States of America, and clergy cannot legally say they are marrying two people unless the state authorizes it. But Adam and Eve, and Cain and his wife, and Seth and his wife, were all married without church or state.
Neither the church, nor state, can prohibit marriage between two people. All they can do is fail to recognize when it happens.
Marriage isn't a piece of paper issued by the government. That paper is legal recognition of a marriage.
Marriage isn't a piece of paper signed by a pastor and/or issued by a church. That paper is a religious recognition of a marriage.
Marriage is a covenant between two adult people to care for, nurture, and love each other. Alone, this is still marriage. Without this, no piece of paper can hold two people together.
True, marriage is a legal term in the United States of America, and clergy cannot legally say they are marrying two people unless the state authorizes it. But Adam and Eve, and Cain and his wife, and Seth and his wife, were all married without church or state.
Neither the church, nor state, can prohibit marriage between two people. All they can do is fail to recognize when it happens.
Ten years ago today, Mary and I promised ourselves to each other in
Holy Union in a church in Oak Park, IL. Twenty years ago, we met in a
bar named Suzy B.'s in Chicago. In those two decades, we dealt with a
lot of things:
Continue reading Happy anniversary, Mary.
My church is Plainfield Congregational United Church of Christ, part of the Eastern Association of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ.
For those unfamiliar with the Comedy Central series, South Park is a crudely animated show featuring four young friends - and crude humor. Over the last few weeks, they ran a three part series on terrorists attacking our imaginations.
Setting aside the obvious message of buying into terrorism by letting our imaginations run wild, there was another interesting idea regarding how we imagine others, and how that affects our relationships.
Throughout the three episodes, one character (Eric Cartman) was trying to get another character (Kyle Broflovski) to make good on a bet. Eric bet Kyle that there was a real Leprechaun, and if Kyle lost, he would have to perform a type of oral sex on Eric. (I told you it was crude.) Kyle lost, and much of the series was a debate about what was real and what was imaginary. In the end, Eric imagined he was receiving oral sex from Kyle - against Kyle's protests.
It occurred to me that this might be a basis for homophobia - not so much a fear of actual rape, but one of imaginary rape. It's also a fear of being made an object. In someone else's imagination, we have no control over ourselves, and that can be disturbing.
This raises the question of personal boundaries. Do we have the right to say "no" in someone else's imagination?
We don't want thought police. Yet there are certain things with which we might not ever want to be associated. How would we feel if we were to find out that someone was imagining us in those situations?
Imagination can cut both ways. People who oppose ordination of gay clergy, marriage of same-sex couples, and adoption of children by same-sex couples often speak of what gay and lesbian people "do" - sexually. Yet these are also often imagined: although some same-sex (and opposite sex) couples may engage in some or all of these activities, there is no way of knowing a particular couple's practices - unless they volunteer the information. The couple may even be celibate.
Offensive thoughts separate us from each other's true selves. We act on the imagined actions and motives of others rather than connecting with the actual persons. How destructive can that be? We can become angry at people for what we imagine. We can sever relationships with family, friends, employers, and businesses because of how we imagine the other. We can even kill in "self defense" against what we imagine the other was planning.
In the Decalogue (or, as popularly known, the Ten Commandments), the final item is "do not covet" - do not desire what belongs to someone else. This underlines the prior items in exhorting people to not even think about taking something that belongs to someone else, because that very thought creates distance between people. Jesus challenged people to go beyond "thou shalt not kill" to "don't hate others" and beyond "do not commit adultery" to "do not lust after someone else's wife". These thoughts may enter our minds, but it serves us well to not dwell on or encourage these thoughts that separate us from the real people around us.
We can't prevent others from thinking of us in ways that offend us, but we can try to avoid imagining others in ways that offend them. Staying with "what is real" connects the real persons involved.
I'll try to not imagine how my readers will react to this, and instead hope for comments to let me know the real readers.
Setting aside the obvious message of buying into terrorism by letting our imaginations run wild, there was another interesting idea regarding how we imagine others, and how that affects our relationships.
Throughout the three episodes, one character (Eric Cartman) was trying to get another character (Kyle Broflovski) to make good on a bet. Eric bet Kyle that there was a real Leprechaun, and if Kyle lost, he would have to perform a type of oral sex on Eric. (I told you it was crude.) Kyle lost, and much of the series was a debate about what was real and what was imaginary. In the end, Eric imagined he was receiving oral sex from Kyle - against Kyle's protests.
It occurred to me that this might be a basis for homophobia - not so much a fear of actual rape, but one of imaginary rape. It's also a fear of being made an object. In someone else's imagination, we have no control over ourselves, and that can be disturbing.
This raises the question of personal boundaries. Do we have the right to say "no" in someone else's imagination?
We don't want thought police. Yet there are certain things with which we might not ever want to be associated. How would we feel if we were to find out that someone was imagining us in those situations?
Imagination can cut both ways. People who oppose ordination of gay clergy, marriage of same-sex couples, and adoption of children by same-sex couples often speak of what gay and lesbian people "do" - sexually. Yet these are also often imagined: although some same-sex (and opposite sex) couples may engage in some or all of these activities, there is no way of knowing a particular couple's practices - unless they volunteer the information. The couple may even be celibate.
Offensive thoughts separate us from each other's true selves. We act on the imagined actions and motives of others rather than connecting with the actual persons. How destructive can that be? We can become angry at people for what we imagine. We can sever relationships with family, friends, employers, and businesses because of how we imagine the other. We can even kill in "self defense" against what we imagine the other was planning.
In the Decalogue (or, as popularly known, the Ten Commandments), the final item is "do not covet" - do not desire what belongs to someone else. This underlines the prior items in exhorting people to not even think about taking something that belongs to someone else, because that very thought creates distance between people. Jesus challenged people to go beyond "thou shalt not kill" to "don't hate others" and beyond "do not commit adultery" to "do not lust after someone else's wife". These thoughts may enter our minds, but it serves us well to not dwell on or encourage these thoughts that separate us from the real people around us.
We can't prevent others from thinking of us in ways that offend us, but we can try to avoid imagining others in ways that offend them. Staying with "what is real" connects the real persons involved.
I'll try to not imagine how my readers will react to this, and instead hope for comments to let me know the real readers.
