The Mainline Minister

This morning's NY Times carried a report about the plans of Pastor Terry Jones to mark Sept. 11 by holding a Koran burning (see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/26gainesville.html?_r=1&hp). I find Mr. Jones's plans disturbing, both an American and as a Christian. There is something fundamentally un-American about burning books. Since the earliest colonial days our body politic has thrived on the free exchange of ideas, good, bad, silly, dangerous. Not every notion is equal, not every belief sound. But the way to counter an idea that one finds objectionable is to refute it with logic, passion, and a good, persuasive argument. When I think of book burnings, I think of Nazis and 1930s Germany. That is never a good association. As a Christian, I am even more troubled. Jesus was all about truth telling and he didn't pull punches. But I just can't see him condoning the burning of another faith tradition's holy books. After all, what Mr. Jones plans

The more I think about it, the more I'm disturbed by the brouhaha over Park51, the proposed Islamic community center modeled on the 92 Street Y that would be built a couple of blocks away from ground zero. The reason? An already existing neighborhood establishment called the New York Dolls Gentleman's Club. For some reason, the people who are incensed by the idea of Park51 have yet to utter a peep about the club. Now, I'm not going to question why people are criticizing the proposed center. In fact, I'll assume that everybody is guided by the purist of motives. But if people are indeed concerned about the desecration of a sacred location, one might think that they'd be disturbed by the presence nearby of a place where lap dancing and other forms of sexual entertainment are the order of the day. Then again, one would expect people to be outraged by the idea of building a casino next door to the hallowed battlefield at Gettysburg, yet that project seems to have

Roland Emmereich, the producer of Independence Day , The Day After Tomorrow , and 2012 , has made a reputation for delivering Armageddon in grand, visually engaging fashion. In each of the aforementioned, definitely-not-art-house films, he managed, through the marvels of special effects, to destroy the earth in a matter of minutes. Spaceships blow things up, monster storms wash things away, massive earthquakes knock things down. This gripping and rapid big screen, make believe destruction is the antithesis of what's been unfolding in Pakistan. The floods in Pakistan have been going on for days. More than 20,000,000 people have been affected. Think about that: 20,000,000 people. That's just a shade more than the population of New York State (19.5 million) or New England (13.3 million) and Arizona (6.6 million) combined. And this is in a country contending with a decaying infrastructure, a corrupt and inefficient government, and an Islamist insurrection. I'm sure that

G. Jeffrey MacDonald, a fellow minister in the UCC, wrote an Op-Ed for last Sunday's N.Y. Times . The gist of what he wrote is that clergy are suffering burnout because their congregations aren't interested in being challenged (see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08macdonald.html?_r=1&ref=contributors). To support his argument, Rev. MacDonald offers his own experience with a congregation he served, reporting that they wanted 10 minute-long, amusing, non-provocative sermons. He then implies that all churches are like this. Maybe I've just been lucky or my experience has been anomalous. But every church I've ever worshiped at, including the one where I now serve, has expected sermons that make people think and take them out of their comfort zone. The mainline church has many problems and is losing members at a disturbing rate. But blaming the people in the pews isn't going to be the answer. Perhaps we in the ministry need to examine what it

The news out of Boston today is that Deval Patrick, who supports gambling as a way of boosting revenues, won't go along with the legislation put forward by the Legislature, which also supports gambling (albeit in different forms) as a way of boosting revenues, meaning that casinos in Massachusetts are not going to happen, at least for now. While I'd prefer our elected leaders to oppose gambling because of the ills it inflicts on society, I can live with this development since it means, for the moment, that casino gambling-inspired corruption, vice, and addiction will have to wait another day to rear their ugly heads in the Bay State.

The Boston Globe reported the other day that Massachusetts lawmakers had agreed on the terms for gambling legislation. In New Hampshire there has been ongoing debate about introducing slot machines at race tracks. Have I missed something here? Aren't we New Englanders supposed to be, well, puritanical? We've certainly come a long way (and in the wrong direction). It's sad that our governments find it necessary (or is it convenient?) to turn to gambling, the most regressive form of taxation available to fund services and programs.