The haunting cry of a frightened child...

Like a lot of you, I tuned in to TV news programs a few nights ago and heard a recording of a little child crying "Papa...Papa...Mama...Mama..." as the parents were being carted away by the U.S. Border Patrol agents. I will never forget that frightened, little voice. All I could think of was "What if that was one of my children--or one of my grandchildren?" The horrors of a parent at this point would be matched only by the fear of a child being separated from them.

Our Working for Justice ministry at St. Paul's began mobilizing around putting together a hasty prayer vigil for these children and families. Of course, all of us joined our immediate prayers with those of the world for these children and families. An answer came--the President signed a new executive order to stop separating children from their parents, thus removing the threat of more such awful actions, going forward. Questions remain about what will happen to the 2,300 children already in custody. I guess I don't see why this is so hard to resolve: allow the parents to meet the children at an advertised checkpoint (releasing any of the parents who have been confined and spreading the word to those who have already been turned back). I'm sure these parents would find their children among such a number. Getting these kids back with their families should be priority one.

Working for Justice is still planning to have an event to explore what we can do about this immigration issue so that it is never allowed to become so inhumane again. We will have Sister Janice from Casa San Jose here to speak, will hold a prayer service for these families and for wisdom for our public officials, and ask persons to sign up for an "at home" prayer vigil as well. A tentative date is Monday, July 2. Details will follow.

Don't you wonder what happened that orders were given to separate small children from their parents in this situation? Some are saying that the administration was attempting to use these children as leverage to get funding for the President's pet project--a border wall. Others suggest that it was a fear tactic to discourage other families from trying to cross the U.S. border with children. Those supporting the administration kept saying they were "just enforcing the law," which, when it meant painfully taking children from their parents, sounded a lot like "We were just following orders," an excuse given by the German officials in defense of the Nazi death camps. And while the holocaust was an event unparalleled in human debauchery and evil, I have to confess that the closest thing I have experienced to that horror was hearing the pleading, tearful cries of that little child in the recording the other night.

I am thankful, as we all are, that President Trump listened to the public outcry against this horrific practice and halted it, at least for now. i'm sure we'll hear more details as this unfolds, but it is clear that our voices DO matter, and that people should not be so pessimistic about what politicians listen to. We just need to speak loudly enough! The immigration policies of the United States need updated, and Congress must act for this to happen. The DACA situation needs remedied in the short term, and how we allow and regulate immigration needs to join the 21st century. Obviously, our present policies are too open to the whims of a few people. We need laws that make sense and allow this country to continue to be a "melting pot" without melting down. Immigration is a positive factor that helped build the nation, unlike how we enslaved persons for labor and persecuted, fragmented, and even slaughtered Native Americans.

It is my understanding that the largest majority of persons wishing to cross the Southern border into our country are doing so either to find work or because they are fleeing political and social atrocities in their nations of origin (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela). They are not coming for "handouts," but want a safer, better future for their children. And they are not taking jobs from Americans, as our people, frankly, don't seem to want the jobs these people are willing to do.

Since our President has had a brief change of heart, we should pray that it grows to include dispensing with his prevarications about immigrants, and that he might work with Congress for sensible immigration reform, making that a campaign plank rather than a giant, costly wall. We should also pray that his "base" might accept the truth about immigration and its role in our nation's history, instead of the drummed up fears of it.

Above all, let us pray for these little ones whose lives have been irreparably altered, either because some may never be reunited with their families, or they were so traumatized emotionally by the experience. And may we pray that we will again become a nation that builds rather than blames our way out of its problems.

Peace on the Korean Peninsula...

Nope. Not about what you thought, either. I'm not going to comment about the Trump-Un summit, for we really don't know what will come out of that. We're in a "wait and see" posture.

Instead, I'm using the Korean Peninsula as a metaphor for the continued controversy in my denomination, The United Methodist Church. While it is oversimplifying a complex issue to divide it into two "sides"--one FOR inclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons into the life of the church, and one that views them as persons living a "sinful lifestyle," and who must "repent" and eschew this lifestyle--in a way there are parallels.

North Korea has been a nation of "hard lines," and until recently, not open to compromise or debate about its national authority. Its leader, Kim Jong Un, is, in his own way, a fundamentalist whose principles of leadership are ironclad and authoritarian. (Since this is a metaphor, I'm not going to get into some of the facts and accusations regarding the North Korean leader's more heinous activities.) In this leadership style, what counts more are the rules, standards, and "doctrines," and the power to enforce them.

The South Koreans, on the other hand, have a much broader and visionary philosophy about how to run their country. They, too, have rules and standards, but they are used to help focus and apply the prevailing visionary freedom that is at the center of their governance. South Korea is a much more "open" state, and one whose positive vision of its own future has taken it from "start-up" to economic superpower in just a few short decades. (I remember when the Hyundai Excel, selling here for $4,500, was a national joke and when Samsung was a cheap "knockoff" electronics company that mostly sold its wares in K-Mart or Gold Circle.)

These two factions fought a war, into which the United States was drawn, and while the "war" ended with a demilitarized zone in place and the two factions recognized as autonomous nations, the actual state of war wasn't officially ended until the most recent meeting between Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-In.

Is not our own United Methodist Church like these two factions? One "side" seeks to preserve certain doctrines, couched in a mode of biblical interpretation that is far from universally embraced by either bible scholars or individual, "at large" Christians. The rhetoric and affectation that has arisen around the "doctrinal" and "biblical" view of "homosexuality" (LGBTQIA+ issues) seems much stronger than is merited by the issue itself. Would allowing LGBTQIA+ individuals full participation in the church actually destroy the church? Why is this seen as such a"Maginot Line" in the current context of the church? Why this issue? And why now, when science, psychology, and medicine have almost exclusively accepted these persons as being part of the normal "spectrum" of human sexuality, has this faction of the church decided to defend so vociferously a different conclusion? Like North Korea, this "side" has shown very little interest in compromising, and with the current "rules" of the church disqualifying LGBTQIA+ inclusion--apart from the aforementioned repenting and "stopping it" message--the other "side" (those of us who would like to offer all of the services of the church to these persons, and equal opportunity to serve God, likewise)--is simply shut out.

One could explain the church's dilemma on the basis of the "conservative" and "progressive" brains, and how they are, according to neurologists, "wired" differently, and to the need for a healthy community to have both views active in order to maintain equilibrium. Wesley Wildman, a Boston University scholar, supports this latter sociological conclusion in his book, Found in the Middle!. However, the degree of posturing, politicizing, and downright bow shots being exchanged by the church's two "sides" looks a lot more like the Koreas to me.

Now, we have two national leaders--both of whom have had their mental states and diplomatic prowess questioned--who seem to be moving North and South Korea toward some kind of reconciliation. Is that what it takes? Two people--or factions--crazy enough to try something totally "outside the box"? Don't we all certainly hold out hope and pray for this unorthodox peace effort to succeed?

What will it take for the "Korean Peninsula" of The United Methodist Church to make similar headway? What radical proposal might emerge to find a true "Way Forward," and who will be the "unusual" leaders who might step forth to initiate it?

The world is watching Trump, Kim Jong Un and the Korean Peninsula. The religious world is watching The United Methodist Church. May our prayers for both bear fruit and result in a lasting peace! Shalom!

The only thing we have to fear...

In his first inaugural address,  Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "...the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself..." (Go to this link to hear a stirring, audio excerpt of this speech: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057). His administration ushered in a period of history often referred to as the "American Century," and it was a time of hope, of vanquishing foes, of rebuilding, and of more hope, right up through our nation's 44th President. The "American Century" may be waning before its hundred years is up. A trusted political commentator recently suggested that we are becoming a fearful people again, possibly being told whom to fear, and even being urged to arm ourselves against the threats that may come from our neighbors or across the sea. We are clearly not living in a time of optimism and hope.

Another voice I was reading recently said that we have lost touch with what he called "the American Jeremiad." By this he meant that we have been at our best as a nation when we are self-critical, comparing our current reality and its actions against the values we hold dear--"liberty and justice for all," "e pluribus unum" (out of many, one), and even "one nation, under God." Holding out hope that the "American Experiment" will stand the test of time--or at least the current moment--is what has kept us a strong nation, and made us a beacon (of sorts) to many other nations. However, as the jeremiad principle illustrates, we must never stop being self-critical, balanced by a sober view of how we are doing against our national values, and being soothed and encouraged by optimism and hope. Again, we do not seem to be living in those times. Where is our hope? We have a President who has stated on more than one occasion that "he is the only one who can solve our problems." Any one who believes this has abandoned the "American Experiment," and is wrapping up all hope into a singular figure. The Romans had a word for this--Caesar.

As Christian people, we profess Jesus as Lord. In a discussion with St. Paul's Pastor Emeritus recently, he recounted reading Marcus Borg's statement: "Jesus is Lord--Caesar is not." Maybe it's time for a refresher course on this concept? There are a great variety of ways to interpret "Jesus is Lord," but if we keep the focus on Jesus, I still believe we will be on the right track. I happen to believe that the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon the Mount from Matthew offer incredible guidance on how we do this.

John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Martin Luther King, Jr., in speaking about the parable of The Good Samaritan, questions the motives of the actors. The priest and levite in the story asked themselves, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But the Good Samaritan asked, "If I don't stop and help this man, what will happen to him?" How have we gotten to a place as a people and as a nation to where the universal question seems to be, "What's in it for me?" This is a question that propels us away from life in community, and toward a fearful, protective life, if you want to call it that. And, it ain't American! And it certainly isn't Christian, a faith whose scriptures say things like "Perfect love casts out all fear," and "God has not given you a spirt of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind."

The fear that seems to be gripping people is leading to inappropriate and dangerous actions, including but not exclusively limited to: more citizens buying and carrying guns; more and increasing "hate speech," (from all political angles); "justified" classism, racism, sexism; and isolationism. These are not the things that Christ taught, and politically, they are not the values the American "Founding Fathers" gave us.

So, what are we to do about this state of affairs? We should stay informed, using time-honored and time-tested sources of news and information. Read books! And read some history. Read the Bible, for God's sake, and then connect up with your faith community to discuss what you read so you don't form yet another individualized, isolated, and possibly highly distorted opinion about what it says! That last part is so important--put yourself in community with people who look and think differently than you! It is in this diversity, dialogue, and wrestling with each other and the issues that we will discover both compromise and integrity, as people, as a country, and as a church. If we only affiliate with those who are just like we are, we may come to believe that our tribe is right, and the only ones who are right. At that point, fear wins--fear of "the other," fear of what might happen, and fear of what may happen to us. Remember the parable of The Good Samaritan, and what Dr. King said about it. And, as an American, remember what FDR and JFK said. We've got to turn the corner on this, or our future is not only much dimmer, but more precarious.

Angels of Mercy...

While spending time with a church family in a Pittsburgh hospital this week, I took notice of the medical professionals attending to the patient I was visiting. What amazing people. Each one that entered the room was cordial, exceptionally accommodating to the family, and communicated in a clear, helpful way. Nurses, aids, physicians, even the housekeeping personnel were, to a person, superb in both plying their skills and interacting with the family in an encouraging, open manner. It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that this kind of patient-centered medical "hospitality" is on the increase, at least in the hospitals we visit as clergy. Given the way the medical community is being hammered by bad press today, this is an unexpected reaction, taking human nature into consideration.

Medical costs are too high...hospitals are understaffed and over-crowded...doctors have a poor "bedside manner"...UPMC stands for "U Pay Me Cash"...why does an aspirin in the hospital cost $10? On and on, we are critical of the healthcare field--that is until you really need these people. Even with our criticizing them from every direction, they appear to be working to be nicer to us, more caring, and more careful in how they care. The cynic might say these behaviors are "required" strategies to ward off lawsuits in a litigious time. However, the genuineness and integrity of the behaviors I have observed would seem to dispute this assertion. Maybe, just maybe, at a time when their profession is somewhat under siege, these professionals are responding by doing their job even better and with more obvious caring concern for their patients? What a concept. Is this healthcare's answer to "turn the other cheek?" (I could suggest a bad "injection site" joke here, butt I'll refrain...)

Maybe the world would be a better place if we all chose to respond to biting criticism and cutting sarcasm (even when it is at least partly deserved) with doing what we do better and in a friendlier mood? Maybe this is exactly what Jesus meant when he did the "turn the other cheek" thing. Human nature, unbridled, would have us become defensive, looking to blast holes in the presenting criticism, or even worse, taking a swing at the critic. The worst "punches" we throw are the ones that may be deserved by the punch-ee, at least from Jesus' viewpoint. Having every reason to strike back, and every right, according to some, the Christ-follower is beckoned to drop the fists, offer grace, and even strive to understand the one who raised our ire.

Nobody said discipleship is easy. The word disciple means "student" or "one who learns." Going to school on those who criticize us, and hearing their legitimate, helpful "correctives," though they may be couched in vitriol or impudence, and then responding by improving our "serve" is a Jesus kind of way of handling the situation. It's decidedly NOT easy! And if the criticism happens to strike a nerve worn bare by a history of harassment or emotional abuse, it may not even be possible for everyone, even people committed to growing in faith. But for those of us who are fortunate to have avoided these developmental pitfalls, it is a good goal. The Bible says that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness...there is no law against these responses.

My clergy colleagues and I (and, our St. Paul's Leadership Team) have been reading the book, The Anatomy of Peace from the Arbinger Institute. In this book, it is suggested that we can approach controversial issues--or criticism--with either a "heart of peace" or a "heart of war." The "heart of peace" people see the person first, respects them, and then addresses the issue at hand. The "heart of war" people see only the issue and the argument, and their "conversation" may too quickly move from debate to debasing the other. Developing a "heart of peace" may be a secular way of saying "turn the other cheek," and "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Friends, I can write about this stuff, but this is one area of my life where I have to work so hard to develop a "heart of peace," as my sarcastic, often "salty" retorts in forensic exchanges can pop out SO effortlessly. With Pentecost upon us this coming weekend, my personal Holy Spirit prayer is that I will learn to live out I Peter 3:9 from the Bible: Don't repay evil for evil. Don't retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and God will bless you for it.

The medical professionals I witnessed this week were doing that "heart of peace" thing, and were offering blessings. Bravo to them. Bravo. Can church people do this stuff? Can we develop the "heart of peace?" I wouldn't be doing what I do if I didn't believe we could. As we celebrate Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit this week, may we get the gift of "speaking in tongues"--of speaking with a civil, affirming, and conciliatory tone and tune. Grace, Yinz...

Future Church...

Jesus said "...on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). I wonder if he was looking ahead to our time and seeing the perilously uncertain times the Christian church is facing? "The gates of hell" that threaten it may not have anything to do with the "Church Lady's" Satan or Dante's hell. Much simpler but in some ways more "sinister" forces are knocking. Let's examine some of those things...

Apathy: many people of faith are too tired, too stressed, or to scheduled to participate in the church. These are folk who want to be church members, who want to live and express their Christian faith, but who have just gotten out of the "habit" of attending worship or plugging into their small group. Bad habits are easy to pick up again, "good" or beneficial habits are much, much more difficult to reengage once dropped or let go dormant. That just seems to be human nature. These are folk who get that "I'm guilty" look on their faces when I, as one of their pastors, run into them in the Giant Eagle or at Eat n' Park.

Apoplexy: others are "crippled" by anger or disgust at what they see being portrayed as "Christian" or "Evangelical" in the media, and have chosen to disassociate themselves from the church. "Evangelicals" who support autocratic leadership bordering on tyrannical, or leaders whose lifestyles seem 180 degrees out of phase from what followers of Jesus are challenged to exhibit, create angst in some and anger in others whose idea of following Jesus means actually doing and supporting the things Jesus did and taught us to do. Angst or anger are enough to drive persons away from an institution seen as a "home base" for "Evangelicals." Why would those calling themselves "Evangelicals" support leaders who do such things? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be that they see such leadership as being able to deliver on a singular goal: a large enough majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to get the specific rulings they want. These "Evangelicals" seem to be easily "look the other way" when licentious national leaders demonstrate an excessive talent for personal immorality.

Alienation: the controversy over inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the church has certainly affected how people choose to affiliate with or or disassociate themselves from the institutional church. A contentious feud has been brewing within my denomination, The United Methodist Church, over this very issue. People who represent a broad spectrum of theological and social perspectives, and who currently affiliate with Methodism, will either go or stay, depending upon the direction the denomination chooses (some iteration of inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons, maintaining the ambivalent status quo, or adding new rules and punitive measures to "enforce" them). However, as the denomination makes this determination, it should realize that the "church of tomorrow," namely the younger set, are strongly shaded in the direction of full inclusion of all persons in the total life of the church, and they will "vote with their feet" if The United Methodist Church--and any institutional church--chooses to restrict or disallow LGBTQ+ involvement in the organized church. And they happily point to Jesus who was light years ahead on inclusion of marginalized persons into his "kingdom," and didn't speak out against persons based on sexual orientation or identity.

Another "gate of hell" that will could threaten the future of the church is that of complacency. The current structure--both organizationally and literally (meaning the actual church facility)--needs to be reevaluated for the future. Our organizational structure, and this goes for all denominations, including Catholic and Protestant, is daunting and crippling in the minds of the people whom the church will need for the coming years, if it is to survive. And, as I have seen, younger people eschew spending lots of money on buildings and grounds, and prefer funding mission and ministry, an almost complete reversal from the "church values" of my Baby Boomer generation and older. They will be less attracted to a fancy or expensive edifice, and more drawn to a lean, "mean," missional machine. The church I serve--St. Paul's--desired to expand its ministry twenty years ago, so it began expanding its facility to accommodate this goal, and the people ponied up the dollars. (Incidentally, when the people of St. Paul's DID build, they built serviceable, practical space, not "eye candy.") Today when we talk about expanding ministry, the leaders aren't nearly as excited about expanding a building as they are at finding innovative ways to do ministry that is not hampered or limited by a building!  The church of the future may not be one limited to a physical address, if it is to attract the coming generations of people. What we DO may be much more important to these people than what we ARE. Honestly, if that doesn't sound like a good idea to you, you'll have to take it up with Jesus, as he wasn't into addresses, either.

Finally, another "gate of hell" is something I read in an article a colleague shared with me recently: the church of the future may well find itself with a severe shortage of clergy to lead it. The Roman Catholic Church is already seeing this, due to its overly tight rules as to who can be a priest and who cannot. Younger people are beginning to resist ministry as a calling in the Protestant churches as well, and for many reasons: the exorbitant cost of the required education vs. poor pay upon placement; the resistance to change and new ideas in the established churches they may serve after graduation; and the aging of current congregations which limits both volunteer manpower and funding for ministry. Younger potential pastors also resist serving any church that restricts in any way whom they may serve--for many of them, for instance, LGBTQ+ exclusion is a deal-breaker, as is the homogeneous nature of so many current congregations.

Well, we still have that promise of Jesus that the "gates of hell" shall not prevail against the church. Note, however, that Jesus was not talking about the "institutional" or "organized religion" church, as it did not yet exist. He was talking about the church as the basilea of God, the worshipping, learning, serving community of Christ followers who take literally the Matthean parable that the "Kingdom of God is like a great dragnet thrown into the sea that gathered some of every kind," meaning the work of the church is to "fish" for every kind of "fish" (diverse persons) and welcome them into what God is doing, with no strings attached (other than those of the net itself). No, I believe the church will prevail, as Jesus said, because it is based upon the "solid rock" of the Good News of Jesus Christ, and upon what Jesus taught us. He taught us to love, redeem, and transform people, not to be "fish" inspectors. (I've always loved a bumper sticker I saw several years ago: "You catch 'em, I'll clean 'em."--God.)

Let us pray for the church of the future, and for a change of heart in the church of the present that it may become future-oriented, rather than a museum of its past.

Destiny?

While driving to St. Paul's today, I heard a radio ad for a preacher named Joel Osteen. I think his wife--who is also a clergy person--was featured in the ad, too. The tagline of the ad was, "Everything you need to fulfill your destiny is at hand and available to you right now!" The ad went on to invite people to tune in their glitzy TV presentation of this "exciting new teaching series." I've seen the Osteens, and they don't do anything for me. I think these are the people who live in a multi-million dollar mansion and fly in a private jet to their engagements. It's a bit much for people who claim to be calling folk to faith in a carpenter from Nazareth who "had no where to lay his head" when he walked the earth. I have long been a student of great preaching down through the history of the church, and while some sermons I have heard or read were like a fine Merlot or a cup of perfectly-brewed Kona, this Osteen stuff is banana Fizzies. But I digress...

It's the word destiny that caught my attention. Do we really have a destiny? Webster's defines destiny as "the hidden power believed to control what will happen in the future--fate." Some view destiny as a preprogramed path for our life that is our job to discover and be in the right place and the right time to fulfill. (Apparently, the Osteens believe they have a verbal elixir that will make this happen for you.) Many Christian believers hold that God is the "hidden power" that controls what will happen in the future, and that belief is even reduced to where God has a "will" for every element of our personal lives, including what kind of car we should drive and who we should hang out with. I'm not there, friends.

I believe God to be a "big picture" deity when it comes to running the world, and one who calls me to fit into that picture, but more like a chip in a kaleidoscope than a specific piece of a picture puzzle. I know God loves you and me--that is what Jesus was (and certainly IS) all about. But does God have one, singular and "necessary" will for our lives? I don't see it. I love my children more than I can express in thousands of words and in a lifetime of relating to them, and in that love, the last thing I ever wanted to do was control their lives. Oh, I did my job as parent when they were young, providing boundaries to keep them safe, and opportunities to broadly experience life, the universe, and everything so they could decide what they wanted to do with their earthly days, but I never wanted to control them, prescribe their paths, or limit their possibilities, and I happen to believe that God is the greatest parent of them all! When Jesus said he wanted us to have an abundant life, I think he meant a fulfilling, deeply personal, yet respectful of others life, and one fully engaged in all of the pursuits we find interesting, stimulating and meaningful. And this abundant life would be one only complete when we aided in assuring that all of God's children had an equal chance at the same life. The abundant life Jesus talked about was never--ever a "zero-sum game" where, in order for me to "get mine," you couldn't "have yours."

God, like any great parent, doesn't want to steal away the "free will" with which we were created. There is no prescribed destiny or mandated path for any of us--just an incredible, unfolding "big picture" of a "kingdom" or "realm" being born into our world, and we have the freedom to participate in its revealing! That is the message of the Bible and of Jesus, as I see it. Don't waste your time looking for some "blueprint" of "God's will" for your life (destiny). Instead, seek the Spirit's wisdom and guidance as you explore what life is for you, how you may relate lovingly with others, and how together these pursuits may lead to abundance.

I'm a Wesleyan, at heart, meaning I appreciate and try to emulate John Wesley's understanding of the Christian gospel. Wesley was a "free will," not a destiny guy. Wesley developed the biblical and intellectual tools to fully engage life, and then set out to help others do the same. His journey to find his path was not without its potholes and barriers along the way, but he persisted. I think persisting is a good thing. Persisting is a much more biblical understanding of God, spirituality, and redemption than most of the junk I hear coming from TV preachers and "Christian" self-help books today. If I persist in finding my direction, growing in my faith, and in discovering new ways to relate to others on their journey, and not just to appreciate, but to work synergistically alongside them, I will find little time to judge others or to draw boundaries as to who's included and who is not in the coming Realm of God.

However, if I bow to the temptation to believe that there is some prescribed destiny for my life, I think I would become totally self-absorbed. That can't be good. Maybe I'd end up living in a multi-million dollar mansion and flying in my own plane, telling others to send me their money so they can find their destiny, too? No, I'm having such a blast doing this persisting stuff that I have to believe the destiny-seekers are going to find an empty well at the end of their quest. Years ago, an author I was reading said, the journey is our home. I like that. What is prescribed for us is our destination. Our loving God will receive us into our final home. But this life--this is where we get to explore and shine, and make something of our days that any great parent would be proud of! Destiny? Fugetaboutit!

Interfaith..

Ecumenical doesn't mean the same thing as Interfaith. Christians--and Christian clergy--are often happy to be ecumenical, which typically means fellowshipping, strategizing, engaging in study or service with, or otherwise acknowledging Christians of other denominations. Laity are much more natural at doing this than clergy, for they are neighbors, co-workers, friends, and even family to others of different, but usually Christian, faith traditions. I have known clergy who would not fraternize with clergy of what they would consider "radically" different Christian churches or denominations. Fundamentalist pastors, for example, are often not comfortable with "mainline" clergy who interpret the Bible using historical-critical skills in an attempt to discern what passages from the Bible meant when first written versus what they may mean for us today. Charismatic Christians or Pentecostals may make "mainline" clergy uncomfortable, with their belief that through the sign gifts and "conversational" prayer, they have a highly personal and intimate relationship with God, who may even tell them which car to buy. Roman Catholic priests were at one time reticent about joining local clergy associations or ministeriums, but most priests today, who were raised in the post-Vatican II era, are quite engaging of such ecumenical efforts, even participating in ecumenical services, as their time allows.

Interfaith engagements is another matter. Interfaith obviously means some meeting of the minds of persons who may have entirely different views of God, holy writ, and customs or traditions. Interfaith gatherings may include Christians, Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Buddhists, Hindus, B'ahi adherents, Sikhs, and/or cultural or geographical manifestations of any of these faith groups. Our N.O.R.T.H. (Neighborhood Organizations Responding Together for Hope) Interfaith group has even had several Mormon friends joining us. Again, there are adherents to any of these faith groups, and ones from others not listed, who eschew Interfaith cooperation, but all of the ones listed have had persons involved in some of N.O.R.T.H.'s activities and justice work.

Speaking as a United Methodist clergy person, I can attest to the fact that not all of my United Methodist colleagues are comfortable with Interfaith relationships, and that is certainly their choice. I have found these Interfaith intersections to be unique and wonderful opportunities to learn about, appreciate, and respect the faith journey of others. While I maintain my Christian witness--and all of the other faith groups strongly affirm my integrity in doing so--I don't try to "convert" others in these encounters, or criticize their belief systems in any way. I happen to believe the "kingdom" (or Realm) of God--what Dr. King called "The Beloved Community"--is much greater and more inclusive than I can wrap my limited Christian mind around. I have to be honest--my Christian faith seems comparatively simple to me, as I believe God does the "heavy lifting," leaving me to mostly try to love others according to the teachings of Jesus, and to work for justice and peace in my world. Some of these other faiths have such respect and reverence for God, and the essentials for them often seem to require such discipline and devotion in practicing various prayers, rituals, and acts of mercy and kindness that I think I would be a mediocre disciple, were I to try. While I may see the love, grace, and redemption of Christ--a free gift to me, and one I cannot earn--as a "selling point" of Christianity, I have learned that it can also create in some of our adherents a licentiousness and apathy that dilutes or oversimplifies the deeper aspects of living out one's Christian life and discipleship. My Muslim friends have five times of required prayer each day, and Five Pillars that all Muslims are challenged to observe throughout their lifetime. There have been times in my Christian ministry that, when I suggested to my congregations that they should have some kind of daily office with God, the response has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic. Oh, and sometimes my own devotion to it has been, too! And please don't say, Christian reader, that Muslims pray the five prayers and observe the Five Pillars because they have to. Most of my Muslim colleagues and friends do so out of a deep, personal sense of devotion and affection for Allah.

This is not a theological column, though. I don't want to argue the merit of my faith against the others (wouldn't do it, personally), nor make any judgments about the motivations and beliefs of the others that might alienate them from me and me from them. I do want to share, however, that beyond learning from my Interfaith friends, I have loved to serve with them and engage in justice work and peacemaking with them. You see, all of our theologies lead us toward "fixing the world" or "restoring God's benevolent order" to it in such a way that all persons may be accepted, affirmed, and offered equal opportunities in our local communities, and in this nation. Some of my Interfaith friends are immigrants, and it pains me to see them denigrated or harassed in a nation that is founded on the principle that "all [men] are created equal." Beyond friendship, the point of intersection for N.O.R.T.H. is our desire for justice, peace, and safety for all of God's people, and the right for the "pursuit of happiness."

Sometimes this cooperative, Interfaith work means just respecting and understanding each other. However, at other times it means attending public hearings or meetings together to speak with a common voice, or raising funds to help others who are suffering. On a couple of occasions it has meant standing with our Muslim friends when they were being threatened by intolerant neighbors or denied the opportunity to purchase property by prejudiced property owners. We have stood with our local Unitarian Universalist friends when their "Black Lives Matter" signs were being stolen or vandalized right on their own church property.

N.O.R.T.H. began "Friendship Dinners" in January of 2017 where all of our Interfaith friends come together to fellowship around the table, and discuss common concerns. Sometimes we have used these dinners to form Affinity Groups organized around a cause such as dismantling racism, LGBTQIA inclusion, voting rights, gun safety, or immigration. Other times we have held more formal "round table" discussions around a topic, such as the one at our upcoming April 19 dinner, which is around the issues of racism and white privilege. Most of all, these dinners have created a bigger neighborhood for each of us. One table of eight, made up of persons of different ethnic, national, and faith backgrounds, decided to meet together outside of our "Friendship Dinners," and as far as I know, they still do get together in each other's homes in this manner for fellowship and understanding.

Interfaith encounters have been so very enriching to me, personally. The purpose of this column is to encourage you, the reader, to be open to them and to find opportunities to participate in one. However, if this is not your "cup of tea," so to speak, please be respectful of those who have found it a portal into The Beloved Community Dr. King spoke about. And if your pastor, priest, rabbi, imam (or whatever title you give to your faith's "clergy") chooses to participate in cooperative, Interfaith endeavors, please don't trash them for it.

Thanks for listening...Shalom, Yinz.