Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Well, it's been one of those weeks. *sigh* At least it's had some good in it!

Today, our congregation ordained and installed our third youth member on the Session! Now one-quarter of our Session is under the age of 20. What an awesome leap of faith!! Before last year's election, our congregation voted to have a position called Youth Elder - the only distinction between a Youth Elder and an Elder is the length of their terms. And then elected two of our youth to serve on the Session, one in a one year term, one in a standard three year term. So this year - our youth in a one year term was reelected to another one year term, and another youth has been elected to a three year term.

This congregation has a history of taking leaps of faith. I can't help but be excited by the continuing faith journey of a congregation willing to be the first Presbyterian church in the nation to call a woman to serve as associate pastor back in the 60's. And who helped to start several new congregations, including a couple of racial-ethnic congregations (one didn't make it, but I'm impressed that this group took the risk and tried). Now they've embraced the leadership potential of our youth and drawn them into the decision-making for the future of this congregation. WOOHOO!! Next month, one of our youth elders will be our elected commissioner with voice and vote to our presbytery meeting in Huntsville. These wonderful young people are the present and future of not only this congregation, but of an incredible witness to our faith in Jesus Christ. Who couldn't say this was THE GOOD?

OK - there have been other good moments in this week, but that one deserves all caps!

The bad - my roof is still in nasty shape, at least part of it is - the part where the tree came in. Well, it is covered and the rain no longer works its way into the house to cause potential problems. However, the rafter system where the tree came in is all fouled up. Some of the damage is storm damage that hasn't been addressed by either the insurance company nor the roofer. Some of it is stuff that's a result of the way the roofer did his work. FRUSTRATING!! And, of course, I can't move on to the next part of getting my house back together until the roof's fixed. And now that I have a roof covering the house, it's going to be harder to fix the section which isn't right yet. I'm still not living in my house. While blessed to have a good and safe place to stay, I really want to be back in my own home, with my own furniture and my own BED, right now! And that's bad, isn't it?

The ugly - the insurance company has said it's not going to do anything else on the roof. The roofer says that there're one-two things which he's going to fix, but the main problem, he won't work on because the insurance company didn't allocate enough funds to cover the cost of the repair. And I'm in the middle. I'm tired of 'he said, he said' conversations, where it's expected that I transmit the information from one group to another. I don't speak the lingo! I don't speak 'contractor'!! I don't speak 'insurance'!! HELP!!! The good news is that I have people in my congregation who can translate and are willing to help. But it gets me to thinking about all those others who may be in the same pickle, and who may not know how to evaluate the work that's been completed on their homes or may not be able to interpret what insurance adjusters and contractors are saying.

The insurance company says it can't be involved in a dispute with the roofer. My consulting engineer church member says that, yes, some of the problem was caused by the roofer, but some of the problem is damage that hasn't been addressed by anyone involved with the repairs. And I can't get both parties in the same room to discuss the issue, which means my house isn't having anything done to it. Since the insurance company is supposed to help get my house returned to a usable state, and they are the ones providing the funding, you'd think they would be willing to hear directly from the roofer what some of the needs are, rather than second-hand from someone who doesn't speak the lingo. I'm not expecting the insurance company to cover the costs which are the result of the roofer not doing his job right, but I am expecting both of them to work together to get my house back together. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but one can only hope.

I'm working on some leverage, and think I have some, yet I wonder about those who don't. Where do they go to get the help they need to resolve inadequate work and coverage issues? Who advocates for those who don't have the resources to hire an engineer or attorney or other expert to help in such situations? *sigh* Not only are they/we dealing with the disruption of the aftermath of the hurricane, but also are dealing with obstructions from those we are paying to help us get things back toward normal (either through insurance premiums or the cost of repairs). Insult to injury. The ugly, don't you think?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Synchronicity

From dictionary.com - Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related. And this past week has been filled with synchronicity.

On Thursday, what began as we returned from our Rita exile, continued with a meeting of the newly formed Southeast Texas Interfaith Organization for Disaster Recovery. For me, that one little/big word - Interfaith - makes it all worthwhile. We've got a ways to go. Interfaith is mostly interdenominational at the moment (and at that, it doesn't include all of the denominations), but even that's an accomplishment. We're working together to help homeowners who fall between the cracks of insurance and other assistance programs get their homes repaired and livable again. Guess you could say it's one good thing which has come out of Her Horribleness.

On Friday, I left before the crack of dawn for a meeting of the General Assembly Committee on Representation Executive Committee, which I moderate. The Committee came into existence at reunion to ensure that the leadership of the PCUSA would include a diversity of men and women, clergy and lay, and racial-ethnic representation. The work of the committee has expanded to include representation of various age groups and those with disabilities. There is much good happening, and yet, we've such a long way to go. Systemic change takes time, and I sometimes get impatient. I guess if the worship hour continues to be the most segregated hour of the week (shame on us! Why do we continue to build walls instead of bridges?!), it's no wonder we haven't quite accomplished that task in the leadership of the church. At least we are maintaining an awareness of the need to be inclusive and are taking steps to address the issue.

On Saturday, after the meeting, two of us decided to head into Atlanta and see a play. In terms of location, we decided visit the local Shakespeare Theater. Guess what was playing: The Merchant of Venice! Issues of racism, prejudice, religious hatred - not in a good light, to say the least. Unfortunately, there are people who would take Shakespeare's words and use them as justification for their own biases. I found myself of two minds in enjoying the play. The love story and the machinations in bringing it to fruition were hiliarious. The underlying hatred between Christian and Jew were just plain uncomfortable. Admittedly, revenge is an emotion which can take over a person regardless of their religion. Shakespeare had his reasons in his particular context, but we should not continue to carry that particular hatred into our context.

On Sunday, the topic for our Faith Sharing group was how people of faith should respect each other, learn more about each other, accept that we actually have much in common in spite of our differences. We talked about what's the same in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ... and acknowledged that we need to learn more. A good start! Hope we're able to keep this topic up and running!

And today - well, let's see: Ron Franscell has been banished from a conservative blog for not denouncing a liberal blog. And 'Seventh Heaven' was about racism. Anyone else detecting a theme here? Just how do we diverse individuals manage to maintain connection in a culture which at the moment seems to insist on compartmentalization? "If you don't completely agree with my take on reality, then you are someone to be despised and blocked from my view."

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....I wonder. We've learned to compartmentalize so much in our work/personal lives that perhaps that's what leads so many to wall off those who are different. Did we somewhere along the way forget what it means to be community? Or maybe there's just an idealist within me who thinks that we ever really knew. *sigh* Do you think we'll ever learn? One can only hope and pray.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Women Presidents?

I opened my Houston Chronicle this morning and the first thing to catch my eye was that Chile, Chile mind you!, had elected their first female president. And here in the United States it still seems such a far-fetched idea that a woman could be elected president that the only way tv could make it 'palatable' to the public was to elect a woman as vice-president and then elevate her to the office of president through the death of the president. (and to have that woman be an independent candidate, at that!) HARUMPH!!

Yes, there's more discussion now about the electability of Hiliary Clinton or Condaleeza Rice as president, but if you listen to the subtext, there's almost a not-in-a-million-years flavor to the discussion. What is our problem?!?

It's not that we don't have women with the qualifications and credentials to serve as president. There are women quite ably managing Fortune 500 coumpanies and dealing in international commerce who should have gained sufficient experience to manage all of the various responsibilities of the presidency. Yet you can almost feel people cringing away from the concept. *very deep and long sigh*

Golda Meir of Israel and Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain are two women who come to my mind immediately as strong and capable leaders nationally and internationally. Meir rose to prominence in the late 60's-early 70's, Thatcher in the late 70's-early 90's. And the USA still slogs along wondering about whether a woman could do the job.

This year the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) celebrates 100 years of ordaining women to leadership roles as Deacons and 50 years of ordaining women as Ministers of Word and Sacraments. (The 75th anniversary of the ordination of women as Elders was celebrated last year.) The church hasn't fallen apart as a result. Men and women both bring different gifts to their ministries, just as each individual brings different gifts. Yet there are still places here in the United States where the concept of women in official leadership roles is an obstacle to be overcome.

One of the most fulfilling experiences I had in my previous pastorate was working with a Native American congregation to help them (at their request) to elect women into leadership as Elders. The intriguing thing in this instance was that the men were highly encouraging of the concept, but the women were reluctant to put their names in the hat. Over the course of a couple of years, I watched the men and women minister together in that congregation and tried to understand what the source of their reticence was.

This was a congregation without a pastor and the Elders took turns on Sundays with the preaching responsibilities during the Sunday morning worship. They also had a Sunday evening worship service, and often the women would be the main leadership, reading Scripture, leading prayers, and giving the message. In watching, I learned that the women were actually fulfilling main leadership roles, but simply weren't serving in elected positions of authority. As I talked with the women, I learned that what made them fearful of election to office was the expectation to preach at the Sunday morning worship service. (Isn't it odd what things lead us to shy away from moving forward?)

Once the men on the Session agreed to let a woman Elder opt out of preaching on Sunday mornings, and once I had pointed out to the women that they were already fulfilling all of the responsibilities of Elder, we had one of the women of the congregation agree to be nominated and she was elected. By the time I left that pastorate, I believe she was also filling the pulpit on Sunday mornings! AWESOME!!

As a woman pastor, I've also encountered more difficulty in terms of acceptance from women in the congregation. And it's not the kind of problem that one would expect - of a woman pastor acting inappropriately with a male church member - as has often been the concern of wives where women have entered other previously male-dominated fields. Rather, as one woman put it, "My daddy would roll over in his grave if he knew I was going to a church with a woman pastor."

I wonder if it's some of this kind of thinking which is making it more difficult for a majority of Americans to consider the possibility of electing a woman as president. If so, we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. I wonder what it would take to dispel the obstacles placed in the path of potential women presidents. I hope we can someday soon get beyond them and tap into the potential gifts to be brought to a presidency by women. Oh well, at least when the counting's done, we won't be among the ranks of Saudi Arabia and Monaco, who have never had a woman to serve in at least a sub-ministerial position. That's saying something for us at any rate!

Friday, January 13, 2006

Of Insurance and Pensions

Pension plans frozen. Fewer employers providing free health insurance. It seems that more and more frequently those in the middle keep getting economically hit by something, and those at the low end have to struggle harder just to survive. Yes, there are those who use the system and play the 'poor' card to their advantage. But there are a vast number who are doing their best to improve their lot in life, and they keep getting knocked back by this and that change to the advantage of the wealthy (which is then supposed to somehow trickle down and improve the lot of the non-wealthy - haven't seen that happen yet).

Can't remember where I read this particular statistic, but the number sticks in my brain: CEO's and 'upper management' of large corporations, on average, make about 486 times what their average worker makes! There's something that feels so completely wrong about that disparity. I'm not saying that CEO's and upper management shouldn't have larger incomes. They do and should take on responsibilites that warrant 'big bucks'. However, much of the income which their businesses earn comes from the work of their employees, and those employees should be recognized more accurately for the value they provide to the business. One of the original values of the union movement was that it forced those business leaders to acknowledge that their income was the result of the work and safety of others, and that there was a value attached to that.

It's outrageous that the top management of Enron and other similar debacles will still have substantial assets even after serving sentences for their behavior, while their employees have lost jobs, pensions, health insurance and with little or no recompense for the losses they've suffered. It's outrageous that top leadership of companies undergoing bankruptcy receive millions in compensation, while their employees are expected to take pay and benefit cuts. It's outrageous that health insurance costs grow by such leaps and bounds that even employees with good incomes are forced to pay larger and larger shares of that cost (I'm not saying the costs shouldn't be shared. I'm just saying that a family shouldn't be bankrupted as a result of those increasing costs.) and that small businesses who truly want to support and reward their employees with this benefit are unable to do so because of the cost to their business.

I know there are a huge number of factors playing into the dynamics of this situation, some of them legitimate. I also know that there are CEO's and companies out there who make an effort to treat their employees equitably. It just seems that all too often it's the employee who has to make concessions while the employers come out in the same financial shape as before, or even better. That's wrong! To me, it's even more wrong when those employers present themselves as Christians. Somehow they've missed the point and slipped back into a biblical mindset which existed around the time of the writing of Job: if you're truly a good and honorable person then God's gonna reward you with things, a surplus of the toys/benefits that show the world God has picked you as a favorite. Hogwash! (Of course, at the end of Job, he gets everything back and then some, which blows the whole lesson, but I have a feeling that someone who just couldn't stand it that the things weren't the point added that on.)

And tying health insurance to one's employer makes things difficult for employees as well. What if you or a family member have significant (or even insignificant) health problems? It's not easy to up and leave an employer over other reasons if your health care might be terminated. Yeah - there's that 18month ERISA benefit. Have you ever had to pay the almost impossible premiums for continuing insurance when you don't have any income to pay with?! The resultant gap in coverage makes it virtually impossible to get 'pre-existing conditions' covered with a new employer, and the cycle goes on and on. And, if you're downsized from a position, then you're just plain up the creek!

Some form of universal healthcare is a resonable response. My mom pops in with 'but then there'd be rationing of health care if that happened'. *sigh* She just doesn't get it. There's already health care rationing - if you can't afford it, you don't get it, and there are way too many people who can't afford the premiums or the copays and just don't get the care they need and deserve as humans. (And health care rationing is even worse in Third World countries. *double sigh*)

The whole situation is just plain frustrating! And I don't see it getting any better at all over the next three years, if anything it will probably get worse. oh, well! Ranting didn't help any (and maybe that's a good thing). I'll have to do some thinking on that!

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Those Darned Absolutes

My mind was idly thinking of the things that have to get done, when I remembered it was also time to do taxes. "Blech!" I thought. Then up popped Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, "Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes." Of course, I said sagely to myself ... and stopped cold! Huh?! Nothing is certain!? Wait a minute!!

The next thought that rambled into my head was "The only constant is change." Huh?! The only?! I don't know how many times I've said that. It's been around since the philosopher Heraclitus (in some form or another). The situation comes up where either of these seems appropriate and out they pop!

On the surface, both these statements are truisms. And yet........ We unfortunately get into trouble when we start throwing around such absolutes as 'nothing is certain' and 'the only' without thinking about them a little deeper. Especially as Christians, I wonder why we haven't examined either of these. I really don't want my only certainties to be 'death and taxes' nor the only constant in my life to be 'change'.

And they aren't! "Love never ends." (1 Corinthians 13:8) A constant - unlike change - always there. Ok - human love doesn't always fill the bill, but the love Paul's talking about is the love of God in Christ Jesus. Eternal. Unendling. There whether we claim it or not. That's a certainty that I want to hold close in this time when everything still has an unsettled iffiness to it.

I find I need to hear again and again "Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35, 37-39)

The Apostle Paul knew where his certainties and constants were and are. I do, too, when I don't get caught up in the temporary and human things in life. Ah, well! "You can't change the past." (Guess I'll have to give you that one! As much as the science fiction addict in me would love to have some events of the past changed, I'd really feel uncomfortable if there (itallics) was (end itallics) someone who could just change whatever they wanted whenever it didn't work out right, according to their definition!) But I can change the way I approach things in the future. And, starting right now, I'm planning to give those familiar absolutes that we humans come up with a good looking over ........... and carry within me the one sure and certain constant: "Lo, I am with you always" (Matthew 28:20)

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Outrage

They've done it! A few voices spoke and the tv management caved! Yes, there are things on tv which I wouldn't in a million years watch, but they're available. The assumption is that I'm a grown-up and can choose whether to watch or not. But not for this show. We didn't even get the chance to see if it would be worthy of spending the time one it. All because a few voices didn't like what the commercials were saying about the show. THEY hadn't seen it either, but just knew that it would warp everyone's little brains if the show even aired. ARGH!

As if Christ couldn't handle whatever inanity humanity came up with. The Book of Daniel didn't even get a chance in Southeast Texas. Truth to tell, I wasn't sure whether I wanted to watch it or not. The commercials didn't paint a picture that was compelling enough to ensure that I'd at least put a tape in the machine to watch it later. I probably would have given it at least one shot at telling the story, but I didn't get that chance to make the decision.

What is it that makes some people so scared about what entertainment is on tv? I'm actually more worried about how real people actually act and the things they actually do which harm others. And we get to see large percentages of that on tv! 24 hour news channels with their talking heads - and all of the fluff and bother that they put on - without spending time on the things which really matter to the lives of millions. Sure, some worthy events capture our attention for a span of time, but all too often, we are given the minutia while truly important events escape without notice. *sigh*

If we become a nation of sheep (and I'm afraid we're already pretty close to that), we will have lost what made us a country worthy of emulating. People have to be allowed to examine issues (even inane entertainment issues) and decide whether for themselves whether they are harmful or not. That's what freedom of speech is about. I guess in some convoluted way you could say that the tv station exercised their freedom of speech by pulling the show. It is a private enterprise and not a public station; however, they are using public airwaves and entered into an agreement with the national broadcasting system to air the programming provided.

Perhaps if enough people grouse about it, they will air the show at a time which isn't "prime time". Probably won't be enough people who'll take the time to grouse, though. As I said earlier, the commercials weren't about a particularly compelling storyline. But what goes next if we don't grouse? Are we headed for the era of approved "government speak", where if you don't say the correct words, you are subjected to reorientation? Probably not within the next few years, but it's still a possibility on the edge of the horizon. The 'if you aren't with us, you must be against us (and therefore in favor of the enemy)' mindset is dangerous to our current freedom and the workings of democracy.

I cringe when I think of what has happened in only a few years. For most of my life, I lived in Texas. When I moved to Oklahoma, it felt as though I'd left a place where independence was valued almost above all else. Now, there's not much left of that sense of independence. Partisan politics have shifted so far that the few voices seeking a middle ground are almost silenced, and gridlock is SOP.

There is much still to love about Texas. I was quite proud of the way Texans jumped in to help those fleeing Katrina, and how that work is still continuing today, even in the aftermath of Rita here at home. That kind of love and concern for others is truly what it means to be Christian (and a lot of non-Christians are just as good at it as well). If our actions as a nation were such exemplars of our supposedly Judeo-Christian roots, sure there might be some to take advantage of us, but at the same time, we would be living out in fullness the Kingdom of God which we profess to believe is 'already but not yet' in our world. Exhibiting that love for enemies, neighbors, and self is part of that very real 'already'. I hope we get there someday!