To You Be Your Way, and To Me Mine

A few weeks ago, I received a Chick tract in the mail. It was delivered to my home in a handwritten envelope with no return address. The little booklet inside contained a smug, homophobic comic in which Jesus was portrayed as offering love through the medium of hate. One of my colleagues at St. Stephen’s also received one of these tracts, and he said that he had at first recycled it, then decided that recycling was too good for it and put it in the garbage. I kept the one that was sent to me so that I could report it to the post office if this harassment continued.

On the following Sunday, a man approached me as I was returning from my weekly donut run between services. “You’re not going to like this,” he said. I’d been curious about this man, who is a gifted musician and had taken to playing the piano in the sanctuary on Sunday mornings, but never stayed for the services. This behavior wasn’t that unusual, as many people have been harmed by the church, and are negotiating their involvement in the light of that past harm. I had supposed that this man might, at some moment, decide that a church service was a safe place for him.
Then he handed me a handwritten note that he intended to send to our new bishop. The note attacked queerness and LGBTQiA+ people using all of the same tired tropes that I’ve heard throughout my career, and that had been present in the Chick tract. It included a demand that we take down the Pride banner from in front of our sanctuary. I read it and said, “You’re right, I don’t like it.” But I tried to engage my curiosity rather than my offense and asked, “Why did you feel the need to write it?”

“That banner doesn’t represent me,” he said.

“Well,” I told him, “it represents the people here.” I offered him a donut and invited him to stay for the service. He took the donut and left.

A week later, he sent a photo of the note to the bishop and to our parish office. I’ve been keeping a careful eye on our Pride banner, especially as there are increased reports of banners being torn down around the Columbus metropolitan area. In addition to the Chick tract and to this man’s note, the church has received a voicemail denouncing our LGBTQiA+ affirming ethic, and so we are necessarily on guard against harassment and vandalism.

I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the man’s comment that the Pride banner doesn’t represent him. We are an inclusive church, and so it rankles when the bounds of our inclusivity are tested. I think I was right to invite him to stay for the service. But if he had stood up in the midst of the service and started shouting out his views, I would have had to counter him, and to enforce the boundaries that keep queer people safe. Still, Paul’s words in First Corinthians echo in my mind: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’” As do the words of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel: “But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”

I have been wrestling with the question of how I can believe so deeply in love and interconnectedness, and still want nothing to do with the attitudes that this man, and the others who have been harassing us, have articulated. We can say that “all people are welcome here but all behaviors are not,” and sometimes we have to say it, but it feels perilously close to “hate the sin and love the sinner.” In some churches, a queer person might be told that their presence is welcome but that their expression of queerness is not.

On Tuesday night, I attended the Interfaith Pride Service at Stonewall Columbus 1 with all of these thoughts rolling around in my mind. It was a beautiful service. The music was good, the speakers were funny and vulnerable and wholly themselves, the prayers and scripture passages from the different faiths were powerful. And two of the speakers really helped me come to a new understanding. Mounir Lynch, reflecting on identity and pride in Islam, quoted the Quran: “To you be your way, and to me mine.” For Mounir, this indicates that we can be responsible for the things we are responsible for, without needing the approval of those who have chosen other areas of responsibility and work. Reflecting on this, I came again to the realization that a church doesn’t have to be all things to all people. Our work at St. Stephen’s is to embrace and participate in theologies and spiritualities of liberation. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other churches that understand their work differently. But Christianity has a complex history of orthodoxy, of really wishing that everyone would just think and act the same. I know that this wish is a legacy of Christendom, but it is deeply ingrained. To truly think in terms of a diverse, multifaceted, multi-vocal and multifocal body of Christ is challenging when you’ve been brought up in a tradition that has been so invested in being systemized, hierarchical, and controlling. And yet it’s so freeing to realize that I don’t actually have to engage with the arguments of others. I can simply say, “to you be your way, and to me mine.”

The other helpful piece of wisdom came from Glenn Ge Jie Gustafson, a Zen priest. Glenn told us that “we can acknowledge our interconnection and choose not to interact with those who would disparage or attack us.” This is so simple and so true, and yet I find it very easy to forget. When I breathe or drink I partake in air and water that has passed through other people’s bodies, and is indifferent to their political beliefs. I can catch a cold from a bigot and receive a blood transfusion from a racist. I do not demand to know the politics of those who cook in restaurants or stock grocery shelves. I am connected with all of these people through myriad systems, and I am grateful for the things they provide to me, as I hope they are grateful for the things I provide. That doesn’t mean I have to be friendly and accepting, let alone lovingly attentive, if they decide to spew hate.

All this has led me to reexamine one of my central, faith-based ideals. I have spent my life hoping for the Kin-dom of God, and trying to act in ways that will help bring it about. I have imagined it in terms taken from Isaiah: “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.” Or through the parables of Jesus, as a mustard tree that all the birds can nest in. Yet there has been a subtext to my dreaming. Without realizing it, I have imagined the Kin-dom as a place where the wolf, lamb, leopard, and goat all agree with each other, where the birds are all singing the same song. Queer theology is teaching me many things, among them the flaw in this way of thinking. Perhaps in the Kin-dom the wolf is still a wolf and the lamb is still a lamb, and they treat each other with a kind of Ignatian indifference, not threatening each other with violence but also saying to each other “to you be your way, and to me mine.”

Of course, as my friend Ben points out, the wolf neither hates nor is motivated by hate when it eats kills and eats the lamb. In this world, I feel that I must stand up to hate as a person of conscience. When I’ve done so in the past, it’s been with a sense of grief, and perhaps that grief is appropriate. Why can’t we all just get along? Why must I feel anger, however justified, when I really want to love and live in a love-world? These questions still rankle, and are, perhaps, unresolvable. Yet I find hope in realizing that I can creatively choose my moments of engagement or non-engagement, and that I am not responsible for everyone’s sense of belonging.

  1. Co-created and co-sponsored by LOVEBoldly. ↩︎

A Visit to Berkeley Divinity School

Published on Substack October 30, 2023

The plane descended and I looked out over low mountains, the tree canopy bright with autumn and the rivers and lakes disclosing themselves to my vantage point in a way that seemed almost intimate, as their shapes can’t be fully perceived from a shore or bank. I was traveling to New Haven to visit two seminarians, people I’ve known for only three years but who feel like old and important friends. I’m too foolish and wrongheaded to make a good mentor, but I couldn’t help thinking about what I could disclose to them from my experience, and planned on offering helpful reminiscences of my own time in seminary. I hoped for a jolly time, a break from the stresses of day to day parish ministry, yet as my plane descended into Hartford’s airport, I thought about how stressful seminary had been, and realized that this was probably a false hope. Now that I’m twenty years distant from it, I can see the good things that emerged from the fog of confusion and distress that surrounded me as a seminarian. But I was unprepared for the way that I would be dunked back into it, and find that, even after all these years, the worries and stressors of seminary are still with me.

What makes seminary so hard? Part of the hardship comes from the bare fact of judgment. Most of us worry that we’re being judged by others as we go about our day to day lives. Most of us are wrong about that. Other people are too wound up in their own concerns to even think to judge us, let alone take any time to do so in an intense and devastating way. But in seminary, one is being judged. It’s built into the curriculum. Professors and administrators have to send letters back to seminarians’ sending diocese, assessing their fitness for ministry. And since many seminarians live in community with professors and deans (at Berkeley Divinity School they even share the same house) that patient assessment occurs not only in class but at dinner, in chapel, even when you’re walking the dog or buying groceries for the house. Receiving grades for class work becomes a relief, because it is, at least, a very clearly delineated form of judgement. The other forms remain ephemeral, but they’re always present.

Add the rigors of formation to this accurate sense of being judged. A lot of this formation is internal. Seminarians are leaving their old lives behind to become something new. I am not a person who believes that ordination entails an ontological change. We do not step into a different mode of being when we are ordained. But we do step into a role that requires a great deal of us, that shapes and affects our thinking and personalities much more than being a bank teller, for instance, does. We are to model Christ’s love to the world, to be the bearers of a great and hard idealism. All Christians are, of course, but most Christians don’t get up in front of a crowd once a week to talk about it, or situate their work lives in places where their faith is always on display. 

To become something new, something old needs to be surrendered. In classic Christian terms, something has to die for resurrection to occur. Seminarians are engaged in a constant parsing of the parts of them that need to die, and in a constant hope that resurrection will occur. Only resurrection never looks like we think it should. To the caterpillar, a butterfly is a ghost. Or at least alien, a different species altogether. So allowing things to die requires the surrender of control. It’s not success orientated in any way that makes sense, since you can’t name what success will look like, and can’t devise any clever scheme for achieving it. All you can do is look at yourself and say “here are the dying parts. Do I have the courage to let them die?”

Berkeley Divinity School is a very different place than Seabury-Western, the now defunct seminary that I attended. At Berkeley, I sat in on an amazing class, the kind of class I only dreamed about when I was a seminarian. It was a privilege to be there, and I think that most seminarians also carry that sense of privilege, no matter which seminary they attend. Not ‘privilege’ in the sense that they think they deserve their good luck. Rather, a recognition that most Christians don’t get to dedicate three years to the study of their faith, in the company of some of the finest scholars in the world. A priest is an odd creature. We are not better than other Christians. But we know more, at least intellectually. It is our role and our privilege to bring back the fruits of our study to the parish, to tell people about all of the things that we have learned. Seminarians who are being formed to do this have to ask “how will I tell other Christians about what I’m learning, how will I translate the language of the academy into the language of the preacher?” If that is the question, then missing a class or doing badly on an exam can be felt to have outsized ramifications. One wants to make the most of one’s education. One is also exhausted by the internal work that runs alongside the academic work but that the academy allots no time for. But if you miss something it might end up in you making a mistake when it really matters, once you’re out of seminary and people are looking to you for leadership.

Somehow, in the end, this intense and flawed process actually works. We manage to form good priests and ministers. As my visit progressed, I found myself wanting to remind my friends that the parish is not a seminary. Parishes can be weird, but they will never approach the extravagent weirdness of a divinity school. Priests are looked at and judged, but not by people whose job it is to judge them. Mostly we’re regarded with the hazy generosity of busy people. We continue to go through processes of death and rebirth, but those processes tend to elongate, and we go into and emerge from the tomb mostly when some huge life event leads us to, not on a monthly basis. And we can study at our own pace. I believe that continued study is one the basic components of the priestly life. But if I only half read a book before I preach on some point that it makes, few people will care or call me on it.

Perhaps it’s best to end with a prayer for seminarians. Here is my offering

Jesus Christ, creator of the universe, fill our minds with your thoughts and our hearts with your compassion. Be with our seminarians, as you are with all of your disciples, patient and attentive, modeling rest and graceful friendship. Help them to know that they are not alone as they carry their crosses, but part of a vast procession of those who have walked through the ages, answering your call and bearing your burden. Lead them to the tomb and into resurrection, from the room of fear into the wonder of the ascension. In your name we pray. Amen.

Revolutionary Patience

Published on Substack on October 23, 2023

The terror and anger of the last two weeks might make us want to turtle up and hide away. Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israel and the indifference to civilian death in Israel’s military response creates such overwhelming moral confusion in me that it’s hard to look at the news. I would like, at this time, to take refuge in my faith, to treat it as a door I could close or a blanket I could pull over my head. But I can’t, because my faith isn’t private, and it can’t be, almost by definition.

During the past week I’ve returned to a book that I find myself reading again and again. Dorothee Soelle’s The Silent Cry: Mysticism and Resistance may very well be the most important thing I’ve read in the last ten years. 

I fell in love with the Christian mystical tradition a decade ago, and read many of the great mystics. I learned the traditional prayer practices and benefited from them. But I was taught to approach these practices and to read the mystics through the lens of private devotion. That is, I was taught that the mystics were mostly talking about things that could only be experienced in the depths of one’s own soul during daily, prayerful, withdrawal from the world. Yes, it’s true that Teresa and John ran around reforming the Carmelites, and that Meister Eckhart was the Provincial Superior for Saxony and in charge of forty-seven convents, but we talked about them as if this was somehow separate from their real life with God. Mysticism was something that kept them balanced and sane, and we would often imply, when we told their stories, that it was quite a pity that they also had to contend with hectic work schedules.

Soelle’s book doesn’t accept this narrative. She is interested in ora et labora, the unity of the active and contemplative life. The entire biblical story is about people encountering God and this encounter leading to action, or about people encountering God in the midst of action. Moses encounters God and is sent to free the Hebrews from Egypt. He encounters God as he leads the people through the wilderness, and struggles with God and in cooperation with God to bring them to the promised land. God becomes incarnate in human life and spends his time healing and teaching, not sitting quietly in prayer. He does some of that, of course, but Jesus’s tendency to go off somewhere to pray is always proceeded or followed by action. Soelle asks what we can truly know of God, and comes to the conclusion that “God’s being, that which we can know of God, is the divine will to build up the the reign, the Kingdom of God.” That is, God is forever pointing us towards an idealized version of the life of the world, where we live with plenty and every tear is wiped away from our eye. And God is always insisting that we not only share this ideal, but work for it.

But our very encounter with that vision of a perfected world tends to alienate us from the world as we experience it now. We are given a vision of what the world should be, then we see the world as it presently is, and we want to retreat from it. Only God won’t let us. True mysticism, true experience of the divine force that pervades all life, fills us with such compassion that we can’t just let things suffer and die. Filled with love for everything that is, able to see all of creation as precious, we are moved to act.

Mysticism and action go hand in hand. Soelle makes this point by telling the story of a young woman. She writes: 

At the theological seminary in New York where I used to teach, we were once asked about our religious experiences. There was an embarrassed silence; it was as if we had asked our grandmothers about their sex life. A young woman eventually spoke up and offered to present, in a week’s time, an extensive report on her experiences. Accordingly, she told us that as a very young girl in the American Midwest, she had spent many hours reading in bed at night, without permission. One winter’s night, she woke up at four in the morning, went outside, and looked at the stars in the clear, frosty sky. She had a once-in-a-lifetime feeling of happiness, of being connected with all of life, with God; a feeling of overwhelming clarity, of being sheltered and carried. She saw the stars as if she had never seen them before. She described the experience in these words, “Nothing can happen, I am indestructible, I am one with everything.” This did not happen again until about ten years later when, in a different context, something similar took place. The new context was a huge demonstration against the Vietnam War. There, too, she knew that she was sheltered, a part of the whole, “indestructible,” together with the others. Struggling for words and with her own timidity, she brought both experiences together under the rubric of religious experience.

Such different experiences, yet, at their heart, touching on the same sense of mystery, arising from the same source of outpouring empathy, and filled with the same sense of participation in divine immensity. 

The young woman’s second experience came in the midst of action, but more than that, it came as she was immersed in community. Soelle emphasizes the need for community in The Silent Cry. Acting out of a sense of what the world could be while also carrying a sense of disappointment and alienation from the world as it, well, that requires a tremendous sense of balance. Faith communities are meant to give that balance. This is, in fact, the New Testament model. Disciples don’t try to change the world as lone individuals. Nor does Jesus spark a massive protest movement that ends in successful revolution. Instead, the New Testament shows us how groups of people set out to confront the brokenness of the world by living together in a new way. These groups of people form the churches. Soelle is understandably upset that the meaning of church has changed. Instead of being a collaborative of people who share a common vision and are truly willing to change their lives in pursuit of that vision, churches have become places where we are taught how to privatize our beliefs and conform to the demands of empire. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Even now, there are many churches that demand a change of life from their members. Some of these changes might seem very small. Treat others with more respect. Give more of your resources away. Go to an occasional protest or write an occasional letter to a lawmaker. For many people, this isn’t enough. It seems shallow, even hypocritical. I might make a faith commitment to reduce my reliance on single-use-plastics. But no individual effort will end the climate crisis. Shouldn’t the change of life be more total, not a series of small protests, but one great and continual protest?

Perhaps it should, but then we have to ask why we see so few examples of this, and why those examples that we do have are often so disturbing. Religious groups that try to control every aspect of their members’ lives are in danger of becoming cults, even if they start in a place of authentic love for the world and honest desire for change. Or they turn to repressive measures to control their members behavior and stamp out ideas and practices that they consider false, to inquisitions and witch hunts and civil war. There is a paradox, here. Alienation from the world leads people to try to change it, but if they try to change it too quickly and act too stringently, they lose the sense of compassion and the vision of God that alienated them in the first place. True change seems to result from some combination of alienation and acceptance. When the Civil Rights leaders in Montgomery were rallying people for the bus boycott, they went to both the gin joints and the churches.

Soelle uses the term “revolutionary patience” to describe this strange admixture of alienation and acceptance. She writes:

However radically mystical consciousness practices and strives for changes in conditions based on possessions and violence, the connection to those who think otherwise is steadfastly maintained. No one is excluded or eliminated.

Revolutionary patience doesn’t require one to give up deep-seated beliefs or the desire to change the world. It does require one to try to invite perceived enemies into the vision of a changed world, and into the community that works to change it. A funny thing happens whenever Jesus is confronted by the Sadducees, the Scribes, or the Pharisees. He responds to them with a parable or aphorism that is meant for his disciples. But most of the time, the meaning of his response is clear, and his enemies get to hear it, too. He invites his enemies to consider the alternatives that he embodies.

Dorothee Soelle died in 2003, so we cannot know what she would say about events in Israel/Palestine today. But in The Silent Cry she gestures at what our response might be. To remain engaged, in spite of the cost. To allow ourselves to feel alienated from the violence and horror. To find other people who are also alienated by the state of the world and who have had experiences of God that allow them to see the heartbreaking beauty and fragility of people on both sides of the conflict. To work in community to bring a just end to the violence. Not just an end that restores an unjust status quo. But an end that reveals a new way of living in the world, a new vision of the world that we are called to inhabit. And to do so with revolutionary patience, refusing to exclude or eliminate those who oppose that new vision. 

This work might be done in the church, which has tried, despite its many flaws, to carry this mystical consciousness through the centuries. It might be done by other groups, among other communities that are committed to pray and work on behalf of the world. But what makes it unique is that it involves both prayer and work, ora et labora, the mystical consciousness and engagement in the world understood to be one thing, capable of carrying the attitudes of prayer into encounters with other people and hearing the call to work in our encounters with God.

Two Early Encounters with the Divine

Published on Substack on June 1, 2023

I have a story I tell about my own spiritual awakening. I was seventeen, and on a family vacation. We had driven from Wisconsin across the southwest, and all during the trip I had been moved by profound natural beauty. After a stop in Los Angeles, we drove up Highway One to San Francisco — seer coastline, the ocean breaking against the base of cliffs, seals and sea lions stretched out in hidden bays. And then I found myself in the John Muir Woods beneath the giant sequoias, crossing bridges over small gorges, the air full of the scent of the forest. I wandered away from my family and started climbing past carpets of ferns and emerged onto a high hillside covered in red bushes, and there I fell out of myself and encountered God.

A simple story, not unlike many that we could tell about our encounters with the divine, but it immediately raises questions. What was the self I fell out of? Who is God? And, once a person has had such an encounter, what should be done? A life is changed, but without any understanding of what that change entails, what new life might emerge afterwards. What ways of understanding, what worlds of story and conduct, can help carry a person through such a change? And what narratives try to repress or mitigate or cancel out the aftershocks of such divine encounter?

Although I’ve told this story many times, and although it did happen, it was not, actually, my first encounter with divinity. When I stepped into the John Muir Woods, I considered myself an atheist, but I had met something strange and mysterious once before, in a Wisconsin field at dawn. I called myself an atheist because I was angry at the church, and at God. I’m a preacher’s kid, and my father struggled in the churches he served. An alcoholic’s son, he built a wall in his life to protect his wife and children from the occasional violence and deep unhappiness of the home he grew up in. But in order to do so, he needed to assert control over many things, and didn’t always know how to do so with subtlety or grace. He was an introvert in a denomination that favored extroverts, and an intellectual who served congregations whose members, in general, did not have a high degree of education. So there was often conflict in the churches of my childhood, and I came to think of the body of the church as the people who were mean to my dad. 

I rebelled. Part of my rebellion was a declaration of atheism. But the other part was a turning to drugs and alcohol and attending dangerous parties. In the Spring of my junior year of high school, a few months before I found myself in the John Muir Woods, I partied all night, tripping on acid, and then greeted the dawn in a field behind my friend’s house. I was alone, watching the sunlight shine off the top of the long grasses, and I waded out into the dew and light, my pant legs growing heavy, my arms raised in greeting, my mind dancing with something that was entirely beyond my understanding.

I didn’t make this part of my story for many years, because, after college, I gave up partying, turned my life over to the community of the church, and felt ashamed about my past drug use. Yet the story-world of the church is full of people who were honest about their faults and understood their failures in the light of their conversions. And the theology of the church asserts that God can work through any set of circumstances or choices. So, as I have grown in my faith, I have become more comfortable in asserting that it was God there in that field, God who I encountered while my mind was still rattling with drugs and my body still shaky with a sleepless night, and that, since I didn’t quite get the message that morning, God chose to visit me with grace twice in the course of four months.

A Priest at the End of Christendom

Published May 22, 2023 on Substack

“I’ve come to realize that I don’t need to reform the church. I just need to love people.” This is what I said when interviewing for my current position as the rector of a small, urban Episcopal church in the midwest. Eight years before I had begun working for our diocese as a “missioner,” a kind of free-floating staff position charged with figuring out what was coming next for the church. I worked with a brilliant priest named Jane Gerdsen, whom I credit with saving my ministry. When I met Jane I was in the midst of one of my periodic moments of wondering whether I was truly called to the priesthood. I loved preaching and celebrating, but I didn’t love, or even like, the institution of the church. I would go to clergy meetings and everyone would be competing with each other, bragging about the importance of their ministries so that the bishop would hear them and send them a trickle of resources so that they could keep going, at least for another year. This spirit of competition made it hard to make friends. And, at least twice, retired priests had approached me when at these gathering and told me all of the things that they didn’t actually believe. They had spent their lives preaching and teaching these things out of a sense of plodding duty, even as they began to question, then doubt, then cease believing altogether. What was I doing, I wondered, competing for scant resources in a church that couldn’t be honest about its fundamental hopes and dreams?

Jane saved me by bringing me into a creative, hopeful, relationship-based network that was sometimes called Fresh Expressions and sometimes called Praxis Communities. We read Diana Butler Bass and Brian McClellan, and agreed that we were living on the cusp of a third reformation (the first being an attempt at centralization that took place in the 11th and 12th centuries, the second being the one with Martin Luther that you’re probably familiar with). We talked seriously about improv and play. We founded urban farms and art galleries. We met for dinner church and Art of Hosting trainings. I really believed in this work. I still do. But a strange thing started happening. We thought that we were creating a church for young people, but older people kept showing up to our events and conferences. It seemed that the yearning we were feeling didn’t have an age requirement. So I began to wonder if the practices we had learned, the wisdom circles and shared leadership and community organizing skills, could make its way into the parish. There was a practical side to this. We were able to do this work because we had a visionary bishop. Any new bishop might not support it. And the parish is still the basic economic unit of the church. If the work was to continue, it had to find a home in the parish. Hopefully it would do so to the parish’s benefit.

But I wasn’t lying when I told the search committee at my parish that I wasn’t hoping to reform the church. For one thing, I was pushing fifty, and reformation is the work of young people. For another, I had, and have, a real sense that the church I want to live in can be a model for compassionate understanding, and compassion isn’t unidirectional. One has to be as compassionate towards the grief of a way of being that is ending as one is towards the uncertainty of a way of being that is emerging. Any reformation without love isn’t a real reformation, and if one has to pick, I will pick love every time.

Does that mean that the first two reformations weren’t real? Well, neither ended the church’s historic alliance with empire. We call that alliance “christendom,” and it was as strong in the kingdoms and states that abandoned Roman Catholicism as it was in Italy or Spain. Both previous reformations were periods of great violence and persecution. Both ended up constricting the boundaries of what could be thought or said. Both had their dogmas, their witch hunts, their antisemitism, their racism, their unexpected and bewildered scapegoats. Both tied themselves to wealth, status, and power. Perhaps this is because they were led and enacted by human beings, and any human endeavor will have its share of violence and oppression. But why start there? Why start with the violence of telling people that their opinions don’t matter, their practices are old and stupid, and that everything they love will die if they don’t change?

I was honest when I said that I would choose love over reformation. I try to make that choice every day. Yet the end of Christendom is arriving. Perhaps it’s already arrived. And many things are changing as a result. I am fortunate that I serve a church that is progressive and open to change, at least in some ways. But every group has its third rails and sacred cows, and new people arrive with fresh ideas and passions, which means that serving any church is a continual tightrope.

So I walk the tightrope, day by day, and I am choosing to reflect on that balancing act here, in this newsletter. I will tell stories of daily encounters, with respect and with permission. I will delve into liturgy, into religious anthropology, into the contemplative tradition, and into art and poetry. These are the things that interest me. Fortunately, many of my parishioners share these interests. Or at least they’re polite and complimentary when I preach about them. But mostly I will reflect on what it’s like to live through the end of Christendom, a fifth of the way into the twenty-first century, in a liberal city in a conservative state, in a progressive denomination within a religion that is widely thought of as reactionary. I hope to do so in community with you, honoring your thoughts and opinions, and learning from you as I go.