This morning during the church service (I don't think I can call it worship) the pastor did his standard introductory sermon to his regular sermon. He shared two lists which I found sort of interesting. He talked about hearing college age students talk about issues they are concerned with. He apparently asked them what issues their churches discuss and talk about. I don't know who these young people were, but this was the first list he shared. He titled it "Issues churches deal with according to young people." These were free will v predestination, which version of the Bible to use, style of music, length of the church service and sermon, and how often to have communion.
The next list was titled "Life issues of College Age Students." These included racism, the environment, energy conservation, war and gun violence, world hunger and population, alcohol and drug use, parent's divorce, finding and job and paying for college, finding a sense of community and the impacts of the latest technology.
As you can see there aren't many similarities between the two lists which leads to questions about if the church should be addressing these issues and if so, how should they be addressed. Unfortunately, one of the problems is that if the issues above are mentioned, you will generally get tagged with the "liberal" label, which here in the cornfields, isn't generally seen as a good thing. Trust me on that. The other problem is that at least one of the issues above can not be talked about honestly and that is the use of alcohol. The "official" line is that alcohol is bad and shouldn't be touched. There is an old joke that if you don't want a Mennonite to drink all your beer, make sure you invite at least two, then you will have it all to yourself.
The other interesting observation is to note what issues did not make the second list. Notably absent are issues of sexuality (including homosexuality) and abortion, issues which older people assume younger ones should care about but apparently don't.
From this introduction the pastor went into his main sermon based on Jesus calling the disciples. The focus was on the "call" and "making a decision to respond to the call." Yesterday was a long day, and I have to admit I think I dozed off a bit.
As I thought about church, I have to say I don't hear much discussion about issues on the first list which I suppose is a good thing. Still I think there is "an understanding" that good Christians read from the NIV, listen to Christian radio, have read the Left Behind series, and are content to sit through long sermons.
Sadly, I don't hear much discussion at church about the second list either, though at least once a month we hear something about the evils of alcohol. Issues I have heard discussed to some degree are - evolution (bad), six-day creation, 6,000 year old earth (good), dinosaurs on the ark (just plain sad), gun control (ain't nobody gonna take my shotgun away), taxes (bad), ethanol (good if you raise corn, not so good if you don't), Cubs or Cardinals (there is a real divide in the congregation), Hawkeye sports (Ferentz- good, Licklitter-give him another year) and the weather. In reality there don't seem to be good places at church where issues on the second list can be discussed. There seems to be a tendency to avoid bringing up issues which may cause conflict so it is easier to assume everyone agrees and the issue doesn't need to be mentioned. Or if someone does bring something up people won't respond directly to the person involved.
For example, there were those who didn't appreciate the trip I took to the West Bank with a Christian Peacemaker Team, but I didn't find this out till later, and then only indirectly. They apparently didn't want to hurt my feelings.
So why do I keep going back? I have to admit that it isn't for the Sunday morning service. If anything it is because of the people in the Sunday School class I attend, along with some of the other people at church. The class is a place where lots of issues are discussed and to use a phrase from the second list, I "find a sense of community."
To bring this to an end, it may be one reason some students are eager to discuss these issues at school. It just gets tricky when after a discussion, a student asks me directly, "what do you think?" Sometimes I'm saved by the bell, sometimes I respond with more questions for them, orsometimes a story. Occasionally I say what I think and then wonder how many calls or emails I will receive.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Gay marriage in Iowa
A couple of weeks ago the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a state law which banned marriage between two men or two women. I planned to write something about this earlier, closer to the April 3 date the ruling was made but soccer games started and there were other things to do. In the meantime I read the Supreme Court decision, something I would recommend that everyone do, regardless of their position on the issue. You can find it at:
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf
The reactions have been interesting. Some folks I know are appalled, embarrassed to be from Iowa, and certain that marriages in Iowa will be damaged by the change in the law. Friends from our days in Germantown think it is wonderful. In their view, Iowa went from being a backwards place they flew over on their way to California, to a progressive place at the forefront of social change.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The first day county recorders can issue marriage licenses to gay couples is April 24, meaning the first weddings would be April 27. Those opposed to the ruling have shifted from trying to get the state legislature to vote on the issue while they are still in session to trying to encourage county recorders to break the law and not issue licenses. In the first week after the ruling, we got several auto calls encouraging us to contact our state legislator to encourage him to allow a vote on the issue. Those calls ended when my wife answered the phone, a live person, instead of a tape, started in with the message, my wife interrupted and told them to quit calling. It had been a stressful week at our house.
I found the reaction of my students to be interesting as well. I figured most of them would think it was wrong, which a number of them did. But the prevailing opinion could be summed up with the phrase, "who cares," or maybe, "what's the big deal?" I don't think this attitude was just a manifestation of the general apathy high school students can sometimes exhibit. Instead most don't seem to find homosexuality to be that big of deal.
One of the other things I have found interesting are those people who are arguing that the Iowa Supreme Court has somehow overstepped its duties and roles. The court was asked to determine if the Iowa statute passed a couple of years ago banning gay marriage violated the clause in the Iowa Constitution which says that all people are equal and deserve the equal protection" of the law. Letters to the Editor are filled with complaints that the court overturned a law passed by the legislature, because "no one voted on it." If the folks complaining had been paying attention in government class, they would know that is exactly what the Supreme Court is there for, to overturn laws passed by the legislature which are deemed to violate the Constitution. There seems to be this sense that if something is popular enough, it doesn't matter if it is unconstitutional. Fortunately for those in minority groups or minority positions, constitutionality is not determined by popularity, it is determined by a careful analysis of the law in question and its relationship to the Constitution.
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf
The reactions have been interesting. Some folks I know are appalled, embarrassed to be from Iowa, and certain that marriages in Iowa will be damaged by the change in the law. Friends from our days in Germantown think it is wonderful. In their view, Iowa went from being a backwards place they flew over on their way to California, to a progressive place at the forefront of social change.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The first day county recorders can issue marriage licenses to gay couples is April 24, meaning the first weddings would be April 27. Those opposed to the ruling have shifted from trying to get the state legislature to vote on the issue while they are still in session to trying to encourage county recorders to break the law and not issue licenses. In the first week after the ruling, we got several auto calls encouraging us to contact our state legislator to encourage him to allow a vote on the issue. Those calls ended when my wife answered the phone, a live person, instead of a tape, started in with the message, my wife interrupted and told them to quit calling. It had been a stressful week at our house.
I found the reaction of my students to be interesting as well. I figured most of them would think it was wrong, which a number of them did. But the prevailing opinion could be summed up with the phrase, "who cares," or maybe, "what's the big deal?" I don't think this attitude was just a manifestation of the general apathy high school students can sometimes exhibit. Instead most don't seem to find homosexuality to be that big of deal.
One of the other things I have found interesting are those people who are arguing that the Iowa Supreme Court has somehow overstepped its duties and roles. The court was asked to determine if the Iowa statute passed a couple of years ago banning gay marriage violated the clause in the Iowa Constitution which says that all people are equal and deserve the equal protection" of the law. Letters to the Editor are filled with complaints that the court overturned a law passed by the legislature, because "no one voted on it." If the folks complaining had been paying attention in government class, they would know that is exactly what the Supreme Court is there for, to overturn laws passed by the legislature which are deemed to violate the Constitution. There seems to be this sense that if something is popular enough, it doesn't matter if it is unconstitutional. Fortunately for those in minority groups or minority positions, constitutionality is not determined by popularity, it is determined by a careful analysis of the law in question and its relationship to the Constitution.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Markham and Community Mennonite Church
I left the cornfields of Iowa to spend a few days on interterm, a time when teachers take small groups of students for a week of nontraditional classes in nontraditional settings. Because I can drive the bus, four years ago I was given the assignment of taking a group to Chicago. One group went to north Chicago to a place called Jesus People, while I took a group to Markham, a southern suburb of Chicago.
We stayed and worked at the Community Mennonite Church located on Kedzie Ave. This year the new co-pastor, Cyneatha Millsaps spent quite a bit of time talking with the students trying to help them understand poverty and something of the Markham neighborhood. She did an excellent job of answering their questions and providing some valuable insights about what it means to be an African-American living in a poor neighborhood. The students spent one day working at a nearby daycare which was a highlight for most, and one day cleaning, painting, and staining. The kids worked hard and seemed to have a good time.
It was interesting to read some of their comments when I had them fill out an evaluation form. Some wrote about "no longer being as afraid of Black people," a couple said they enjoyed being in a larger, more diverse area, one wrote about her initial fear of interacting with some of the youth from the church, but then realizing they weren't that much different. It was helpful for me to read these since I sometimes wonder about the value of taking kids into places like Markham. Some of that stems from my days in Philadelphia when I was on the receiving end of "service groups" which wanted to help. It often seemed as if such groups created more work for me, without making much of an impact on the kids.
Visiting Markham generally makes me a bit nostalgic for the years we lived in Philadelphia. The last part of our time there we were the only white folks living on East Pastorius St. in a neighborhood which definately struggled with poverty. It was easy to see many problems and not difficult to find ways to try to address some of the needs which were evident.
Returning to the cornfields does not mean a return to an idylic setting. There is poverty, certainly less than a place like Markham, but still it is poverty, along with a variety of social problems in the area. It is much less visible and people are reluctant to admit they need help, but there is need. Maybe if I have time this weekend I will try and find some stats to back up this assertion- or maybe I will need to change the assertion.
In any case the trip to Markham and Community Mennonite Church seemed to be time well spent, at least for the group of ten kids who went with me this year.
We stayed and worked at the Community Mennonite Church located on Kedzie Ave. This year the new co-pastor, Cyneatha Millsaps spent quite a bit of time talking with the students trying to help them understand poverty and something of the Markham neighborhood. She did an excellent job of answering their questions and providing some valuable insights about what it means to be an African-American living in a poor neighborhood. The students spent one day working at a nearby daycare which was a highlight for most, and one day cleaning, painting, and staining. The kids worked hard and seemed to have a good time.
It was interesting to read some of their comments when I had them fill out an evaluation form. Some wrote about "no longer being as afraid of Black people," a couple said they enjoyed being in a larger, more diverse area, one wrote about her initial fear of interacting with some of the youth from the church, but then realizing they weren't that much different. It was helpful for me to read these since I sometimes wonder about the value of taking kids into places like Markham. Some of that stems from my days in Philadelphia when I was on the receiving end of "service groups" which wanted to help. It often seemed as if such groups created more work for me, without making much of an impact on the kids.
Visiting Markham generally makes me a bit nostalgic for the years we lived in Philadelphia. The last part of our time there we were the only white folks living on East Pastorius St. in a neighborhood which definately struggled with poverty. It was easy to see many problems and not difficult to find ways to try to address some of the needs which were evident.
Returning to the cornfields does not mean a return to an idylic setting. There is poverty, certainly less than a place like Markham, but still it is poverty, along with a variety of social problems in the area. It is much less visible and people are reluctant to admit they need help, but there is need. Maybe if I have time this weekend I will try and find some stats to back up this assertion- or maybe I will need to change the assertion.
In any case the trip to Markham and Community Mennonite Church seemed to be time well spent, at least for the group of ten kids who went with me this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)