Parody? No... Progress.

I've seen this meme pop up in multiple places recently. It is meant to be deriding or mocking of current teenagers. All it really shows, however, is a misunderstanding. But unlike many "I saw this and was outraged!" posts, in this case I CAN even, because of something the posters always miss.

It doesn't know it, but this meme represents progress.

The second image is preferable to the first in almost every conceivable way, with one exception; the first is on a beach, and the best the second can hope for is a beach house.

Seriously, just look at it. Anyone who can look at a generation of young males sent to die en mass for politics they don't entirely understand and think it superior to a generation trying to get people to stop being assholes to each other and sometimes making mistakes in that process (being the first generation ever to make a mistake, I'm sure) is clearly, provably insane. And how do we know that?

Because the second image is why the first exists.

Get past the rhetoric, the politics, the lines drawn on maps and most soldiers in World War 2 were not fighting because they wanted to. They fought because they had to. And when you hear their thoughts on the subject, a theme that recurs over and over again was that they fought so that no one would ever have to again.

It didn't work, it never does. War can end violence, but it doesn't create peace. The building blocks of the second World War were laid during the first, and the roots of most of our modern fears and aggression were established during the second.

But they didn't know that, couldn't have known that. They were just kids, trying to make the world a better place. And like every generation before or since, they made mistakes. But if you were to look at those soldiers... not necessarily as they are now, but as they were then, and told them that, so many decades later, the second image exists, and is true, if a bit mean-spirited... it would, perhaps, be a comfort.

So when people gripe and moan about the "Younger Generation" being "special snowflakes" or whatever, just smile and laugh, and remind them that they are what they are, and make their mistakes, because of the victories and mistakes of the so-called Greatest Generation. The second image is not a mockery of the first... it is the proof that maybe, just maybe, some of those soldiers we see on that beach got what they thought they were fighting for.

The Problem is Deeper than Guns

As some of my readership have noticed, I tend liberal on a lot of things. And as such a liberal, I have, in the past, opined on how the lack of gun control in the United States is a big problem. I get irritated when the NRA or other such groups deflect gun concerns, or worse, say that more guns in the mix would keep things safer. (Hard to stomach when every training about safety in a live shooter situation explicitly says that if you have a gun DO NOT BE HOLDING IT WHEN THE COPS COME.)

But there is a saying; "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It is short and simple. Now, as Eddie Izzard pointed out, the gun most certainly helps. You don't hear of a lot of mass stabbings, for instance. But underneath everything else, beyond the question of gun control and background checks, there lies a simple truth that neither side spends all that much time looking at.

What is wrong with the United States that so many people have decided that grabbing a gun and shooting as many people as they can is the solution?

A friend once pointed out to me that during the recent deer hunting season, Wisconsin had more armed men, women, and children armed with fingers on the trigger than many nations have in their standing armies, and yet, no fatalities, or even gun-related accidents. I have before considered that if the local Wisconsin brand of the NRA (who are deeply committed to safety training and education) were to run the whole show, things would be better, but it still shows that there is something to that tired cliche.

So let's say it simply. There is something so wrong with us that, this year, on more occasions than we have had days, people have taken it upon themselves to arm, go out, and injure or kill multiple victims all at once. And sometimes, like today, I wonder if the argument around the gun isn't us beating around the bush, avoiding the real issue.

The issue is a simple question; "What is wrong with us," and the answer couldn't possibly simply that we are armed.

We leave the question at guns because they are loud and visible, and yes, without them, mass killing wouldn't get nearly as high a bodycount (unless they used bombs, or poison, or oh screw it.) Guns are cheap, as is the ammo, and you don't run the risk of blowing yourself up if you have any idea of what you are doing.

The noise is important because it makes us feel like we're doing something even though we're not. Cast the vote, post the meme, act all enraged and boom! You've done your part.

And the next day, another mass killing.

I don't buy the right's arguments on guns. They have extrapolated the 2nd amendment far beyond its language, a move they usually say the Left SHOULDN'T take. The government overthrow idea is basically farcical. The fear of the other (muslim, immigrant, whatever) has a bit more traction, but that is more for shock value.

The simple truth is that people fight to protect gun rights because Americans like owning guns. And so long as that remains true, the Constitutional Amendment that would be required to REALLY change the conversation won't ever happen. And no matter how strongly you feel about the issue, I am firm in my belief that only the people should be permitted to change OUR constitution.

So gun RIGHTS won't change for at least a long while. So how do WE need to change?

America is a nation that kills itself with greater efficiency than some nations fighting Civil wars do. Why? What is wrong with us?

The Right wants to claim that people are horrible, have always been horrible and will always be horrible. Hence our need for guns. The Left wants to claim that it's all the guns, take them away and the problem goes away. But take a toy from a misbehaving child and their behavior will not magically improve, and in many ways that is who we are where weapons are concerned, children who want our way no matter what.

I don't know what to do. Taking away the guns (or at least limiting access to them) may lower the body count (Australia seems to think so) but it doesn't change the underlying mental issues we face, the fact that we live in a nation that seems better at creating murderers than anyone else, and then proceeds to arm them.

We need to look at those who attack or otherwise persecute organizations like Planned Parenthood and start entertaining the possibility of looking at them as a terrorist movement, and treat that movement accordingly.

We need to look at killers and, instead of seeing them as isolated maniacs, see them as symptoms of a problem that we, as fellow Americans, are complicit in.

We need to look at our public discourse and see the firebrands who use violent rhetoric against ideological enemies as people who, even if they aren't directly ordering violence, are creating an environment that promotes it, and name them as a part of the problem, and deprive them of the public eye as we would someone who was cheering for a terrorist attack.

We will continue discussing guns. I don't see the debate going away anytime soon. But while that continues to spin its wheels, we also need to look deeper. We need to look past the gun... and at ourselves.

Reader Question: What are your top 5 books of the Bible?

What are your top 5 Books of the Bible and Why? -Joseph
---------------------------

I have spent entirely too  much time thinking about this question, and so I am just going to answer it and get it out of the way. Thanks again, Joseph, for complicating my life.

First, a brief explanation for the non Bible Geeks out there: The Bible looks like a book, is packaged and sold like a book, but would be more accurately thought of as an anthology, a collection of works by different authors spread out over a great deal of time. This anthology is divided up into different books, each of which often have a unique tone and subject matter. Some were written as histories, others as lawbooks, some as philosophy, still others as collections of poetry. Others were simply letters. So reading them like chapters of a larger work will only leave you confused.

Picking a top 5, though...

I'm self-nerd sniping again. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO!

1: Genesis- There's just so much goodness in here, and since a lot of people have at least parsed it somewhat because of the infuriating Creation/Evolution debate, it's the one I can usually talk to people about and assume at least some level of literacy. But it is also the book that, perhaps more than any other, shows the building blocks of how the Hebrew Scriptures as we know them came to be. Multiple creation stories, attributed to what were once known as different Gods, right next to each other in the canon. And of course, as always, tons of sex and violence.

2: Job- Job is a great book to get get folks to loosen expectations of Scripture they may have picked up in Sunday School, and expand the way they look at the Bible as a whole. It is a work of philosophy, a thought experiment, and once you get people to see that, suddenly lots of new possibilities get lifted up, all in an engaging debate over the question of why bad things happen to good people. It also features the most sarcastic voice God is ever given in the scriptures, and I always love me some sarcasm.

3: Psalms- So often in my work I get people telling me that they are doing their faith wrong. That they are mad at God and shouldn't be, that they should be joyful and praising all the time. And when I need them to see that isn't the case, I refer them to the book of Psalms. A collection of worship prayers and hymns, the Psalms contain emotion from every facet of the life of faith, from joy, to awe, to fear, to sadness, to unquenchable rage. It's all there, all of it beautifully, truly, sometimes horribly human. It doesn't deal in rights or wrongs, shoulds or shouldn'ts. No judgement. Just prayer, and the knowledge that prayer isn't wrong.

4: Mark- You just have to love a portrayal of Jesus as a healing ninja. Mark is the Gospel at its least pretentious, making few overt claims and allowing the actions of Christ speak for themselves. And in the word, Christ is at a constant sprint, immediately going from one place to another, and constantly spreading the word... "DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT ME." Which, of course, they always failed. Jesus Christ- Great Healer, Poor Ninja.

5: Romans- I don't typically get that into Paul. He writes great stuff, don't get me wrong, but when a guy spends a chapter or two telling his followers to aspire to be as humble as he is, you spend a decent amount of time rolling your eyes. But Romans is, perhaps, the primary treatise of the faith, at least in the way I practice it. The building blocks of my faith are found here, and none more profound than the following:

"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."

Honorable Mentions:

And now, some books that I couldn't quite place in my top 5 but needed a mention, because they're awesome...

Ruth- Two impoverished women make their way in a landscape arrayed against them by playing the rules of the system and trusting each other, written both as a funny bar story and as a middle finger to the prophet Nehemiah, who thought Judah should be getting rid of foreign women.

Judges- An early history of the Hebrew Nation before the Kings. It reads almost like a comic book, with great heroes making rises and falls. As I have talked before, it also features Deborah, the crowning proof that God does NOT oppose women in leadership positions.

Hosea- I am always tempted to put this in the church reading when my most prim and proper church lady is my liturgist, to see how many times she can say the word "whoredom" without getting flustered.

Habakuk- I just like the name.

Pastor Dan's Christmas Challenge

Oh God, Christmastime again *HURL* why do we need so much Christian propaganda everywhere? -Avery

What's the big deal with putting Christ back in Christmas? His name is right there in the label. How much more IN could he get?-Mike

Of course I don't want people wishing me Merry Christmas. It's a Christian Holiday. I am not a Christian. Why is that hard to understand? -TardisTime

Christmas is OUR Holiday. So of course it will have OUR imagery. Get a big enough celebration of something YOU worship, and then we'll start taking out the pentagrams or whatever and see how YOU like it. -Anonymous



Yesterday was the first Sunday of Advent, the beginning of a new liturgical year and the church season of hope for the coming of Christ. It is NOT, contrary to popular opinion, the CHRISTMAS season, which has twelve days and starts on December 25th. (You may have heard a song about it.)

But despite that little inaccuracy, Christmas is in the air, on the air, on the buildings, on the radio, on the Lifetime movies, you name it. As you can see, I had some Christmas related questions building up, and so after waiting until after Thanksgiving to answer them (you're welcome) I realize that we have a running theme here... Christmas as a Christian Holiday.

On the surface it seems obvious. Christ Mass, the celebration Mass (sharing of the Eucharist) that commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ. It is, as Mike said, right there in the name. But the answer is more complex than that.

We haven't the foggiest notion of when Christ was actually born. I've seen in some recent conversation the supposition that he was born in July, but that is really wild conjecture based on more wild conjecture around guesses of the nature of the Bethlehem star, and about as likely to be correct as the process that selected December 25th, insofar as both are drawing from a 365 day pool, each of which has an equal chance of being correct.

No one involved in setting Christmas on December 25th did so because "it's his birthday".

Christmas came to be celebrated in the way it was (evergreen trees, in the winter, etc) because a number of converts didn't want to give up their celebration of Winter Solstice. They brought the party, and the priests provided the name and some new imagery. For a great many people, the party, not the theology, was the point, and so an ancient celebration got some new duds and just kept trucking along.

That's kind of what the really good parties do... they have a life force almost entirely their own, an energy that is the real point, regardless of the trimmings the partiers put on them.

So what is Christmas now? To a great many people, especially my Atheists, it remains THE Christian Holiday, the time of year in which the prevalence of Christian ideals in our society are the most visible... but is it, really? The Party has changed before, and there are certainly a great deal of Christians claiming that it isn't theirs anymore... so what is the Party now? Has it changed?

I have a slanted view of this. I am literally contractually obligated to attend a great deal of specifically religious iterations of the Party, and so the Christmas I see still has a lot of the religious imagery interwoven. But my experience is almost certainly an outlier, and this is where the challenge comes in.

This may also serve as a way to take some of the irritation out of the season for folks who are tired of being bombarded by Christian imagery this time of year, as well, by giving you a quick mental exercise each time you do it. Give it a shot.

This December, every time you see some sort of representation of Christmas in culture, no matter where you find it, pretend for a moment that you have never heard the name "Christ," rendering the title itself meaningless. Then, with those outsiders eyes, look at the thing you have seen(or listen to the thing you have heard) and try to imagine what you would assume this supposedly religious holiday is all about now.

Is it a memorial of the birth of a magic child who is now worshiped? Is it a call to buy buy buy? Is it a celebration of traditional family? Is it a big "Yay! Winter is Great!" party? Is it a time for caring for those in need?

If you REALLY want to nerd out, keep track of what you see, and then send me your results. I'll take all I get and talk about it again after Christmas is done.

My suspicion is that we will find that, though the name has stayed the same, the party has changed yet again. But I can't say that with certainty yet... so if you'll accept the challenge, we'll do the research.

At the very least, it will give you something to do besides wishing you could stab the Mall Santa.

An Open Letter to Gov. Walker

Dear Governor Walker-

Hello. I'm Rev. Dan McCurdy, a Presbyterian Minister serving a small church in Weyauwega, WI. I've only lived in Wisconsin for a couple of years now, but in that time I have learned to love its people and culture. You've got a good state here, with a foundation of solid, caring, and hard working people.

I haven't agreed with you very much over the course of these two years, but that's okay. It's just sort of how politics goes these days, right? One group firmly on one side, the other firmly on the other. But something you said recently bothers me more than other disagreement, that being when you announced that Wisconsin would not be accepting Syrian refugees.

Now I understand that you don't actually have the power to enforce that decision, no Governor does, and so I assume you said it to try to calm people frightened at who the refugees might be, and what they might do. And I get that. You're the Executive in a state full of frightened people who saw news about the attacks in Paris and get more scared every day.

We're scared because there's not a lot we can DO about ISIS. You can't really declare war on a terrorist group to start with, and even if you could, it wouldn't be the people of Wisconsin who did it. They're over there, out there, in a place where we send soldiers to get hurt or die without any real context, because we are poorly served by a media that sells fear over useful information.

And when people get scared, with nothing to do, we tend to huddle up, circle the wagons,  distrust outsiders. We look around in suspicion and lash out at things not familiar. It's just the human thing to do.

Except that it isn't the Wisconsin thing to do. When I first came to this state, visiting the church that would eventually become my home, I walked into a bar near the hotel I was staying looking for some food and within three minutes someone had introduced themselves, welcomed me to this State, and bought me a beer.

Five minutes after being in a position to meet someone here, and I had already been warmly welcomed. THAT is Wisconsin. We're a State that, despite deep divisions in the political realm, would much rather get together and watch football or go fishing than have an argument or a fight. But now we're scared, and so that side of us isn't showing.

These refugees need help, Governor. They are the VICTIMS of ISIS and groups like them, the ones who were being hurt by that damaging form of Islam long before the violence reached out to Paris. Their homes, and often their families, were taken from them by violence, and they were forced to either conform to the ISIS ideology or run and possibly die.

Any of them MIGHT be bad people, it's true, but I might have been a bad person, too. That guy in the bar didn't care. Wisconsin normally doesn't. Because though we know that strangers MIGHT be bad people, we know that they probably aren't. And in this case, we know they need help.

There are some Executives who live to serve the voice of the people, who gauge what their constituents want and do their best to act accordingly. But Executives also need to lead, to point the way to a better state of being, to not act in fear, but to remind us of who we really are. This, I think, is your opportunity to really do that.

There is a young boy in my church who is also scared of ISIS. It's not very surprising, he watches the news with his parents and as those stories are designed to scare grown men and women, of course he gets frightened. He's frightened because there's nothing he can do but wait and hope nothing bad happens. Except there are things he can do.

He can help. Help those who have been hurt, show them kindness and love, laugh and play. He's good at that, I've seen it every year when he helps with the Church's giving tree. Wisconsin can DO this, Governor Walker. We can bring in refugees, find them homes and work and shelter, welcome them as other places would refuse to do.

And even in the off chance that some few of them are ISIS soldiers... there is a lot to be said for love and hospitality melting a frozen heart. We've charmed Bears and Vikings fans, Governor. How hard could Islamic Extremists be?

I know that it is a lot of responsibility being an Executive, Governor Walker. I know you are faced with a great deal of difficult choices. But in this case, I think the best way to help Wisconsin deal with the fear faced by the shadow of ISIS is to stand up, to not be afraid, to BE WISCONSIN.

I think we can do it, and I hope you'll lead the way.

Sincerely,
Rev. Daniel S. McCurdy
First Presbyterian Church
Weyauwega, WI

The Real War on Christianity

So I haven't been very happy with most of our politicians lately.

The vitriol and fear being aimed at the Syrian Refugees has been nothing short of disgusting, and with a bunch of Governors and Presidential Candidates jumping up to say that they should be kept away (except if they can prove their Christianity, in some oh so generous cases) I was just ready to see the backlash against them.

I mean, there is going to be backlash, right? The idea of turning away people in as desperate need as these refugees is about as antithetical to the Biblical message as it gets. Over, and over, and over again the Bible stresses the important of caring for the poor, the orphan, the alien, the refugee. It says that people who are aware of such need, and ignore it, might as well be turning away Christ himself.

There is no wiggle room, no loose interpretation, no uncertain context. This isn't debateable. The Christian response to these refugees is to try to care for them in any way that we can, if not in memory of a time when we were lost without a home (as was the case given to the Hebrews in the Hebrew Scriptures) then because it was Christ's command in the New Testament.

So what is the backlash I see? Another stupid post about the stupid red Starbucks cup.

I often react to that kind of post with an eye-roll and and a shrug. Yes, there are places in the world where Christians are persecuted for their beliefs, but that simply isn't the case in North America. But though we aren't being persecuted, there is a War against us and our beliefs, being waged every day right in front of our noses and, most infuriatingly of all, often on our dime.

Every time someone suggests that we should be outraged over the iconography (or lack thereof) surrounding a commercial holiday, rather than caring for the poor, a shot is fired. Every time we are told that being disgusted by homosexuality is reason enough to keep a foster child from being placed in a home, a shot is fired. Every time we are convinced that the world is out to get us, and so circle our wagons and cry out about how we are persecuted, rather than seeing the need of the world and opening our arms to it, a battle is won.

There IS a war on against Christianity, and we are losing it.

We are losing to politicians who want us to be a predictable voting block, trained to froth at the mouth at predictable talking points while ignoring policy that actually has something to do with our faith. We are losing to media who want us to gobble up click-bait stories about how the world is out to get us and ignore the real trials and fears faced by people outside of our bubble. We are losing to civic planners who want us to shout and wail over an engraving of the Ten Commandments on a Courthouse instead of the state of the homeless.

We are losing to those who would rather us be frightened and biddable over informed and active.

We've already lost that battle in the perceptions of many outsiders, those who see us as nothing more than pampered anachronisms. And why not? We are at our loudest when we spend our money, and these days our money goes to ad campaigns against homosexuals, or women's health. We are loudest when we seize a loud speaker and run into the streets to froth at people about their sin. We are loudest because that is when the people who would control us hand us the microphone.

Fighting back will be difficult, because it won't make the headlines very often. Given the choice between Kim Davis and the Clerk who honors the rights of others, Kim Davis will get the headlines everytime. Between the preacher who proclaims acceptance and the preacher who calls for hellfire on all who are different, the hellfire gets the coverage. And a story about people who have been driven from their homes and need help doesn't get many clicks, but potential TERRORISTS who HATE US and WANT TO KILL US? Fear sells. And everyone's buying.

You have a choice, Christians. Right now. You can be the free thinking, justice-demanding, beacon of love in the world that Christ called upon you to be, or you can be the terrified, vengeance-seeking, cog of the machine the powers want you to be. They want to use you as a tool to prop up their power at the expense of others, and they are doing it while pretending to do so in the name of Jesus Christ.

The shots have been fired. Will you love your fellow humans as Christ called you to? It won't be easy, or glorious, and you won't get famous for it. You'll be glossed over in the press, ignored by politicians, and left watching as the focus goes to those who play the role the powers want you to play.

That is the real war we face, and the shots have been fired. Which side are you on, Christians?

Why You Should Absolutely Celebrate Halloween

So, given the time of year, it's no surprise that all the cautionary (or outright panicked) posts concerning Halloween start coming from Christian sources, anywhere from worry about witchcraft to warnings about drawing the attention of evil demons. Blog posts warn of parties that are secret dark rituals, there to grab the souls of the unwary, the unheeding, those poor people who didn't know better than to have fun.

Ugh.

Halloween is OLD, linked to All Saints Day, when Christians remember those who have died in the past year and celebrate their lives. Halloween (From "All Hallows Eve") was the celebration that came the night before, on a day superstition said that the barriers between the living and the dead were weaker.

That part of it MAY be from an older Pagan holiday. There is certainly no lack of harvest festival concerned with issues of death. But the Christian approach to it was absolutely fantastic. You wore funny costumes, shared treats, dressed as demons... to mock them.

Halloween was a celebration making fun of the evil spirits of dead. Most assumed that the spirits couldn't stand such mockery, and so would go elsewhere to spread their trouble, but I think the answer was much more simple: we didn't believe they had any power over us to begin with, and the mocking was not to weaken them, but rather to embolden us.

The Medieval Church was HORRIBLE at teaching its teachings. Understanding what was happening in your average mass was nearly impossible, with cavernous cathedrals swallowing sound and most (if not all) of the mass being performed in Latin, a language even the priests only barely understood. So we were left with superstition, uncertainty, and fear. For instance, the church had to institute a rule that Christians had to actually take mass once a year, because people were terrified that if they accidentally did it wrong, they would be doomed to hellfire. NOTHING in the theology suggested this, but the people assumed, and no effort was made to teach them otherwise.

Halloween was a rare instance when those ancient priests did it right, recognizing that fear of demons and devils was too prevalent to simply ignore. The theology said that the people had nothing to worry about... Christ Victorious, after all... but the people couldn't even understand the hymns, much less a homily on demons. But a party... a festival mocking evil spirits... THAT they understood, and it did a lot of good.

The roots have been lost. Not many people celebrate All Saints Day anymore, and so Halloween has become a secular event. But as I read those panicky posts, I begin to think that Christians need to be reminded of what it used to be. I think that because, yet again, our people are afraid, irrationally so. Theology hasn't changed, we are still supposed to preach Christ Victorious, but we largely aren't. Preaching Fear for the purpose of control has become vogue, and has been successful in many ways. People ARE afraid. Of demons, of movies, of culture, of LGBTQ people, of liberals, you name it.

We've become afraid of the demons again. But it's a problem the Medieval priests taught us how to solve...

Throw a party.

So THAT is why you should celebrate Halloween... especially if you are fearful of doing so.

Saturday Ramble: Reyn's Last Game

My dog, Reyn, died last night. I write that because it is a little easier to stomach than "the precious baby who took a pair of newlyweds and made us a FAMILY," because it is easy to appear composed in text and the reality is that I am pausing ever few seconds to break into angry, ugly tears. We only had her for three years... she should have had a lot more.

Such moments are, of necessity, crisis of faith. If you can stand unmoved in the face of the loss a loved one, then I don't think the word is "strength," anymore, so much as emotional crippling. Not everyone loves their dog in such a way, but I did, and my wife did. And so of course I'm a wreck, and since I am a wreck who believes in a God who hears and loves us, I have spent more than the usual amount of time screaming at that God. Not internally raging... literally screaming. My throat hurts from it, in the same way my eyes hurt from crying.

It beats yelling at Rose, or Reyn while she was still with us. If you want a tangible benefit of the belief in an intangible God, there's one for you. It's not unique to hard-nosed believers, either. I once heard an atheist, in the midst of their pain, cry out "You see, THIS is why I don't believe in you!"

Unpack that statement however you like.

Something interesting did happen in that room, though. Our plan HAD been to keep Reyn home last night and today, to have her vet drive out this afternoon to do it. But after a great day (friends visiting, long walks, fun food she wasn't normally allowed to have, lots and lots and lots of throwing the tennis ball) it was clear that she was struggling. Her breaths were ragged and occasionally punctuated by coughing as her lungs struggled to oxygenate blood that, poisoned by her failed kidneys, no longer had sufficient red blood cells to oxygenate. Where she would normally bound to her place on top of the couch in two jumps, she now had to slowly climb. Our bed was flat out of her reach, needing me to lift her, something she'd always hated. So we made the call, to take her while she still had some pep, while her tail was still wagging, while the IV fluids allowed her to feel like a living creature.

I don't think I've ever made a harder decision. I don't know that I could have made it, had Rose and I not been able to make it together.

So there we were, in a room at the Animal Hospital. We'd brought along her favorite blanket, a rawhide bone (they used to last scant minutes around her, this one she just licked or carried) and her latest (already punctured) tennis ball. Normally Reyn on a trip was always upbeat and curious, but she'd spent a lot of time in hospitals recently and was visibly frightened. Not knowing what else to do, I tossed her ball.

Instantly, fear was forgotten. There was a moving ball, the rest of the world didn't exist anymore. She chased it, caught it, and brought it back to me, dropping it in my lap. She wanted more. So we gave her more, we tossed it over and over and over again, and she brought it back, alternating between giving it to me, or giving it to Rose.

And someone else. Someone else was in the room... to her, anyway.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time around dying people has seen it... towards the end, many dying people will start to see other people in the room with them, people other is the room can't see, often lost loved ones. Call it what you like, from a heavenly visitation to a helpful hallucination, the brain easing its own way, but to them it's there, it's real.

Rose and I were next to each other on a couch, holding each other as we played Reyn's favorite game with her. But periodically, she'd take the ball to an empty chair in the room, and hold it as she looked at the chair expectantly, tail wagging. Reyn didn't ignore potential playmates. She saw someone in that chair, and wanted them to play with her, too. But after a few seconds, or when Rose and I would call, she'd run back over to us so we'd play.

I will always wonder who she saw in that chair, who she was inviting to join in her last game, ears perked, tail wagging. Only a few minutes later, exhausted, she watched the ball go away and didn't chase it. Instead, she climbed up onto the couch, laid down on her blanket, and I went to call the technician. Five minutes later she was gone, and I felt as that huge heart of hers stopped beating.

God damn it.

In the room there was a poorly written poem, in stanzas that rhymed when the author could be bothered, called the Rainbow Bridge. I've since learned that it is based on a short prose narrative of the same title, which talks about the place pets go when they die, to be full, happy and hale again, and to wait eagerly until their human finally joins them. It's a neat thought, reassurance that your pet is no longer hurting, but also eager to see you again. I still miss her, but there are worst thoughts, so we'll run with it for now.

This ramble was just going to be the story of the other player in her game, hence the title, but I couldn't start there and apparently couldn't end there. That's how grief can work... a rollercoaster that takes you to odd highs and terrifying lows so fast you can barely keep up. I loved Reyn, my sweet Reynie-bear. If Rose and I have children, I'll hate that they never got to meet her, that she never got to have little ones tumbling around, dropping foods that she wasn't supposed to eat, I'll miss those wet, happy kisses and the thumping of that tail whenever I entered the room, I'll miss how she tugged at the leash when we went for walks and how I became a better person in a desperate attempt to live up to the me she saw everytime she looked at me.

Time may scar it over, may make the laughter more prevalent than the tears, may make the stories Rose and I have about her almost legendary as we share them and people think that a dog so great couldn't possibly be real. No dog is really that good, that fun, that sweet, right?

Don't you believe them, Dan. You know, as did everyone else who knew her, how great Reyn was, how loving, how gentle. Don't you dare forget that, ever. And don't worry. When your time comes, and you are reunited with all the loved ones you have lost, as you greet them in joy, you will hear a steadily accelerating thumping sound nearby.

And there she'll be, so freaking excited that Daddy has finally gotten home.

Why You Shouldn't Say "I'll Pray For You"

So the past couple of days on ANF there have been a handful of threads on the subject of whether or not it was okay to say "I'll Pray For You" to an atheist. The threads quickly got contentious and as I came in during the contention, as opposed to during the discussion, I got a little turned around and ended up owing some people apologies. I was also primarily defending the act of praying for atheists, which I do unashamedly. (Not as a group, mind. There are just atheists I know who I pray for. Because they're MY atheists, and that's what I do.)

The issue was not whether or not we should pray for Atheists, though. The issue was whether or not it was okay to tell an atheist that you are going to pray for them. I got a little worried about my initial reaction when I realized the following things:

A: Promising prayer where it was not requested is one of the most aggressively religious things someone can do,

B: The Bible literally tells you NOT to make a public showing of when and about what you will be praying,

C: If you find yourself in an argument arguing why someone SHOULD like the thing they are telling you they don't like, odds are you are in the wrong and making yourself more so with every word.

Again, I'm not telling you not to pray. Pray all day, pray without ceasing. But the act of TELLING someone you will be, when they did not request it, is something that probably should be done only under very specific circumstances, such as they asked for those prayers in the past and appreciated knowing that you gave them.

Because, as I have said a thousand times over, prayer is not hacking the universe for a preferred response. It's not magic we're doing, simply communication. Put that way, walking up to a non-believer and saying you'll pray for them is eerily similar to saying: "Hey, sorry about that problem you have. I am going to go tell this guy you don't know and potentially makes you nervous about it."

It doesn't matter that that guy can help... it's not going to be a comfort because they don't know him, and if their only comfort in that scenario is the fact that they don't believe he actually exists, all point has basically been removed from the statement. Sure, it is probably nice to know that someone is thinking of you, but it takes some mental gymnastics to get there, and those gymnastics, by necessity, require a little patting of the believer on the head thinking, "Well, THAT'S cute," which is hardly good for the relationship.

If they know you are believer, and know that you care for them, they will probably know that you are also praying for them. It really SHOULD just be assumed, and in so doing we can take our well meant prayers and divorce them from a comment that is often loaded with unkind subtext, such as "Oh, I'll pray for you (to get struck by lightning)" or "I'll pray for you (because you're clearly a lost wreck.)"

So again, pray, pray, pray. Even for the Atheists in your life who you love and care for. But unless people are asking for it, there's probably no need to tell them about it. Instead, skip the beating around the bush and just tell them that you love them. If they know that, they can figure out the rest on their own.

Reader Question: Conservatives vs. the Pope

I've seen tons of conservatives on TV taking shots at the Pope, now that he is in the US. Is this the clincher that their "Christianity" is just a tool? -Greg
------------------------

Thanks for writing in, Greg.

I have said, for a long time, that for a large number of politicians, Christianity is a flag that they can wave to get support and talking points without having to be nailed down to actually meaning anything in particular. While any number of them might actually consider themselves to be Christian, their policies are not particularly faith driven, for reasons I have discussed at length elsewhere.

But no, this isn't the clinching proof of that.

A lot of non-believers (yes, even some of my atheists) have difficulty understanding that Christianity is not, and has never been, monolithic. Even when using it as part of an atheist rationale ("Whose version of the Bible is right?") the truth behind that talking point often gets lost... that there are many, many versions of Christianity out there, and there has never been a time IN HISTORY when every member of the faith was on the same page.

(To me, as it happens, this is one of the most compelling arguments against the "let's invent a faith for X reason" conspiracy theories... if Christianity was invented as a part of a conspiracy, they would have gotten their story straight, first.)

So what does this have to do with Conservatives and the Pope? Well, first, despite what some Catholics might tell you, the Pope does not represent Christianity as a whole, and so it is entirely possible to oppose him and still be Christian. And speaking of opposition:

There are traditions within American Protestantism that are nearly defined by opposing the Pope, to the point of portraying anything even remotely Catholic as satanic and evil, viewing the Catholic Church as the great evil that seeks to control the world for Satan while we "good" Christians carry on the fight, good here generally meaning "white middle class Protestants" and all those lesser people we can save from the evils of Papery.

It even took depressingly familiar forms. Nearly any modern day stigma you can think of against Muslims at one point had its Catholic counterpart, with Catholics perceived as inherently unAmerican immigrants who came to take our jobs and who would obey the Pope, rather than our laws. That last point was held up NATIONALLY as recently as the 1960's, with people worried if John F. Kennedy, if elected, would follow the will of the American People or the Pope.

Nothing new under the sun, it seems.

It is true that classic conservative Protestants are being more restrained in their critique of the Pope than they have in the past, largely because conservative Catholics now make up a significant part of their voting block, but it doesn't surprise me that Pope Francis makes them crazy, if only because a significant aspect of conservative Catholicism IS Papal obedience, which was safe enough when Popes were sticking to safe subjects like birth control and abortion, but now that a Pope is reinforcing Biblical commands about helping the poor and the immigrant, the message has gotten somewhat muddled.

But in general, a lot of these conservatives, the ones who actually do have Christian roots, come from a tradition that was always going to be, at the very best, HIGHLY suspicious of anything that came from under the Papal hat, and for (ostensibly) religious reasons.

So no, current opposition to the Pope, especially as he makes his American visit, is not the clinching proof that the Christianity of American Conservatives is just a talking point to rally support. All it proves, in the end, is that old habits die hard.
 

Reader Question- Harassment

I played your game. Kinda fun and funny, but could you actually say what your position on harassment is? -Anon
--------

What, stop making games for a second and do some of that pastoring that some people know me for? I suppose I could do that. By the way, (SHAMELESS PLUG!) you can pick up a copy of the game, Jogger, for free, HERE! (/Shameless plug)

I always thought that this was settled pretty definitively by the Golden Rule, the whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," thing, but it does leave a bit of plausible deniability, usually in the vein of, "Hey, I'd LOVE to have a bunch of girls yelling about how attractive they find me!" Of course, that isn't what harassment is, but that is the picture of it some people take, likely precisely to shed any suspicions that they're actually being jerks.

Religion, as a whole, has never done well with this kind of thing, for obvious reasons: Pastors who preach against sin are themselves sinners, and a part of the whole "sinner" thing is wanting to portray yourself as less of a sinner than you actually are.

Christianity itself does not have a hard and fast "modesty code" for women as some other faiths do, which you'd think would make the whole thing less of a problem, but obviously that isn't the case. Instead, a lot of preachers and teachers fall back on the Biblical command of "Thou shalt not lead your brother sin," as an injunction against women who commit the unthinkable crime of being women in the presence of men.

Now, even a cursory look at the text will show that such an interpretation is grossly out of context for a passage that was talking, instead, of not pushing less experienced members of the faith into activities they assume are sinful, like in this case, eating food sacrificed to idols. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, because it's just a big rock, but to those who feel like it would be worship of a false God, let them get there on their own, don't "lead them to sin."

So that text is not, at all, not even a little bit, about women dressing modestly so guys don't get all pants-tingly around them. There IS however, a text EXPLICITLY about that situation, directly aimed at what Jesus' opinion is of guys who "just can't help themselves" when they see an attractive girl.

"If your eyes cause you to sin, gouge them out. Better to lose your sight than your soul."

Some people read that as a threat of hellfire but I tend to think Jesus is pointing us closer to home... if your eyes make it so that you cannot behave like a human being, but somehow FORCE you to become some kind of animal with catcalls and threats and making another human being uncomfortable simply by virtue of being in your presence, then get rid of them.

How you feel about another human being in your presence, and especially how you behave towards them, is not on them for their choices of dress or appearance. It's on you, because you are not an animal, not an automaton. You are a human being. So act like it, and be responsible. And if you can't do that, then do what it takes so that you can.

Just Going For a Jog.

So I've poofed a bit lately. Some has been a bit of business at the start of the school year, but a lot of it has been a new side hobby: making video games.

Well, the hobby isn't precisely NEW. It's something I've been doing for years, off and on, with the help of various programs that take some of the heavy lifting out of video game design. About a year or so ago I purchased a program called Game Maker Studio, a highly recommended platform for such game development, but immediately got intimidated... despite all my dreams, it was clear the platform would not just make the game for me.

Sad day, I know.

So it was just hanging out on my harddrive, not doing much of anything, until about a month ago when I decided that just having it there was ridiculous, and that with all the resources available on the internet, surely I could learn the basic code required to make a game. So I rolled up my sleeves and dove in.

I am, therefore, very happy to announce the creation of Jogger, a 2d side-scroller where you play a female jogger attempting to avoid harassment on the streets, with humor aimed at the whole "look how she was dressed," or "learn to take a compliment" crowd.

So far it is only available for PC (until I spring for the Pro package for Studio) but you can download it here if you are interested.

I hope you enjoy... it was a lot of fun to make it!

Reader Question: Faith Like a Child

I was asking my minister questions about why certain things are the way they are in scripture, and he told me to have a more "childlike faith." What did he mean by that? -Jackie
--------------

Thanks for writing in, Jackie. And I am terribly sorry to tell you this, but what he meant was "shut up."

"Faith like a child" is often used in the church as shorthand for a young, idealized, easy faith. A faith that always follows authority, that does as it is told, that asks no questions. Essentially, it is "faith" where one believes precisely as they are told to, and doesn't make life difficult for clergy who maybe, just maybe, were phoning it in and couldn't be bothered to actually think today.

It is also, as it happens, total crap.

The phrase is derived from a Bible passage where a group of children are trying to get to Jesus, and the apostles are shooing them away. Jesus rebukes the disciples, telling them to allow the children to come forward, because one must be like a child to get into the kingdom of heaven.

So a bunch of people have run with that, espousing childlike faith as the ONLY way to be brought into the kingdom. But while that does have some merit, what does NOT have any is their concept of childlike faith as some sort of blank canvas, all accepting, all obeying, total submission state of being. When people use "faith like a child" to mean all of that, I often wonder if they have ever spent any amount of time around real children.

It's utterly ridiculous. We KNOW that. It's an ingrained part of our culture, even. We know that kids don't sit still, don't follow societies rules just because they're the rules. They don't simply accept explanations, they ask WHY. They don't simply accept that they are supposed to sit down and shut up, they will get their needs known. If something feels wrong, they will say so. If something doesn't make sense, they will ask about it. It was a child who noticed that the Emperor didn't have any clothes on, and pointed it out, because they hadn't been brainwashed into lying for the sake of going along with society yet.

I mean, come on. Why do you think the disciples were shooing away the kids at all? Because they were worried that the kids were going to be quiet and submissive all over the place? NO! Because kids are loud, noisy, and ask questions, even when that isn't the sweet and polite thing to do.

You know who DOES do all of that, though? A LOT of adults. People who know societies rules and follow them instinctively. If next Sunday I got up in my pulpit and started preaching utter nonsense, at least some people would go along with it, not because they believed it, but because they have been trained not to question what a pastor says, even if it is clearly and plainly ludicrous. They see, as plain as anyone, that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, but are too shy and embarrassed to admit it.

Kids are noisy, brash, and ask questions at the worst possible time. And so we, as grownups, often seek to ignore them, to put them away, or to try to accelerate their training so they will know to just shut up, already. When the disciples tried to do precisely that, Jesus shut them down, and said to bring the children forward. You know what that means?

It means that we should have faith like children. Not quiet, passive, or submissive, but intense, loud, and curious. If something doesn't add up, we should point it out. If something isn't right, we should say so. Kids do it because they haven't learned when it would be societally simpler for them to just be quiet.

We should do it because that, not sweet submissive silence, is what faith really is.

Pastors as Porn Stars (Or What to Do if your Faith won't Let You Do Something.)

There are a number of things that I cannot do because of my faith. Mind you, there are usually OTHER factors as well, such as what kind of person I am, and my understanding of the world and what kind of world I want that to be... but as those are factors heavily influenced by my faith, I think it is fair to say that my faith prohibits me from such action.

For instance, I made a vow before God and witnesses to be faithful to my wife, which among other things means sexual fidelity. So having sex with someone else is prohibited by my faith, which means that I probably shouldn't get a job in porn.

Now, we all know that the situation of Kim Davis (the Kentucky Clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, despite multiple court orders, allegedly because of her faith) isn't exactly like that. Gay marriage wasn't a part of the package, and she should know, since she seemed to have inherited the job from her father and was preparing to pass it on to her son. (Odd, for an elected position, but I digress.) So let's run the above scenario in a position more pertinent to her.

Let's assume for a moment that the Presbyterian Church, in which I am ordained, decided that in order to raise more money, its Teaching Elders (my formal title) were required to star in pornography. Think of all the cash that would bring in! (My name would be Rev. Spencer Cleveland, now tell me ALL your sins, baby.)

Just one problem... my faith doesn't allow me to do porn. Even if my denomination did, my personal faith does not. Now let's say this decision got appealed and, going all the way to the top, was finally approved by the denominational governement, our General Assembly. Pastors are now Porn Stars, and my church is setting up the studio and lining up partners for my first shoot. What do I do?

Some would say that the courageous thing for me to do would be to stick it out (sorry, bad phrasing) and defy such expectations, standing proudly exposed (whoops again) for my ideals and refusing to bend to such pressure, saying "this is who I am, look at me in all of my (ethical) glory!"

But really, I should probably just quit my job, and get one where the base requirements do not include the violation of my faith, for precisely the same reasons that I wouldn't simply go out and get a job in porn, or why a member of the Amish community wouldn't join the military, or why a Scientologist wouldn't become a Psychologist.

People of faith often like to sound like martyrs, to be the brave hero who stands up for what they believe in, but the fact of the matter is that the world doesn't owe us a living, and nowhere in the Bible does it say to get paid for a job you refuse to do. If you cannot perform your job for religious reasons, then you shouldn't have your job. Leave it. Get out. Find a job that doesn't ask you to compromise your faith, where you aren't constantly in a battle between what you believe you should do and what you are being paid to do.

It really is just that simple.

The Youth of Today

Maybe its more a sign of my age than anything else, but more and more often these days I see posts or links or shares on Facebook talking about "The Youth of Today." These are usually rants or snarky comments about how "kids" today don't understand the world, how they expect everything delivered to them on a platter, products of the internet, television, and liberal government.

Now maybe these people weren't thinking about their kids, or the kids they know. People rarely are. Their kids are different, better, but surrounded by a bad influence known only as "The Youth of Today." And while our kids have problems, most can surely be placed at the feet of their friends, maybe not the ones we know and love and help raise but those OTHER kids, "The Youth of Today."

This is a post to say that "The Youth of Today" do not exist. There are only kids, young, strong, beautiful young people who work, play, live and breathe across the globe. I have worked with them, played with them, laughed with them, cried with them, read their stories and heard their complaints. And here, "Old People of Today," is the truth about the youth of today.

The Youth of Today are hard workers. They work harder than their parents did, possibly harder than their grandparents. Thanks be to God, they do not share the legacy of the children who, even to this day, are forced to work in mines, who worked the fields instead of going to school, or who are forced to carry guns and be toy soldiers in the games of war the older men play. But if they did, if that had been their lot, they would have carried that pick, that hoe, that gun, and gone forward and done their best because that is what the Youth of Today DO.

The world is expected of them and they know it. The Youth I know have spent nearly every day of their lives being told of the American Dream, where one person can lift themselves up by their bootstraps and conquer the world, told that this is what is expected of them, to be doctors and lawyers and star athletes and politicians and whatever else their parents always dreamed for them, and for the most part, they step up and do as expected because that is what the "Youth of Today" do. And when, in a rare moment, one of them looks up at the world and says that they want to choose their own fate, not the one chosen for them, we, the Old of Today, shake our heads and say; "The Youth of Today have no ambition."

So they work. From homework to sports practice to music to social clubs and youth groups they work hard, nearly every moment of every day budgeted. They watch their parents highly scheduled lives and assume theirs must be the same and so they go forward and do whatever they can. And then, at the end of the day, when they finally have a free moment to themselves, and they are too tired to run out to the sandlot to pose for a Norman Rockwell painting, instead choosing to play video games, watch TV, or just sleep, we, the Old of Today, shake our heads and say; "The Youth of Today are lazy."

And then, when it is all over, after all of their work and time and sacrifice, they look for the rewards, the American Dream. They have been told that hard work is rewarded and so after they work hard, they expect the reward. So they look for the jobs their educations have won them, they look for the salary those jobs will provide them, they look for the houses those salaries will pay for. But often, they aren't there. Because hard work and education are not a true promise of success. They MIGHT succeed, but sometimes luck does not go their way. And yet when they ask where their promised rewards are, the Old of Today shake our heads and say; "The Youth of Today expect life to be delivered to them."

So stop. Stop shaking your head so condescendingly at them, or sighing in frustration at them. You don't know them. Look instead at your own kids, and what you say to them. Did you teach them that every moment must be filled, that the greatest sin was a lazy afternoon? Then do not be shocked and surprised when when they do not play as you once did. Did you teach them that success was the certain result of hard labor? Then do not be surprised when they ask after those rewards if they do not come.

And finally, if in all their audacity, the Youth of Today choose a dream that is not yours, to pursue a trail you did not blaze, and to make a life you do not understand, do not write it off as a failing of their generation. For while there is no crime in wanting to please one's elders, greatness lies in choosing your own path.

And to you youth of today, keep your heads held high. The world is hard, success is fleeting, and pain is everywhere. But there is also joy. And in the small window of time between now and when I was counted among "The Youth of Today," I have often found that joy in getting to know you.

Tales of the Ministry- The Funeral No Show

So this past weekend I got called out to do a graveside funeral for a gentleman I'd never met. Peter was described by his loved ones as "the life of the party," a guy who loved his family and kept adding to it with his friends.

I was standing with the family before the funeral proper began, hearing their stories and laughing about Peter's various shenanigans (I believe he could be appropriately described as "quite a card") when his daughter's eyes go huge. When I asked her what was wrong, she goes: "I forgot Dad!"

You see, Peter had been cremated back in VA where he had lived in retirement, he was only being buried here because this is where his wife was buried 13 years ago. His Daughter had bought the cremains up from VA but had left them at her grandmother's house in Green Bay, a full hour away from the cemetery.

It was a military burial with full honors, everyone assembled. There was no waiting for this funeral. So we went ahead and did it without him. First time I ever did a funeral where the deceased was a no show. But the kicker came when Peter's daughter told his mother.

"Grandma," she said, VERY embarrassed, "I forgot to bring Dad. His ashes are still at your house!"

"Well," the old lady said, not missing a beat, "I always said he'd be late for his own funeral."

I love my job.

Vlog- Thankfulness in Witness

A discussion of the way to show thankfulness, but more importantly, a way in which we probably shouldn't.

Reader Question- Censorship

What do you think of censorship? -Taidaishiar
---------

Interesting question, Taidaishiar. I was considering writing a couple of paragraphs and then formatting them so they look like they have been blacked out, but then I remembered how fundamentally lazy I am. So, I guess I'll just talk about that joke for a second and then answer your questions.

My thoughts on censorship are complicated, because it is a really, really complicated issue. It SHOULDN'T be, but largely is because while internet warriors tend to be all about some free speech, and so against censorship, they tend to get a little fuzzy on when, precisely, free speech is being honored or violated, and it often turns into an issue of "I can say what -I- want, but if you disagree with me, then you're censoring me!" People often forget that while free speech allows you to speak, it isn't a right to be heard, and certainly not a right to a platform.

So in general, I oppose censorship. But when I say that, I find I have to define what, precisely, I mean.

Someone saying that a method of story-telling is harmful to certain people isn't censorship, it's criticism.

Someone threatening the life of someone criticizing a thing they like so that they'll stop criticizing it IS censorship, or at least attempted censorship.

A retailer choosing not to carry a product because of its content isn't censorship, it's a sales strategy.

A government telling retailers that they aren't allowed to carry a product because of it's content is censorship.

Arresting someone because they threatened someone else's life isn't censorship, it's law enforcement.

Arresting someone because they videotaped civic officials threatening (or harming) someone else IS censorship, and corruption besides.

So, to sum up, you have the right to speak. And so long as your speech isn't harming someone else, no one has the right to shut you up. They are NOT, however, obligated to sell what you have to say for you, or to give you a platform to say it from, or carry your message into mass media. That falls under THEIR free speech.

After the Marriage Fight... What Now?

With certain Country Clerks still holding out against issuing Marriage Licenses, the battle over the right of homosexual couples to marry isn't precisely over, but in the United States, in general, it is. The Supreme Court has ruled, a majority of Americans approve, and over time the holdouts against it will become more and more marginalized.

It's over. Marriage in the United States, as a matter of law, is no longer uniquely an institution between a Man and a Woman.

It's no secret that I consider this a victory, both from the civic and the religious perspectives. I am supremely grateful that my denomination, the PC(USA), managed to get there before my nation, if only by a matter of months, and I am also grateful to all the pioneers who worked so hard, and sacrificed so much, to bring us to this point.But as many people are making clear, both on social media and in the news, there are still a sizeable number of people who do not agree with this change of events, and most of them at least claim to do so for religious regions. And so it is to these Christians I now turn.

Hey there, guys. Pastor Dan, here.

Over the past couple of weeks I have heard numerous sermons, on the radio or online, with Pastors urging their congregations to fight the good fight, to "courageously stand up for the Bible." That is a sentiment that I agree with. Their intention, of course, is that you did your heels in on the marriage issue, refusing to acknowledge gay unions with loud voices. That intention I do not echo.

This is not the first time that a group of Christians has found themselves on this side of history in the United States. There were powerful groups of Christians who defended slavery until the Civil War ended the matter. Others opposed interracial marriage. Still others opposed divorce, and women's rights. All did so with Biblical arguments, all thinking that they were upholding the will of God.

Here is the kicker... most were, essentially, good people, trying to do the right thing, the Biblical thing, even when the world told them they were wrong. A laudable goal to be sure. The fact that they were completely wrong does not change that... sin affects us all. But what happens after? What do you do when society has rejected the truth you cling to?

There are several routes one can follow. Some never stop fighting, as those radio pastors were urging their congregations, but to what point? To become just another Westboro Baptist, confident, and utterly isolated, in their rightfulness? Or do you continue to recognize the call Christ has given you to the world, and choose a different fight?

The Supreme Court Ruling may be an amazing boon to the Evangelical community, an opportunity to move on. Because even if you still believe that Marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, there are, presumably, other things that you believe as well, things that you can work towards and pursue now that the issue of gay marriage is no longer a debatable point in our country.

For instance, for every instance of scripture having anything to do with homosexuality, there are reams and reams of text discussing the needs of the poor, the outsider, the sick. Instead of spending your energy in political forums, you can redirect those energies towards other God-mandated tasks. You can feed hungry people. Visit people in prisons. Provide aid to immigrants. These are all Biblically commanded practices that have been left sadly undeveloped in the light of the much louder, much more expensive, political battle over gay marriage.

No one is saying that you have to believe in Gay Marriage. But fighting against it is a lost cause, unless your intention is to no longer be capable of performing the other ministries the LORD has called you to. Like I mentioned before, this won't be the first time a group of Christians has been forced to do such a thing.

There is more to your faith than sex laws. There is more to your ethics than marriage. There is more to Christianity than opposing equal marriage rights. You could choose to fight this battle forever, to be defined by it and seen by others as hopeless, meaningless anachronisms. If you are loud enough, successful enough, they may even decide that opposition to homosexuality is all there is to you.

Or you could move on, and show the Love God has commanded you to have for others in other ways, ways that help people, that nurture people.

It's your call.

Reader Question- Why No Bible Quotes?

I guess my main concern is that nothing you said in your blog was backed by Scripture.
-Anonymous 
--------------

I've wondered if something like this would come up. I addressed the idea in brief when Anon mentioned it in the comments elsewhere, but thought it was worth an entry of it's own.

For people who are used to reading blogs by pastors, mine might stand out somewhat in that I do not spend much time quoting, or even referencing, scripture in my blog. There is a strong tradition in the church for whom this is nearly anathema, where making a statement without an accompanying Biblical Bibliography is almost unheard of.

The thing is, most of what I say in this Blog is backed by Scripture. (I say "most" because, try as I might, I am unable to find solid Scriptural Attestation to the awesomeness of comic book movies.) I have decades of experience with the Scriptures, and I take them very, very seriously. They form the backbone of all of my theological thought.

So why not quote them? Several Reasons. To the list!

1- It can be really annoying to read blocks of quoted text. I'm going for readability, here, and huge blocks of reference text is exactly the sort of thing that might get an internet reader to stop.

2- Hardly anyone checks reference texts. I have read so many documents that were constantly throwing out random Biblical text addresses. Even in an age of Google, looking them all up is even more interfering with the reading than block quotes. So no one does... and then what do they prove? A lot of those references I have seen had exactly zilch to do with the ideas they were supposed to be backing... which leads me to believe their authors knew how much they were used.

3- Scripture is easy to Twist. The first thing the Devil said to anyone was a misrepresentation of the words of God, and later in the Bible Satan quotes scripture directly. Clearly, simple knowledge of the scriptures does not make one a good exegete. Or a good person.

4- Atheists don't care. I have a strong atheist/agnostic/whatever demographic who reads the Blog, and to them, space spent quoting scripture is wasted space. They don't care what the book says, for them it has no meaningful authority. If my thoughts and words can't be persuasive of themselves, all the Bible Quotes in the world won't change that.

5- It doesn't make me unassailable anyway. Even if I put in all the work and gave a full Bibliography for each of my posts (hard for a work of love, "do it as you have time" project) at the end of the day, so what? Another Christian could (and would, if so inclined) rebut me, with quoted scriptures of their own. And once all were quoted, we would be right back here at the beginning, two people talking through their differences.

There is this perception among Christians, especially in Evangelical circles, that all you have to do is throw down a good scriptural quote in order to win a Biblical argument, like scriptures were cards and a good Bible Scholar has all the trumps. But that isn't true, it never has been.

The scriptures aren't there to solve all of our problems, or make the world easy. The Bible is a complicated, living document representing hundreds of worldviews, some of which differ and contrast internally. What it DOES provide is a useful common language for discussion.

So that is why I don't spend time quoting the Scripture that helped me form my various philosophies, ideologies, and opinions. At the end of the day, if I can't provide a cogent argument in words for why you should think the way I do, you won't, no matter who or what I quote. And in the meantime, I save everyone a LOT of time and keep these posts WAAAAAY easier to read.

Reader Question: The Crusader Fallacy

But the Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin!
-Anonymous

Homosexuality is routinely listed among sexual perversions...
-Anonymous

How can it be sin to protect the Bible...
-Anonymous

We're just trying to do as we have been commanded by God...
-Anonymous

Fuck you, you godless demon-worshipping Sodomite...
-Anonymous
---------------------------------------------

I seem to have struck a nerve.

My post on the sinfulness of opposing Homosexual rights got a lot of feedback, a lot of it good or thankful. There were some, though, who seemed to oppose what I was saying strongly. Some very, very strongly. For reasons I won't waste time to speculate on, a lot of them also wrote anonymously. Hmmm.

Now anyone who spends any amount of time around Internet message boards will know that nothing above is particularly shocking, even the last, which you would assume you'd always get a certain amount of. If anything, getting "f-bombed" probably is just a metric that I have started getting enough readership that an internet Troll finally wandered in. We'll take it as a sign of progress... maybe I'm not just preaching to the choir here, anymore.

It's the other responses that piqued my interest. My previous article didn't spend any time claiming that homosexual relationships weren't sinful, in fact, it outright said that they were. (I know this because, homosexual or not, they are HUMAN relationships.) So that people would defend their own actions by reiterating a point I had already conceded shows that we are dealing with an interesting line of thought, one I choose to refer to as the "crusader fallacy."

The Crusader Fallacy is simple: It is the presupposition that any acts an individual makes are acceptable, so long as they are for a good(read: divine) cause. It's a popular line of anti-heroes, often popularized by the quote; "I may fight on the side of the angels, but do not mistake me for one of them."

So cool, so daring, so eager to get the job done! Makes for GREAT fictional characters, and as it happens, piss poor Christians. 

Because, you see, the Crusader Fallacy is COMPLETELY absent in Scripture. There are NO texts that imply that your actions toward another human being are justified by the sinfulness of their actions. Even Old Testament laws with prescribed punishments have been removed, because of a simple command of Christ: "Let the one without sin cast the first stone."

We like the idea of being the ones above the law, the ones who are righteous, not because of our actions, but because of the motivation behind them. Righteous in of ourselves. That is what self-righteous means. But to be Christian denies the concept of self-righteousness. To be Christian means to own that we are sinners in need of a savior. It also means we are called, by that savior, to love others, to care for others, to support our brothers and sisters in need. As opposed to the ones who are hurting them.

Your actions are your actions. Neither God nor the Bible need your protecting. You are not the great Crusader placed on Earth to enforce God's will. God can enforce God's own will pretty effectively. (So effectively, in fact, that you should do some honest soul searching about whether or not the Supreme Court Ruling wasn't itself God's will.)

The opponents of Gay Marriage, as a movement, have separated loved ones in their dying moments, have denied children loving parents, have used violence to frighten and intimidate people, have dragged people's names through the dirt in Social Media and have done all of this SAYING THAT THEY WERE DOING IT IN CHRIST'S NAME.

Those are sinful acts. No debate, no discussion, full stop. Supporting them, enabling them, FUNDING them, encouraging them, are also all sinful acts.

So it doesn't matter, not at all, not in the least, whether or not Homosexuality itself is sinful. If you support the suppression of Homosexual rights, if you expend energy towards fighting Gay Equality, and above all if you claim to do so in Christs name, then you are committing egregious sin, either by your own actions or by the actions of those you support.

Don't fall to the Crusader fallacy. Do not listen to the false prophets who turn the liberating word of God into a message of fear and anger (The Devil's oldest trick). Do not miss the log in your own eye from searching for splinters in others.

Recognize your own sin. And repent.

Most Boring Cancer Story Ever

I've been a writer for most of my life. Through all of it, I have gained a sense of timing, of drama, of tension, or at least a feel for when I have achieved those things. I also have a sense of the moment. We were poised for something amazing here. The post where I shared that I had been diagnosed with cancer jumped past 2000 views... easily the single most of any individual bit of writing I have ever done. People were being great, sending their regards, following my story passing along good wishes.

The moment was ready, people were reading, and I was gonna tell the hell out of this story.

And now, it's kinda done. No swell of emotional toil, no heartbreaking second act, no last moment miracle cure. My pathology came back on the second growth and showed it was benign. There are no signs of cancer growth elsewhere in my body.

It is now very, very likely that all the cancer had been removed before I, or anyone else, knew that I had it.

Now we're not just going to leave it at that, of course. Over the next few months I will be setting up a series of tests and the like to keep an eye on things and make sure that it stays well and truly away. Maybe one day it'll all get picked up again, but then again, maybe not.

What matters is, for now, I seem to be cancer free. This little bit of Ask Pastor Dan ends up being over almost before it was begun. Most boring cancer story ever.

And you know what? I can live with that. We'll come up with something more interesting later. For right now, while I continue to heal from my surgeries, boring is JUST fine.

Update: Feeling Scared

So I just talked to a friend who asked how I was doing. Apparently he had recently heard a mutual (if distant) acquaintance of ours announce that the cancer had jumped from one adrenal gland to another, which is why I was having surgery on Thursday. After laughing about it I decided that since people are making up stuff about me that hadn't even occurred to me yet (and I have a good imagination!) I decided it might be a good idea to do one of those updates I said I would do. So here we go.

No, the cancer hasn't "jumped" anywhere. It is highly unlikely to be in the other mass, but we need to make sure, hence the surgery. There is one major concern haunting me, though.

I made the mistake of looking into the possibility of living without any adrenal glands online. One testimonial in particular sounded hauntingly like being lobotomized, and so now I find myself scared that I will go to sleep on the table and wake up someone else, someone who can't get excited about things, who lacks the energy and excitement that so many people think makes me me.

It's a terrifying thought... in this moment, more terrifying than the cancer that might not even be there.

I try to keep this all in check by remembering that the Doctors do not plan to remove that gland lightly... they're even willing to open me all the way up in order to avoid it if they must. They know we don't want that gland gone.

So yeah, I'm scared. Not the first time since the diagnosis and certainly not the last. 

Reader Question- Fighting Equality Is Sin

Thoughts on the Supreme Court Ruling? -Lots of people
-------------------------

Ok. It's time to stop beating around the bush. Moderate to Liberal Christians do that far too often, trying to play nice in hopes that some of that will rub off on our more conservative leaning brothers and sisters, but too often this happens at the expense of those being hurt by abuses of the Scriptures. You do not promote equality by pandering to those oppose it. You name what they are doing as sin.

If you are actively fighting equality for homosexuals on Christian grounds, then you are sinning. If you are making arguments so that OTHERS will actively fight equality for homosexuals, then you are leading them to sin, which is, you guessed it, sinning. And if you stand by, silent, while others do such and by your silence lead them to believe that you are with them, that is also a sin, at least of omission.

I will put this as clearly as I know how. USING THE BIBLE AND THE SCRIPTURES AS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION IS SIN. This has nothing to do with the sinful nature of their relationships, and everything to do with the sinful nature of your own. You are using scriptures to deny them a tool explicitly created to aid sexual relationships that had been destroyed by sin. That is what marriage is.

Here are things that have been accomplished by those who campaign against equal rights for homosexuals. Children have been torn away from loving parents, or denied them entirely. Sick or injured people have been denied access to their loved ones during times of crisis, and loved ones barred from ICU's and funerals. Life partners have been denied health benefits, treated as less than people.

These. Are. Sinful. Acts.

To DO any of things, or to condone them, is just about as sinful as it gets. And to use the scriptures as rationale, to use the gift of the Holy Spirit to somehow argue that your own petty bigotry is in the right? That goes beyond sin, to sin of the Holy Spirit, which according to at least one scripture is the ONLY unforgivable sin.

This isn't about all those people who are finally able to marry. Are their sexual relationships sinful? Yeah. So are yours. Humans who have sex will sin. Humans will sin. Marriage is one (flawed) tool to help us navigate that, and now they have the same tools you have. That's a good thing. I'm not worried about them. I am worried about you.

YOU, by fighting their right to marry, are sinning. And you are doing so in the name of God. The fact that you think you are doing so at the will of God just makes it worse. That you could look at the joy people found in each others arms and be offended, that you could watch people denied this right for decades cry in raw happiness at finally being acknowledged to be people and feel anger, that you could deny the love they have for each other and somehow think that such an act is itself loving is... well, it's appalling.

Completely appalling.

I believe in the forgiveness of Christ, and that nothing can separate us from the love of God. So I believe you will find forgiveness. But when your time comes, and you are called on to answer for the sins of your life and find the real NEED for that forgiveness, I have no doubt that among those sins will be the way you looked at a victory of LOVE, WHEN GOD IS LOVE, and saw it as a defeat.

Stop worrying about their sins, and START worrying about your own.

Top 5 Conversations You Should Have BEFORE You Get Married

Good morning, and welcome to the reality that you weren't dreaming... Marriage Equality for gays and lesbians IS now the law in all American territories. We are no longer bound to the political or theological whims of others, the battle is won, and in general, people are happy about it. Not everyone, though. Apparently some (rather dim) Twitter users have been threatening to move to Canada over the recent court cases... nothing like avoiding Obamacare and gay marriage by moving to a country with universal healthcare that approved gay marriage a decade ago.

But I digress! Now that Marriage Equality is really a thing, a lot of couple are queuing up at the courthouses to get hitched. For a lot of them this is simply a formality, the last, finally legal step they have been waiting for for decades, and blessings to each of them. But others are doing it simply because they can... and that worries me, because great as Marriage can be, it can also suck.

For instance, back when I married Rose, there were literally millions of people I COULD have legally married, but very, very few of them (possibly just one) would have actually been a good idea.

As a Pastor, I require five sessions of Pre-marital Counseling before each marriage that I preside over. Without the sessions, I don't do the marriage. But my rules are often not what people expect: I am not grading their relationship, or "checking if it's holy." What I am doing is making sure that 5 key conversations have taken place by instigating them in these sessions. I assure people that no matter what their answers are, I WILL marry them so long as A) they are doing the work and B) there are no signs of abuse.

And now, for anyone who cares what I think about stuff, here are the 5 conversations you REALLY ought to have before you marry somebody.

1: Who are you from?
You'd be amazed how little some people talk to each other about who they actually are. Dating in America is complicated process wherein two people work to impress the other, having fun, doing fun things, etc. But dating is special time and can often be oddly detached from the realities we actually live in, and the biggest gap is often home family.

Family is embarrassing, even when they're not horrible. They are like walking baby pictures, giving sometimes disturbingly deep insights into WHY we are who we are. Meeting them isn't a perfect fix, either, because meeting the family is like a job interview... too much pressure wanting to be liked to really learn that much about them.

So my recommendation is to have each of you write out a simple family tree that includes as many relatives (and important friends) you can manage. And then, once you have the names, mark the relationships. Who are really tight? Who doesn't get along? Who has been abusive, and to whom? Who is still alive, which deaths really hurt, who will be in the bridal party, who will NOT be invited, and why.

It may end up looking something like this:

This, of course, is a very simple example. Put in as much info as you can, and then walk through it with your fiance. Even if you don't think they'll be seeing much of your family, you are connecting them to them, so it's only fair to let them know what they are getting into.



2: Financial Expectations

Everyone has some expectation of what married life looks like. VERY few actually put much thought into what its financial realities will be. This often comes from our families... it doesn't occur to us that there is more than one way for a family to operate. So talk about how you think the household will actually run. Who will be working? Who will pay bills? Who will balance checkbooks? If a job requires the family to move, will you? And whose? If both of you can't keep your careers, whose has priority?

Unless you happen to start out on the same page, this will lead to arguments. THAT IS A GOOD THING. It is far better to have the argument now, over a theoretical, then when an actual crisis is over your heads. Once both partners know the others expectations, you can then work out an actual plan between the two of you.

3: Sexual Expectations

This is always a fun one for me, because nothing makes people more uncomfortable than talking about sex with their pastor. Ah, fun times, great awkwardness. Well, I probably won't be there to have "the talk" with you, but like above, write down your sexual expectations and then share them. How often do you like to have sex? do you like to experiment, or do you prefer to keep what you like going?

Also, this is when we discuss what consent looks like. This talk is NOT a blank check consent form. But it is a great way to discuss the little clues we give for when we are in the mood or not in the mood. If you have had sex before this talk, it's also a good time to talk about previous times. Did you really want sex that one time, or was there a clue I missed that said you weren't? That one time you were kind of hinting that you wanted sex and I said no, was it just a hint or did you REALLY want it, and then you felt rejected?

Again, this can lead to arguments and hurt feelings, but it is important to discuss. The marriage bed should be an AWESOME place, and little unseen signs and hint can make it not be that, so cut through the coyness and lay it all out there. You may be surprised just how much better you sex can be after this conversation, which couples sometimes share with me, when they want ME to be the one who suddenly feels awkward.

4. Family Expectations

Do you want kids? How many? Do you have a gender preference? Name preference? How should they be raised? Will religion play a role in your family, and if so, what and how? Do you just HAVE to be a member of a certain church? Would you rather be caught dead than in church pew?

This will cross over some with the previous two conversations, and that is fine. It may also bring back up old arguments. Also fine. Better to get it all out ahead of time. And if the two partners have different religious expectations that they intend to stick to (which CAN work, though it will be hard) have a definite plan in place for any children raised. It is important that this plan respect both parents and allows the child to make their own decisions without allowing this to play one parent against the other. I go into this in more detail here. 

Oh, this is also a good time to discuss how you argue. Have each partner describe what the OTHER does when arguing. Are they aggressive? Passive-aggressive? Are they out for understanding, or just to win? Are they pushing for their agenda, or just pushing for peace? How can you honor the other's wishes while still communicating your own needs?

(If this proves problematic, get a marriage counselor. They aren't just for crisis control... using a counselor for simple maintenance can go a long way in keeping a marriage happy.)

5. The Wedding

After all of that, setting up the actual wedding seems like it would be easy, but sometimes it isn't. Have both partners write their expectations for the ceremony down and then share them. This is a beautiful thing you're doing, and so everyone should get at least some of what they were expecting from it.

I also recommend, if your wedding is gonna be shindig, to set aside a bit of time a couple of days before where you and your partner can just go and have some time together NOT involved in anything having to do with the wedding, like a date or just some downtime. I sometimes offer this as a 6th session, where we go to a restaurant together and I sit somewhere else and read so the couple can have some quiet alone time that the family won't interrupt because THEY'RE WITH THE PASTOR. This can be hugely important for mental health.

These conversations are not perfect, and they don't guarantee anything. But if you have them before you get married, you will finish the wedding with a plan for what life will look like, and know the arguments ahead of you in advance. Believe me, it WILL be worth it.

Now have fun, and good luck!

Claiming Race

So with all of the fallout surrounding the strange case of Rachel Dolezal, I have been more than a little bit apprehensive. For all the people... many of whom have opinions I respect... who say that it's just plain wrong to claim a race that isn't your own, I always had a slight ick. It wasn't that long ago that a trans person would be nigh-universally rejected, and YES, I know the cases are very different for a myriad of reasons. It still gives me the ick.

But I'll tell you what Rachel has done that many of her white detractors HAVEN'T... and that is claimed the concept of race for herself.

One of the pillars of white privilege is that, for us, the concept of race tends to be optional. Coming from centuries of being the de facto default, a white person can choose to engage with the concept of race or not. In fact, it's almost preferred (among white people, anyway) that we DON'T, because the only white people we see really claiming their race are white supremacists, and who really wants to be in that club?

There have been lots of causes for racial outrage recently, from Ferguson to Baltimore to Rachel to Charleston. I have seen plenty of people showing that outrage, many of them white as I am. And nearly universally (I say nearly, but I am having trouble thinking of an exception) the outrage has all been given in the third person. Talking about white privilege as if it were something someone else was doing, or talking about "white people" as if the twitter-er was talking about a group they didn't belong to.

This is, of course, how systems of racial prejudice work, how they thrive. We get irritated with others when they claim race isn't an issue, but we're not much better when we, as white people, act like race isn't OUR issue. We want to look at race as an entity separate from ourselves, hide from it, or act as if "white people" is a group we aren't members of, so we can properly scold it. And in so doing, we perpetuate it by enacting one of the greatest privileges white people have... pretending that we are just people, rather than white people.

I don't think it comes from an evil place, or a malevolent place. After all, after being shown example after example of white people who openly claim their whiteness being horrible, it is entirely understandable to not want to be seen as one of them. We may not use makeup or hairstyles to do it, but we DO IT... even when we are trying to address the problems caused by racial differences.

We can't stand outside of the system to judge it... that only perpetuates the system, and does so by using its tools. We do it because we'd really like to judge the system but would rather not judge ourselves in the process, and in so doing we become yet another "white moderate" like MLK JR talked about, thinking ourselves as superior to those "racist whites," but every bit as much of the problem as them. Sure, we may not hold the gun in the prayer meeting, or order militarized police to the protest, but we support the system that creates the ones who do.

It's time to drop to the third person language when we are talking about ourselves. It's time to stop talking about "white privilege" and start talking about "OUR privilege," it's time to stop talking about "them" and start talking about "us."

And in the process, it's time to find a way to reclaim white pride in a way that doesn't degrade others. Because if we can't find a way to be proud of our racial identity we'll never use it. And if we never use it, then we will continue to treat race as an external problem, thinking of "white people" as a group with voluntary membership, and continue perpetuating the very system that we can't quite seem to get rid of.

We have a problem, White people. And we also have a lot of power. That's a dangerous combination. Other races are asking us to please get our act together. That will never happen if the only ones holding the reins of "white people" are those who think that power is precisely where it belongs.