Your WebWeaver

Notes from your WebWeaver

Lenten readings just for our unpeaceful times
Even cracked pots can carry life and light in times of death and destruction

from your WebWeaver, Doug King [3-15-07]

Yesterday evening some people of our congregation gathered for our regular Lenten observance of a simple supper and a time of prayer using the Taizé service.

I listened to the three scripture readings after a day of hearing about the continuing concerns about the Bush Administration’s actions in firing a number of US Attorneys, and the Attorney General’s lame efforts to deal with those concerns. And I sat there knowing I would be leaving the next day (this evening) to join thousands of others for the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, to be held Friday in Washington, DC.

The progression through the three readings led me ...

	from the psalmist’s lament at the evil all around him, and rejoicing at God’s promise to stand against the evil-doers and the liars
	through God’s word to Jeremiah that we are clay in the hands of the divine Potter, with the hope of being useful vessels, but only if we repent and change our ways as a people
	to Paul’s ringing affirmation that while we are just clay pots, we can serve as life-giving vessels even in times of death and destruction.

Nothing new here, but for me it was the right Word at the right time. And I’d like to share it with you.

The passages >>

Has separation of Church and State gone a little too far? [3-25-06]

A slightly bemused thought from your WebWeaver:

There's been a lot of discussion in our local press this week (in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis - Saint Paul, Minnesota) about the removal of a "Happy Easter" display from someone's desk in the offices of the St. Paul City Council. Arguments have raged about whether bunnies and little candy eggs and fake grass are religious symbols, or are simply symbols of the commercialization of religion. You don't need all the details, but someone offered the helpful suggestion that in the name of church-state separation, the Capital City of Minnesota should perhaps be renamed as just "Paul."

Election(s) - a gracious gift (for Calvinists) or a privilege and a pain?

From your WebWeaver, Doug King

(just published as the Editor's Spot in the Summer 2004 issue of Network News.)
[9-4-04]

Election is one of those Basic Belief Groups for Calvinists, right? At the heart of that doctrine (which may still have more or less meaning for many of us today) is a radical notion of grace. But the elections we're facing this season are quite a different matter. Grace doesn't seem to play a big role. Love seems strangely lacking, unless it's the devotion some people seem to feel toward one candidate or another. Fear and resentment play a bigger part than the finer emotions, if we're to judge by the appeals being made by campaign speeches and ads.

We think of politics and government in terms of law (or lawlessness), and justice (or injustice). So what might grace have to do with it - and with our messy process of electing a president?

Three things occur to me.

First: In the Reformed understanding of "election," that act of divine grace frees us from bondage to self, and allows us to care for others. In this new freedom we are enabled to care for those beyond our immediate circle of family and friends - not just with some kind of mushy individualistic "compassion," but with practical, political efforts to make sure everyone in our global community gets a fair chance at a decent life. Or even, as our recent General Assembly motto reminded us, at an abundant life. Or to be a little more modest, how about a life of sufficiency?

If the church is to bear witness at all in this election season, we must begin with a prophetic call for justice that grows out of love - a love that extends to all of God's creation, that never allows us to divide the world into "friends" and "enemies," into simple categories of good and evil.

Bill Coffin says it better than I can, in his recent book Credo: "What distortion of the gospel it is to have limited sympathies and unlimited certainties, when the very reverse - to have limited certainties and unlimited sympathies - is not only more tolerant but far more Christian."

Second: Our Calvinist forbears (at their best, anyway) never took their sense of election, of being "chosen," as a reason for any claims to superiority or privilege. Election was for service, not for rule. God's love gave them no grounds for exploiting the rest of the world. Well, in fact that sense of election often was taken to just all sorts of exploitation. But that doesn't justify our nation's following in the wrong paths of our predecessors, who should have known better.

And third: The theological notion of election is never simply a gift, but also and always a call. It's a call to care for God's world, and to do so with humility (for the world is a gift, not our possession), with appreciation and respect for what is basically good - not just good for what we can get out of it, but good in itself. Good to be enjoyed, and to be shared.

So as we slog through this campaign season, let's remember the good things that we can affirm. Let's recognize that voices on the progressive side of our church and our society need to offer a positive vision - and maybe even a program - for the future of our nation and the world. Our prophetic witness must both denounce the claims to certainty and to a right to rule the world. But we must also give voice to the divinely task for humanity: to enjoy life, and to enable others to enjoy it too.

In this issue of Network News we're including two other items for your reflection in this election season: A listing from the National Council of Churches of ten principles for use in reflecting on the candidates and their positions; and an essay by theologian Doug Ottati on what he calls "utilitarian Christianity," which would use God as a guarantor of getting our way. He warns, "Beware of political spiritualities that equate God's purposes with the cherished aims and objectives of one's own nation or people."

And we have a whole page indexing other material related to the election!

We'd like to hear what you think of this connection between "election" and our elections? Is your WebWeaver just babbling (as he sometimes suspects) or are there ideas worth debating here? Just send a note to be shared here!

And a note of thanks from the Witherspoon board:

We're very grateful for the generous support our members have been giving in response to Treasurer Dave Zuverink's appeal for special funds to support and expand Witherspoon's communications. We're nearing $4,000 toward our goal of $10,000. That will help a great deal, but more support will enable us to reach out more effectively - distributing free copies of Network News to seminarians and others; offering someone a small stipend to help improve the appearance of our website and add to its content. If you haven't sent a contribution yet, we'll still graciously accept your gift! You can use the membership envelope in this issue - but be sure to mark your check or the envelope for "Communication Fund." Thanks!!

You can make a gift online with a credit card. Just click here to go to the bottom of our membership form, and there you are!

Just got back from a little walk -- overwhelmed by the rainbow that arced across the whole sky,

the most perfect display of God's gracious promise I've ever seen.

So forgive me if I bore you, but I just have to share this for a while.

Glory be to God, our Creator beyond all our imagining.

[7-21-04]

Should we always "respect our President"? And if so, how?
[3-9-04]

Your WebWeaver frequently receives e-mail notes from irate visitors who are offended by sometimes critical comments or analyses about policies and actions of the United States government, both at home and around the world. The basic theme of the notes is often the accusation that we are not showing proper respect to our President.

Since I believe strongly that respecting other people is an important way of showing our faith in the God who created them, that sometimes concerns me. A recent column in the Faith and Values section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune helped me clarify my own thinking about this.

Jeremy Iggers, who writes a regular column on ethical issues, poses the question, "Does the president -- any president -- deserve our respect simply because he holds the office? (Keep in mind that the issues raised here also apply to our previous president.) What, if anything, is 'out of bounds?' "

He answers his question: "We don't owe the president, or anyone else, respect simply in virtue of the office. But as citizens -- since he is our employee and acts in our name -- we bear some responsibility for his actions. That gives us the right, and even the obligation, to speak out in support when we agree with his actions and to criticize him when we think he is wrong."

But he adds that courtesy and civility are forms of respect due to any person, so "the more serious your criticisms are, the more important it is to express them in sober and dignified terms. (There is a special exemption to this general moral principle for Jay Leno and David Letterman, because late-night television would be a lot less entertaining without jokes about politics.)"

He also makes an important distinction: "A president who lies to us about his personal life diminishes our respect for him as a human being but may retain some claim on respect for his performance in office, while a president who lies to us about affairs of state diminishes our respect for him as office holder."

You may want to look at the whole essay; it's not long.

What do you think?
Just send a note,
and we'll share it here.

For a few earlier thoughts from your WebWeaver, click here.

And for even earlier ones, try clicking here.