Saturday, July 31, 2010

My Top Ten Reasons why Anne Rice would hate the United Church of Christ:


When writer Anne Rice recently said she’s done with church, the UCC Office of Communication in Cleveland started a Facebook page called “You’d like the UCC, Anne Rice.” But I am convinced that they are wrong, and here’s why:

1. We are not the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, we Reformed Christians do believe that we are included in “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” of the Creed, but don’t bet the farm that Anne Rice thinks that. When she says she is done with “the Church” she knows just what church she is done with. When Philosopher George Santayana said he didn’t believe in God, he clarified by saying, “And the God I don’t believe in mother’s name is Mary.” Anne isn’t looking for liberal Protestantism.

2. She would love all our social views, but hate our religious ones. Yes, we affirm science and tolerance toward women and gays, and affirm birth control, and other progressive stuff. She would like that. But she would hate our distrust of authority, our shoddy theology, our aversion to dogma, our rejection of the cross, our sloppy liturgies, our tortured language. She would do better to search the database for subscribers to the New York Times or the New Yorker or join a book group.

3. We use grape juice at communion. C’mon.

4. We’re a tiny franchise. The Roman Catholic Church has 1.1 billion members. We have 1.1. million members (about half what we had when I was ordained) and are shrinking fast.

5. We are afraid of the Dark Side. Anne is a writer of Gothic vampire novels. What would she think of our chirpy optimism. How the church of Calvin and the Puritans came to have such a sunny view of human nature is one of those great imponderable mysteries, but Anne would hate it.

6. She would have nothing to push back against. Anne likes to fight with authority, but we don’t have any worth fighting with. She would hate that.

7. She would miss the thick texture of the Roman Church for our trimmed down decaffeinated Protestantism. Think about it: no Veneration of Mary, no stations of the cross, no fasting during Lent, no confession. Anne wouldn’t like it.  She just wouldn't.

8. Our meeting houses have too much light. Anne is a “Gothic” novelist. Guess what kind of architecture she wants in her place of worship? Trust me on this one.

9. She would hate the New Century Hymnal. Why? Because she’s a writer and respects authorial intent and felicity of language.

10. She might get tired of hearing about how great we are because of our enlightened social views, and actually want some Christianity.

Anne Rice repudiates Christianity (again)


So Anne Rice, who was raised a Roman Catholic, but repudiated it and became a bestselling pop writer about vampires (as everybody knows), later decided that Christianity was, after all, pretty great, and wrote a bestseller in 2008 about her return to the faith. Cool. Everybody is entitled to change her mind. Glad to have you back, Anne.

Not so fast! Now she has decided that Christianity isn’t so great because of all the hateful toxic human stuff that flies under it’s banner, and so she has repudiated it again, which is fine, since we all change our minds from time to time, and God knows she has a point.

But, unlike the rest of us, Anne doesn’t have the luxury of nobody caring what she thinks, so she comes off, at least to me, as fickle and maybe not quite as serious and committed as one would hope.

Then my crowd, the United Church of Christ, which never misses an opportunity to brand itself as the Christian equivalent of the unCola, launches a publicity campaign to say, “Hey Anne, you’d love us, cause we’re cool and don’t hate science, gays and women, and are very welcoming and all (and practically don’t sin, except for our really big self-righteous thing.) So come join us.”

I’m troubled that our faith has became part of a big public relations campaign within the culture of celebrity.  It is true that the Christian brand has been degraded by sinners, but, alas, there is no one else left to represent it.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A visit to Olana, home of Frederic Edwin Church

I have lived in the Berkshires since 1982, but had never visited Olana, the spectacular home of landscape painter Frederic Edwin Church, until yesterday, despite it being only an hour away by car. We live just a few miles from the border of New York State, but for some reason it acts as some sort of invisible force field so that we go in that direction to see the sights far less frequently than those here in Massachusetts.

But I knew about Olana, because a few years ago I had heard an interesting paper given about it at the Monday Evening Club by Ron Trabulsi.  When the members came to comment on his paper I think I was the only one in the room who hadn’t been there, so I resolved to go.

And I’m glad I did, because Olana is well worth a visit. It is a fascinating place with a fascinating story.  Frederic Church (1826-1900) was a New Englander who came to the Hudson River Valley when he was eighteen to study with Thomas Cole, the English-born American artist who is generally considered the founder of the influential Hudson River School of landscape painters.

Church was able to be a painter because he came from a prosperous family. His father was a silversmith and watchmaker in Hartford, and his grandfather had founded the first paper mill in the Berkshire town of Lee, about ten miles south of where I write this.

Like Cole, Church painted lush atmospheric landscapes of the American frontier. These suggested something mystical about the young country’s land and water and air, and they were very popular. After a trip to South America Church painted a landscape of a scene in Ecuador he called “The Heart of the Andes” (1859, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.) He took this painting on tour and sold tickets to see it. Eventually he sold it for $10,000.00, the highest price for an American painting at that time.

But these big spiritual landscapes were in time to fall out of fashion to the, you guessed it, Impressionists, and Church put more and more of his attention to the development of Olana, which is itself a work of art.
He had the time, the talent and the money to make his home into a life project.



He knew the site for he had sketched from the place that was to be Olana back in 1845, when he was studying with Cole. In 1860, just prior to his marriage to Isabel Carnes, he purchased the 126 acre farm near the town of Hudson and overlooking the Hudson River. He built a cottage, laid out an orchard and gardens, and dredged a lake out of a marsh. In 1869 he purchased a wood lot on the top of the hill, and this is where he would build Olana, an eclectic villa incorporating several styles of architecture.

Olana is a unique blend of Victorian architectural features with Italianate influences and Moorish decorative motifs. When Church would travel his painterly eye would be attracted to some design feature that would later make it’s way to Olana.   He traveled to Mexico later in life, and brought ideas he had seen there into the decorations.

Olana is hard to describe because it is so eclectic (even eccentric).  The thing that holds it all together is Church's own painterly vision and decorative sensibility. 


Olana is now run by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation.   They have a good web site to describe how to visit.  You can only see the inside of the main house on a tour, which you should do. Several of Church’s paintings can be seen, as well as some by Cole.

The grounds are also lovely, as Church shaped them by his own designs. Take a picnic and sit by the lake. There is an extensive system of trails and carriage paths, so bring your walking shoes.  The whole visit was an experience of a day gone by.


(Photos by R. L. Floyd)

Monday, July 19, 2010

Cycling and sportsmanship: Should Alberto have waited for Andy?

In today’s Stage 15 of the Tour de France, race leader Andy Schleck put a punishing attack on rival Alberto Contador on the final big mountain climb that Contador may or may not have been able to answer.  But we will never know, since Schleck dropped his chain and had to climb off his bike to put it back on. By the time he got moving he had lost precious seconds, and, it turned out, the leader's yellow jersey, since Contador, who was behind him by 30 seconds, gained 38 before the stage was over and is now in yellow.

When the Spaniard climbed up on the podium to claim his yellow jersey he was booed by a number of the spectators, and speculation arose that he had unfairly taken advantage of a mechanical situation.  A visibly angry Schleck (right) seemed to think so during an interview after the stage, and this sets up a real shootout between the two young riders, who are riding at a level far above the rest of the peloton.

Even veteran British commentators Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen were divided over how to interpret the event. Liggett thought what Alberto did was cricket and Sherwen, not so much.

It is understandable to feel bad for Andy Schleck for losing his lead in such a way, but I hate to see shame fall on Alberto, a two-time Tour winner, who is, by all accounts, a decent guy.

Here are some of my ruminations.
  • First of all, I won’t say chains never fall of bikes when you haven’t made a awkward shift, but I can say it has never happened to me. Years ago when I starting time-trialing, I dropped  a chain in a 40 K trial with about  a mile to go. When I told Vince Conway, the veteran cyclist who ran the event, he described what I had done as an “illegal shift.”  Chances are Andy Schleck made an “illegal shift” that dropped his chain. That would put this in a different category than getting caught in a crash outside your control.
  • It is not apparent the Contador even knew exactly what happened. He saw Schleck falter and scrambled to take advantage over a formidable opponent.  This is, after all, a bike race.
  • The code on this kind of thing is vague and relies on a leader to enforce it.  I really don’t think Contador could have waited and made the rest of the riders fall in line. He isn’t the padron that Lance Armstrong or Eddy Merckx were in their heyday. It is unlikely that chasers Denis Menchov and Sammy Sanchez would have stopped. 
  • Still,  waiting would have been a nice gesture befitting a champion, for Alberto would clearly have been risking his own chances to win the race if others hadn't followed suit.
So, should Alberto have waited for Andy? Hard to say, but I would have liked to see it. As it is the rivalry should heat up. I expect Andy to attack on the remaining two Pyrenean mountain stages where he excels, which will make for high drama. Especially since there is a American named Lance Armstrong languishing in 32nd place, who would like to go home from his last Tour with something to show his fans and his sponsor. I expect he will try to win one of these stages as well, although it is hard to know how he can stay with these two amazing riders. Stayed tuned.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

George Hunsinger receives Barth Award

Congratulations to George Hunsinger, who has been awarded the 2010 Karl Barth Award conferred by the Protestant Church in Germany. It couldn't have gone to a more deserving recipient. George is to my mind one of the outstanding “doctors of the church” in our time, and certainly one of the best teachers I have been privileged to have.  The Statement of the Jury cites his work as an interpreter of Karl Barth, his excellence as a theological teacher, his ecumenical commitments, and his political engagement, especially his campaign against torture.  The full text  is printed below:
Explanatory Statement of the Jury regarding the decision to confer the 2010 Karl Barth Award of the Union of Evangelical Churches (UEK) in the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) to Professor Dr. George Hunsinger, Princeton, USA
With George Hunsinger’s work we honor his interpretation of Karl Barth’s theology and the political testimony that resulted from it as well as his achievements as a teacher of theology.
George Hunsinger has dedicated decades of his theological work to the interpretation of Karl Barth’s theology in the American context. His introduction, published in 1991 “How to read Karl Barth: the shape of his theology“ (German translation 2009) has become standard literature in the US. As the director of the Center for Barth Studies in Princeton, from its foundation in 1997 until 2001, he produced a collection of studies on various political, theological and ecumenical aspects of Karl Barth’s theology (“Disruptive Grace”, 2000). In his illuminative explanation of the approach and logic of Barth’s thoughts Hunsinger reveals their relevance for present day issues. He proves to be not only a sophisticated interpreter but also a challenging partner in the theological and political debates of our times. Hunsinger reminds us with Karl Barth that: “The event of Jesus Christ is not only a past fact of history, but also an event that is happening in the present here and now, as well as an event that in its historical completeness and full contemporaneity is also truly future." For Hunsinger, to learn from and with Karl Barth also means to be free from “Barthianism” and to engage in new ways, for example in ecumenical dialogue.
George Hunsinger’s theological achievements are linked to his critical view of the present and to his political engagement. For decades he has been active and most effective in the defense of Human Rights. He has always warned against the resolution of political conflicts through military means. In 2006 he initiated the National Religious Campaign against Torture (NRCAT). What then began as an appeal by 150 Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other people of conscience in Princeton became one of the most important NGO’s in Washington DC. Hunsinger refutes all attempts to legitimate torture as self defense in the context of the “War against terror”. His argument is that “torture is the ticking bomb!”. To accept torture would itself be the explosive that destroys democracy.
By awarding him the Karl Barth Award the Union of Evangelical Churches (UEK) also wants to honor George Hunsinger’s merits as a theological teacher in the full sense of the word. As an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church George Hunsinger not only taught the Bible in his congregation but he was also involved in creating the “Presbyterian Study Catechism” of 1998. This Catechism combines the explanation of the traditional elements of the Christian faith with comments on their social and political implications. Hunsinger thus overcomes the false alternative between “traditional faith” and “progressive politics” and thereby becomes a bridge builder between liberal and conservative Christians. He teaches that “the chief criterion of social witness is conformity to the enacted patterns of the divine compassion as revealed and embodied in Jesus Christ”.
The UEK thanks and honors George W. Hunsinger for his exemplary theological thinking, for his political testimony and his ecclesial teaching in the sense of a truly “generous orthodoxy”, a world-oriented interpretation and practice of Church Dogmatics.
Bishop Dr. Hans-Jürgen Abromeit, Greifswald Director
Dr. Hans-Anton Drewes, Basel Professor
Dr. Christiane Tietz, Mainz June 15, 2010

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Ten Highly Effective Strategies for Crushing your Pastor’s Morale

In the past most congregations’ attempts to demoralize their ordained leadership have been haphazard and ad hoc, although still surprisingly effective. In the interest of bringing more rigorous and systematic approaches to these efforts here are some of my modest proposals:

1. Schedule a weekly meeting for your pastor to sit down with the treasurer (or, better yet, the assistant treasurer) to “go over” every business expense. Be sure to inquire if certain expenses are legitimate, such as the purchase of a Marilyn Robinson or Gail Godwin novel from the pastor’s book allowance (“Should we really be paying for your chick-lit?”) Or a long-distance call to a neighboring pastor friend from seminary. Do such expenses really profit the church? And what about this big expense for 14 volumes by this Barth guy? Do you really need all of these? And his title sounds so, well, dogmatic!

2. Plan a regular talk-back session after worship so that members can query the pastor about her sermon, or the worship service, or about anything else, for that matter. It is always good to question why the pastor chose scripture lessons that are so negative, referring to such old fashioned concepts as sin, unrighteousness and repentance. Suggest more uplifting themes in the future. “And, by the way, why don’t we ever sing Christmas carols in Advent?”

3. Make sure to have an annual customer satisfaction survey where every member of the congregation fills out an anonymous questionnaire about their views of the pastor’s performance during the previous year. Make sure all the negative (or ambiguous) comments are read aloud at several meetings, and publish them without attribution in the church newsletter.

4. Vote to hold all meetings in the living room of the parsonage during the winter as a way to save money on heat, but be sure to pitch the idea as good stewardship of God’s creation so your pastor will feel too guilty to protest.

5. Cut the mission budget to balance the budget. Better yet, ask your pastor to choose between a raise in salary or an increase in the mission budget. This would be a good subject for an extended conversation at a congregational meeting. You can never talk too much about clergy compensation at a congregational meeting.

6. Set up a pastoral oversight committee to regularly monitor the pastor’s performance. Focus attention on any negative (or ambiguous) comments from the questionnaire (see # 3). Make sure to put into place measurable metrics and target goals for new members received and money raised. Hourly work logs are always effective as well.

7. Whenever your pastor goes away and returns from denominational meetings or continuing education events never miss an opportunity to ask, “How was your vacation?”

8. Make sure the pastor is made aware of the two biggest complaints, namely, that he is never in the office, and he doesn’t make enough home visits. That the two cannot both be true will not diminish their use as morale crushers.

9. Tell the pastor that there are anonymous complaints that a. your sermons are too long; b. your voice is too soft to be heard (especially by the deaf); c. your spouse is not involved enough (or too involved) in the life of the congregation; d. your child shouldn’t have been given the lead in the Christmas pageant; e. your lawn needs mowing; and f. you were seen in shorts at the supermarket. This is just a sample list. Use your imagination.

10. Constantly compare your pastor to his long-tenured saintly predecessor, with special attention made to his never asking for a raise for himself or his staff.

If your pastor balks at any of these attempts, just mutter words such as “accountability,” “transparency,” “standards,” or “professionalism. Pastors are loath to appear to be against any of these concepts so cherished by the managerial class.

(Picture:  “The Scream” by Edvard Munch)