The Lutheran Zephyr

I'm not entirely satisfied with my experience of the church calendar in late October, November, and December.  Let me try to explain.

First, I'll make this much clear: I'm no scholar of neither the liturgy nor the lectionary (Derek and others say, "yeah, no duh").  I'm writing here as an informed and long-time participant in the Lutheran lectionary cycle, but as one who is increasingly dissatisfied with my experience of the church calendar come late October. 

After celebrating the many weeks of Pentecost from late Spring through mid Fall - and its progression through one of the synoptic Gospels and related texts in the Old and New Testaments - in late October our church jumps out of that cycle for one Sunday to celebrate Reformation Sunday (a fixed-date lesser festival that nonetheless we Lutherans always shift to the Sunday on or prior to Oct 31, and celebrate with grandeur).

The following Sunday we celebrate All Saints, another fixed-date festival that we Lutherans move to the Sunday on or following Nov 1, again jumping out of the week-by-week lectionary cycle.  (The festival readings for All Saints, however, do select from the synoptics for Year A and Year C, and from John for Year B, maintaining a connection to the church year that the Reformation festival does not.)

So what happens is that after several months of progressing quite nicely through one of the synoptic Gospels, we break away from that progression for two whole Sundays.  Normally I might not suggest that this is a grave problem.  However, the readings for the season of Pentecost are designed to lead us to the Festival of Christ the King in late November, marking the end of the church year.  This festival is characterized by eschatological themes of Christ's promised return, judgement, and promised New Creation - an essential element of the Christian worldview.  You'll note that as we get closer to Christ the King, the readings become much more apocalyptic (this is not just a theme that magically appears on Christ the King Sunday - our readings are already moving in that direction in the weeks prior to the festival).  As we get closer to that festival, as our readings orient us toward reflection upon and celebration of Christ the eschatological King, most Lutherans deviate from the intentionally-crafted lectionary for two weeks of Reformation and All Saints celebrations.  Inevitably, we miss something.

Argh.

But now that we've celebrated the Church in its Reformation glory and recalled the life and faith of the dearly departed and/or the saints of old, we return to the Pentecost readings leading us to Christ the King for two Sundays.  However, one (or more) of these Sundays are often overtaken by "Stewardship Sunday" or Congregational budgetary meeting themes.  Again, our preaching, teaching, and congregational energies are bring diverted from the liturgical calendar's themes toward other - good and holy, for sure, but nonetheless other - things.

Argh.

So, after having celebrated Church with Reformation fanfare, and remembered the dead and/or the saintly on All Saints (see my old post on our Lutheran confusion about All Saints), and having heard about giving and having made commitments of time/talents/treasure on Stewardship Sunday, we're ready (or not!) to celebrate Christ the eschatological King!  Except . . . except that about half the time Christ the King falls over Thanksgiving weekend, when the national holiday (and football) schedules overshaddow anything the church is trying to do.

Argh.

All of a sudden, following a busy month of liturgical gyrations, congregational "business" matters, and a national holiday, we're in Advent, which unfortunately is nothing more than "Pre-Christmas" for too many of our churches.  Advent especially has its apocalyptic, "Come, Lord Jesus" imagery, but this is often lost as we shop and prepare for the commercial Christian holiday of Christmas.

Argh.

And for good measure I'll share this: I find the celebration of the Christmas season - two Sundays - to be terribly lacking, as it has the misfortune of falling around New Year while schools are usually out of session, resulting in terrible attendance, simplified liturgies led by substitute (or simply worn out) preachers, or perhaps a service or two of Lessons and Carols.  Not much attention is given to this season apart from the grand Christmas Eve services, sadly.

As far as remedies go . . .

Beef up Advent.  I like the old practice (in Anglican/Episcopalian circles, I believe) of a six-week Advent season.  This would avoid the awkwardness of kicking off Advent over Thanksgiving weekend, and grant more time to this wonderful season.

End the church year intentionally.  Perhaps a six-week Advent season could be preceded by Christ the King (a 20th century liturgical innovation), and All Saints before that (check out Christopher's blogpost about the timing of Advent).  That is, All Saints could essentially lead us directly into the end of the church year (thematically it could work nicely) and then Advent.  Christopher suggests perhaps a mini-season of All Saints.  I'm not sure what I think about that, but I do like using All Saints as a shift, a liturgical marker pointing the Church toward the year end and Advent.

Establish All Saints as a Sunday feast.  Let's design the lectionary to assume All Saints as a Sunday celebration, since that's what nearly all Lutherans do anyway.  In this capacity as a Sunday feast, it will clearly and cleanly mark a change in the church season toward Christ the King and Advent.

Move Reformation Sunday.   It might be time that we Lutherans find another time of year to celebrate the Reformation.  Perhaps we could celebrate on June 25, the day of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession - a day that better represents the work and legacy of the evangelical movement than does a commemoration of Luther's 95 theses.

Convert your congregation to a July-June fiscal year.  Congregational programs work according to a program-year schedule, as do schools.  For both liturgical and budgetary purposes, congregations should change their financial books to a fiscal year calendar beginning July 1.  Budgets would be fixed for ministry program years (making for more realistic understanding of program costs and planning), and Stewardship appeals would take place in May and June (deep in the Easter season or early in the green Sundays of Pentecost).

Teach more.  These seasons and themes are important, and the ways we celebrate them in worship is critical to our proclamation of the Gospel.  However, we can also do well to teach these themes and support their integration into the lives of our members through intentional education programs and devotional materials (daily lectionary readings, pericope groups, email prayer and devotional readings, etc.).

More to say, but it's very late.  G'night.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.  In the case, the Summum religion has asked the Pleasant Grove City Council to accept a monument of their Seven Aphorism to be placed in a public park alongside a monument of the Ten Commandments, donated over a quarter-century ago by a private organization.  The city refused, and the case went to court.  For news coverage of the case, visit the many news links posted at Blog from the Capital, or read Nina Totenberg's report at NPR.  Transcript of the oral arguments available from the Supreme Court website (document opens as a pdf).  It is a very interesting case, and I encourage you to read up on it.

My three regular readers know that I am an adamant advocate for the separation of church and state.  I see no reason for monuments of either the Ten Commandments or the Seven Aphorisms or of any other religious teachings to be placed in a tax-payer funded public park (accuse me of being a small government, fiscal conservative on this issue if you like!).  Surely this town has private, religious organizations that would gladly erect religious symbols on their property and in their places of worship.  Why should the tax-payer funded public park display a series of religious teachings, including "I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no other Gods before me"?  Unlike the "golden rule" given by Jesus (but lacking any explicit God language), the Ten Commandments are clearly and unabiguously religious in nature.  Tax-payer dollars shouldn't go to the purchase, display, or maintenance of religious monuments.

But this is much more than a tax-payer issue.  As I've said elsewhere, I believe that the church is at greater risk than the state when we violate the separation of church and state.  The erection of religious monuments in public parks on one hand smacks of a faith-based and triumphalistic marking of one's territory, as if to say, "we Christians are the majority, this is our place, we can do what we want, the rest of you will just have to deal with it."  This kind of pride can only poison the church and our proclamation of the Gospel.

Furthermore, there's a false sense of security in monuments - whether on public or private ground.  We can build all the monuments we want, but that doesn't guarantee faithfulness to what the monument enshrines.  In fact, erecting a monument is often the cheap and easy thing to do.

(For example, in Cuzco, Peru, once the thriving capital of the Inca people, a monument to Peru's indiginous peoples stands.  But in this Andean nation it is the descendants of the Inca who remain disproportionately in poverty, struggling with illiteracy and suffering with shorter life expectancies.  But . . . but the government dominated by the descendants of European conquistadores erected a monument!  Why bother do anything else?)

Finally, I do not want the church to expect the government to help us carry out our God-given, faith-based mission.  The mission of faith is the responsibility of people of faith, not the responsibility of government or of the broader, secular society.  It seems unreasonable for people of faith to ask the government to help them in their ministry of proclaiming religious teachings by accepting, displaying, and maintaining a religious monument in a public park.  This is also why I oppose prayer in school - teaching children the discipline of prayer is the responsibility of parents and communities of faith, not that of a tax-payer funded public school system.  This is why I am also uncomfortable with civic displays of religoius piety - invocations at political rallies or prayers at city council meetings - for it supports the notion that we're a "Christian nation" or that our faith is supported by the government and political leaders.  That kind of complacency inhibits our prophetic mission to speak truth to power.

Well I could go on, but I won't.  You three regular readers already know where I'm coming from, and probably haven't read this far anyway . . . ;-)

I'm not entirely satisfied with my experience of the church calendar in late October, November, and December. Let me try to explain.First, I'll make this much clear: I'm no scholar of neither the liturgy nor the lectionary (Derek and others... Chris

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. In the case, the Summum religion has asked the Pleasant Grove City Council to accept a monument of their Seven Aphorism to be placed in a public... Chris

If you're on Facebook, please join Augsburg Fortress Advocates.  Here's why.

These days are tough ones for Augsburg Fortress, the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  Truth be told, denominational publishing has never been a get-rich-quick scheme - developing products for a very narrow and budget-limited market of penny-pinching German and Scandanavian Lutherans isn't the ideal business opportunity - but in a recession economy it is even harder.

In response to continued financial challenges, Augsburg Fortress is closing its retail stores and eliminating its consumer-oriented product lines (press release here).  Augsburg Fortress will continue to develop and invest in congregational resources, particularly in the areas of education and worship.  The Fortress Books line will continue serving the academic market, too. 

Please remember: Augsburg Fortress is funded soley through sales revenue.  There are no benevolence dollars underwriting Augsburg Fortress' ministry.  It is a business dedicated to serving the Lutheran church.  It can only produce and sell products that generate revenue.

This is not entirely surprising to me, an Augsburg Fortress customer since entering seminary 11 years ago and former sales representative for the company.  In an internet world, bricks and mortar are costly.  And for a small publisher, it can be difficult to promote good, theologically sound books on spirituality and faith when you're competing for shelf space with much larger, theologically flexible publishers of feel-good fluff.  This move isn't surprising. 

But it is saddening, for I fear that it may only be a harbinger of changes to come.  In the past ten years Augsburg Fortress has gone through several reorganizations, including the sale of its Ecclesiastical Arts division based in Philadelphia just a few years ago.  So how can you support Augsburg Fortress, and help it in its core business of providing resources for congregations, so that future press releases announce the company's expansion rather than its downsizing?  Here are a few ideas.

• Pray for the ELCA's ministry of publishing.  Nothing good happens without prayer.  Please pray for our church's ministry of publishing, that it might be a faithful, healthy ministry providing resources for congregations to carry out their ministry in the Lutheran tradition.
• Look first at Augsburg Fortress materials when selecting church resources.  This is my biggest gripe.  I have heard time and again - both as a sales representative and as a regular church person - of churches who purchase this or that product from another vendor to save a few pennies, or out of convenience.  Thriftiness and convenience are good things, but if there's a difference of a few pennies or of an extra day of delivery, couldn't it be worth it to send your money to the Lutheran publishing ministry rather than some other company?  After all, it is only through sales revenue that Augsburg Fortress makes money, and it is only with sales revenue that it can develop Lutheran resources for Lutheran congregations.  If you care about being Lutheran and having Lutheran resources, please, look first at Augsburg Fortress materials when selecting church resources - from certificates to communion wafers to curriculum to paraments.
• Speak in support of Augsburg Fortress in collegial, synodical, and ecumenical gatherings.  Be an advocate for your Lutheran publishing house.  Tell others how you've used Augsburg Fortress materials in your church, and encourage others to do the same.  Invite authors or educators to present Augsburg Fortress books and materials at your church.  Link to Augsburg Fortress from your church website.  If you have something bad to say, tell Augsburg Fortress directly instead of blabbering in the lobby at synod assembly.  Which leads me to my next point:
• Provide feedback to Augsburg Fortress to help them in the development of new resources.  Augsburg Fortress has some wickedly smart people on staff creating some really good resources, but they can't be in every one of the nearly 11,000 churches in the ELCA.  They can't possibly know how you do ministry at St John's by the Gas Station.  So let them know.  Tell them what has worked and what hasn't worked.  Give them your feedback.  As a former insider, I know they listen to your feedback.  They can't enact every piece of advice - such as the advice I received once that Augsburg Fortress should create a curriculum teaching Reformation hymnody to teenagers - but when they hear trends in the feedback, they act.
• Purchase directly from Augsburg Fortress rather than through a third-party vendor (such as Amazon or the local Christian bookstore), thus cutting out the "middle man" and providing more revenue to our ministry of publishing.  This is another one of my major gripes.  I had congregations purchasing quantities of The Lutheran Handbook from Amazon.com rather than from Augsburg Fortress directly, because they were able to save about $.75 per book that way.  "I'm still buying the Augsburg Fortress product," they told me.  But . . . but when Augsburg Fortress sells to Amazon, they do so at the 40% "trade discount."  For example: that book which lists for $10 at the Augsburg Fortress website may sell for $8 at Amazon.  When you purchase from Augsburg Fortress, they get every single one of your ten dollars.  When you purchase from Amazon, Augsburg Fortress only receives about six of your dollars.  Yes, you've saved two dollars, but the publishing house has lost out on four dollars of revenue . . . four dollars (multiplied by hundreds and thousands of product sales) that would otherwise go toward the creation of Lutheran education, catechetical, or worship resources.  Isn't the Lutheran ministry of publishing worth your two dollars?
• Be forgiving.  I've heard some pretty nasty things said about Augsburg Fortress over the years by disgruntled customers who perhaps didn't get an order on time or who found an error in a curriculum or who were angry that their favorite Bible study series was discontinued.  I once drove eight hours to call on a customer, only to be yelled at for something printed twenty-five years earlier in a Fortres Press book!  At times these customers may be right, and at other times I think they're blowing things out of proportion.  But either way, a spirit of forgiveness is called for.  Surely we've all screwed up at times in our own lives and ministries . . . 
• Again, pray.  The ministry of publishing is so important . . . something we Lutherans should be particularly sensitive to and appreciative of.  Pray for the writers and editors and product developers and business managers of Augsburg Fortress.  They need your prayers.

-----
PS.  Though I worked as a sales representative for Augsburg Fortress in the past, this message and the Augsburg Fortress Advocates Facebook group are completely my own creations, independent of the fine people at Augsburg Fortress. 

A great big Thank You to all who have served and to those currently serving in our nation's armed forces. 

I have always been impressed with the selflessness of those who serve our nation in this way, dedicating their lives to their work not just from 9am to 5pm, or for a 40, 50, or even 60 hour work week (as many of us do), but 24/7 for months and years on end.  Service in the armed forces exacts a greater demand on the entirety of one's life than do other lines of work.

And for that I give thanks.  Not only for those extraordinary moments when you put your life on the line in battle, but for the day-in-day-out sacrifice of self-determination that you make.  Your sacrifice of daily self determination allows the rest of us to enjoy the self determination and freedoms promised to us in the Constitution.

Thank you.

- - - - -

Related writings for this Veterans Day:
Proud to be a Patriot (May 27, 2006)
Praising God, Honoring Country (May 22, 2006)
More Thoughts on God & Country (May 25, 2006)
WWII Vets and BMW's (May 30, 2006)

This blog, born in May 2005, may be near the end of its lifespan.  I'm just not sure.  With the ways I use Facebook - to easily share newspaper and online articles, to express brief comments about current issues, to connect with others on certain topics . . . - I sometimes wonder if the longer and much less connective format of a blog is even worth it.

Of course, it is not just a matter of which online platform I should use.  Facebook and Twitter - if I could ever get into Twitter - have their limitations, too.  More importantly, I wonder if this blog has served its purpose in my life.  You see, The Lutheran Zephyr filled a void in my life in that interim period from my days as a non-ordained seminary graduate with serious questions of call, to today when I'm knocking on the door of a call as an ordained pastor.  This blog was a place to share ideas about ministry when I wasn't actively involved in ministry, but wishing beyond all belief that I could be.  But as I look ahead just a few weeks to a congregational vote and the beginning of a call and career in pastoral ministry, all of a sudden I'm not sure if The Lutheran Zephyr is quite as important to me as it used to be.

And it's not all of a sudden.  My blogging has slowed down over the past year, and particularly over the past few months.  I used to write several times per week, but over the past two months it has been much less frequent.  My time and energy are more directed to work and my growing family.  The pixels of The Lutheran Zephyr are just not as appealing as they used to be.

There's also the cost.  More than two years ago I purchased my own url (www.lutheranzephyr.com), I pay $8.95/mo to use some extra services at Typepad, and I pay $18/yr for somebody to host my blog at my url.  It's not a ton of money, but it adds up.  And if I'm on the fence about the future of my blog, and if I can blog elsewhere for free, then why pay?

Though at times I've gotten consumed about the number of visitors to my blog, checking statistics on an almost daily basis, those days were few and they are far behind me.  At its best this blog has been a place for me to express and share ideas, to connect with others, and to grow.  If others enjoyed reading it, all the better.  The Lutheran Zephyr was never was intended to be a polished online journal, but simply a personal journal that happened to be online.  I am grateful for the practice of regular writing that this blog has given me, for writing is a skill I truly value and enjoy using.  But now that I will soon be writing sermons, lessons, Bible studies, and other materials with great frequency, I wonder if the impetus to blog will only continue to decline.

We'll see, and I'd welcome the insights of other bloggers out there, particularly those bloggers for whom the purpose and practice of blogging has changed over the years.  At the least this blog will stay up until my eventual ordination . . . which might be an appropriate time to bid farewell to The Lutheran Zephyr.

Discernment and deliberations to be continued . . .

A great big Thank You to all who have served and to those currently serving in our nation's armed forces. I have always been impressed with the selflessness of those who serve our nation in this way, dedicating their lives... Chris

This blog, born in May 2005, may be near the end of its lifespan. I'm just not sure. With the ways I use Facebook - to easily share newspaper and online articles, to express brief comments about current issues, to... Chris

I was getting sick of the Typepad blog design templates, so I decided to play with building my own.  It's not easy to do . . . for me, anyway.  But since most of you read via a "reader," email, or Facebook note, I guess the look of the actual blogsite doesn't make much of a difference, anyway . . .

If you have any opinions on my redesigned page, or any advice on blog design, let me know.

Thanks!

If you're on Facebook, please join Augsburg Fortress Advocates. Here's why.These days are tough ones for Augsburg Fortress, the publishing ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Truth be told, denominational publishing has never been a get-rich-quick scheme -... Chris

This "Obama is a socialist" debate might have fallen to the back burner for a little bit, as Election Day Monday morning quarterbacking goes into full throttle and President-Elect Obama begins preparations for becoming our country's next President.  But I imagine that accusations of socialism will resurface when Obama proposes his first budget next spring.

Those accusations are wrong.  Obama is no socialist.

As I commented on my Facebook page repeatedly over the past week, socialism involves state control over the means of production.  State ownership of major industries and the finical sector, for example, would be trademarks of socialism.  Obama's higher tax rates for the wealthiest in our society may or may not be good policy, but it is not socialism.  Private enterprise will remain private under an Obama administration.

Ironically, it has been under a Republican administration that our country has moved closer to socialism than ever.  The federal government now owns or controls some of America's largest banks and insurance companies.  Wall Street now has an inside-the-beltway mailing address.  And another trademark of socialism - the abrogation of civil rights - has increased under the Bush presidency.  Warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite confinement, wide-ranging claims of "executive privilege" . . .

But the accusations that Obama and the democrats are socialists will remain, a legacy of this nasty campaign whose negative tone was brought to you by John McCain.  Factually that claim is incredibly erroneous, but it is also terribly disturbing.  A few thoughts.

"Socialism" is synonymous with "unAmerican," or "unPatriotic."  Not long ago in our nation's memory we fought a Cold War against the Soviet Union and the communist world.  It was an us-vs-them,  you're-either-for-us-or-against-us world.  Democracy, free markets, and freedoms vs. dictatorship, state-controlled socialist economies, and repression.  John McCain, a product of the Cold War (which was one of his great vulnerabilities in facing a post-boom opponent), knew quite well what he was doing when he applied the "socialist" tag to Obama - he was calling Obama an enemy of America (an easy thing to do when talking about an African-American whose middle name is Hussein).

I was also struck how any recognition of socio-economic inequality in our society, any criticism of capitalism, was deemed "socialist."  On Facebook, on blogs, and in the soundbites of supporters at McCain rallies, I have read and heard claims that "taking from the rich to give to the poor" is socialism, and that even talking about rich and poor is fomenting class warfare.  If recognizing and lamenting class distinctions in society is socialist and unAmerican, then should we say that the Bible is a socialist text book?  Take a look:

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.
- Luke 1:51-52

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them with food and clothing.
- Deuteronomy 10:17-18

Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.
- Zechariah 7:9-10

5Recognizing class distinctions and seeking to address the plight of the poor does not make one a socialist.  (Yes, there's a What's the Role of Government? question here, which I'm not entertaining in this blogpost, but is a terribly important yet often overlooked issue.)

I hope that I'm wrong, and that these hateful claims of Obama's supposed socialism will not return to the mainstream political debate.  Such claims are factually wrong and tinged wth the slash-and-burn, you're-either-for-us-or-against-us struggle that defined the United State's global struggle during the Cold War, and which became a domestic plan d'guerre over the past 8 years.

In building a winning coalition of religious voters, Barack Obama cut into the so-called God gap that puts frequent worshippers in the Republican column, won Catholics, made inroads with younger evangelicals, and racked up huge numbers with minorities and people with no religious affiliation.

That's the opening paragraph of an Associated Press piece by Eric Gorski posted in the Washington Post's On Faith online section, Obama results show gains in key religious voters.  It offers a basic glance at how religious voters cast their ballots on Tuesday.  I certainly hope and expect more substantive analysis of religious voters in the coming days and weeks, but perhaps this article represents a modest start to the discussion.

But there's a big problem with that opening paragraph.  Let's review the categories of "religious voters" offered by Mr. Gorski in the AP piece:

• "frequent worshippers"
• "Catholics"
• "younger evangelicals"
• "minorities"
• "people with no religious affiliation"

Excuse me?  Are Catholics, younger evangelicals, or minorities not frequent worshippers?  Are minorities to be defined more by their race than by their faith? On the flip side, are white voters to be defined more by their faith than by their race?

Of course, "frequent worshippers" is meant to describe "white, evangelical frequent worshippers" or "white, evangelical, frequent worshippers over age 40."  But by failing to be descriptive in this term, Mr. Gorski connotes that minorities, Catholics, and younger evangelicals are not frequent worshippers.

And to that end, perhaps Mr. Gorski could have led this piece not with the tired, old-paradigm categories of religious voters, but with the essence of this quote, burried in the middle of his report:

"This is a coalition that includes white Christians," [John] Green [a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life] said of Obama's faith-based bloc. "It's just white Christians aren't the senior partners in this coalition."

White Christians aren't the senior partners in the religious coalition that supported President-Elect Barack Obama.  White Christians - for now, anyway - are not the driving force in American politics.  Let's repeat that.

White Christians are not the driving force in American politics right now.

I don't doubt that white evangelicals will be back in force in two or four years, but I am glad to see the beginning of a redefinition of the "religious vote."  For Christianity is not just the domain of white, suburban and rural evangelicals concerned about gay marriage and abortion.  Rather, the Christian Church is also home to people of color, young people, and people for whom issues of poverty and social justice are a political priority.

Not only did Barack Obama win on Tuesday, but so did the many religious voters who are not comfortable being lumped together with the Christian Right.  Redefining our terms and recognizing the diverse interests and politics of people of faith . . . that's a change I can believe in.

In building a winning coalition of religious voters, Barack Obama cut into the so-called God gap that puts frequent worshippers in the Republican column, won Catholics, made inroads with younger evangelicals, and racked up huge numbers with minorities and people... Chris

One of the more under-discussed issues in American politics is that of the role of government in addressing our favorite issues.  We might agree that education is good or that suburban sprawl is bad or that astroturf is evil, but how do we understand the role of government in regulating or addressing issues of education, sprawl, or astroturf?  This is a fundamental issue, one with which I wrestle considerably, but which I don't think gets enough air-time in our sound-bite political process.  Just becaue the power exists in government to do something, does it mean that government should necessarily do it?

Related to this point, I also wrestle with what Christians should seek from government.  If the Bible and the Christian tradition speak to people of faith, can we rightfully expect or demand of our (secular) government (of a religiously diverse nation) that it enact certain laws or policies "because the Bible says so"?  For exampe, the Bible expresses a deep concern for the plight of the poor, and calls people of faith to care for the needy.  Should Christians, then, implicate the government in responding to that faith-based call to serve neighbor?  Surely there are non-religious public policy reasons to serve the poor, and perhaps Christians should employ those arguments when calling on the government to act for the poor.  Again, just because the power exists in government to do something, does it mean that government should necessarily do it, and does it mean that Christians should seek to use the power of government to enact their priorities? 

I surely believe government has an important role to play in society - duh.  And I think that Christians should be engaged with government.  But I think we need to clearly articulate what we understand the role of government to be.  And I'm not there yet . . .

Perhaps I need a political science class to help me sort this out.

Today I served as a non-partisan Chief Officer of Election at a precinct with about 3500 registered voters.  I had served as a Chief at only one other election - our June primary where less than 300 voters cast ballots.  Today, needless to say, was more demanding than a low profile primary. 

But rather than fatigue, the word best used to describe my feeling is Goosebumps.  Here are a few bullet points, since I lack the coherence to string together a more thoughtful reflection, about the Goosebump-inducing moments of today's experience:

• the large number of voters born in 1990, 1989 . . . first-time voters.  What a historic moment for those new voters.
• the visit by a four-member delegation from Romania, here to observe how we ran the polling station.  Talking with these leaders - who twenty years ago were on the cusp of overthrowing a communist dictatorship - was truly an honor and humbling experience.
• speaking Spanish about the privilege of voting with a Cuban-born US citizen who fled her country shortly after Castro seized power in a military cou d'etat.  To see her anger about what happened in Cuba and her pride in voting as a US citizen . . . . simultaneously heartbreaking and inspiring.
• nearly 600 absentee voters, approximately 2100 ballots cast on-site today - approx. 77% turnout.  That turnout is so much better than usual . . .
• a line to vote forming at 5am, an hour before the polls opened.  When we opened the polls at 6am, approximately 150 people were in line waiting to cast their ballot.  (Oddly enough, we had about 1000 voters from 6am-10am, and only about 1000 from 10am-7pm.  No evening rush!  That is incredibly bizarre.  Is there any reporting on that fact?)
• A bipartisan team of 14 officers - and several partisan poll watchers - and all worked together for the same goal of helping people to vote.  Talk about putting Country First!

Goosebumps.  And now it is time for a shower and some sleep.  G'night