Day off, had to buy Pirogies for a dinner tonight, and had a couple of months bottles to return, so I loaded them into the truck and headed to Wegman's.
I decided I deserved a treat, but I wanted to be healthy.
"Wegman's has Sushi I thought!" excitedly.
I went over to the little place and quickly realized that Wegman's made ahead of time sushi is MORE EXPENSIVE than the great, custom made, fresh sushi of Kuni's.
I like Wegman's, but they are way off with their sushi pricing.
Drew's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/19/2007 14:09 #41714
Wegman's SushiCategory: food
10/17/2007 23:07 #41697
10 Things I like about scrabulousCategory: 10 things
1. It's playing scrabble.
2. It's playing multiple games of scrabble at once.
3. It's free.
4. It's at your own pace.
5. You can talk trash as you play.
6. You can check the dictionary and two word lists as you play.
7. I can play with friends near and far.
8. It doesn't involve my wife having simulated affairs or dieing.
9. Good feelings when I log in and see its my turn.
10. I haven't lost a game yet.
If you are on facebook, look for me (my last name is Ludwig) and start a game!
2. It's playing multiple games of scrabble at once.
3. It's free.
4. It's at your own pace.
5. You can talk trash as you play.
6. You can check the dictionary and two word lists as you play.
7. I can play with friends near and far.
8. It doesn't involve my wife having simulated affairs or dieing.
9. Good feelings when I log in and see its my turn.
10. I haven't lost a game yet.
If you are on facebook, look for me (my last name is Ludwig) and start a game!
mrmike - 10/21/07 21:07
Gotcha!
Gotcha!
jenks - 10/20/07 15:13
I suck at scrabble... or so I thought- apparently I kick ass!
EQUINE with the Q on a double letter score and the whole thing on triple word score! Go 75 point word! Take that, Rachel P! ;P I think that's the best word I've ever done, even if it's not JONQUIL which is my mother's ultimate scrabble word.
I suck at scrabble... or so I thought- apparently I kick ass!
EQUINE with the Q on a double letter score and the whole thing on triple word score! Go 75 point word! Take that, Rachel P! ;P I think that's the best word I've ever done, even if it's not JONQUIL which is my mother's ultimate scrabble word.
jenks - 10/18/07 08:24
if you use the two letter word lists, I don't know... I played against the computer before and it kicked my ass, AND it was totally not fun, b/c all it ever did was these little two letter combos that would make four "words" in one. I prefer words that I've actually heard of before.
if you use the two letter word lists, I don't know... I played against the computer before and it kicked my ass, AND it was totally not fun, b/c all it ever did was these little two letter combos that would make four "words" in one. I prefer words that I've actually heard of before.
leetee - 10/18/07 07:28
Well, then.... i guess i will pass on looking you up for a game. Not sure i am up for a game i have no chance of winning. I will stick to being beat by (e:Ladycroft) via email... not that i think i have much of a chance of winning against her, either, but i was ahead for a short time!
Well, then.... i guess i will pass on looking you up for a game. Not sure i am up for a game i have no chance of winning. I will stick to being beat by (e:Ladycroft) via email... not that i think i have much of a chance of winning against her, either, but i was ahead for a short time!
tinypliny - 10/18/07 00:05
Mental note: Check this phenomenon out.
Mental note: Check this phenomenon out.
drew - 10/17/07 23:44
Leetee: slim and none.
Leetee: slim and none.
theecarey - 10/17/07 23:16
I'm with you on that; I LOVE Scrabulous! Although not a registered user, I use and am pleased with the email based version. The message box is a fun feature- particularly when playing with people from afar.
I'm with you on that; I LOVE Scrabulous! Although not a registered user, I use and am pleased with the email based version. The message box is a fun feature- particularly when playing with people from afar.
leetee - 10/17/07 23:16
Hmm.... that last one made me think twice. If you haven't lost yet, what are my chances to win against you? :O(
Hmm.... that last one made me think twice. If you haven't lost yet, what are my chances to win against you? :O(
10/15/2007 14:48 #41661
10 Things I like about Karl BarthCategory: 10 things
1. He was a pioneer. He was trained in theological liberalism, but left that camp when it failed him and created a whole new way of doing theology.
2. He was, at the same time, humble. He realized that his theology was only for the time and place in which it was written. He knew that there would always be new questions, and theologians would always have to start over from the beginning.
3. He fought the Nazi's. Almost everyone in Germany went along with the German church in endorsing Hitler, but Barth wouldn't and got fired for it. (Bonhoeffer one-upped Barth by dieing as a resister, but Barth was still pretty cool).
4. He kept writing until he died, and still didn't finish his work.
5. He was, arguably, the first post-modern theologian.
6. Despite saying so much (his major opus, Church Dogmatics, stacks about four feet high), he also knew when to keep his mouth shut. He was able to say "I don't know" when he didn't.
7. He was cool with other people. Despite being very much a reformed, protestant, Christian theologian, he had a whole lot of appreciation/dialouge with people outside of those traditions.
8. He learned as he went. Barth had a lot to learn when he was first hired as a professor, and often had to go straight from the library to his lectures. His students loved learning with him as much as from him.
9. He reached out. Despite being very much in demand as a theologian, he made time to preach to prisoners, because he knew that God cared for prisoners.
10. His quote: "We should preach with the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other."
2. He was, at the same time, humble. He realized that his theology was only for the time and place in which it was written. He knew that there would always be new questions, and theologians would always have to start over from the beginning.
3. He fought the Nazi's. Almost everyone in Germany went along with the German church in endorsing Hitler, but Barth wouldn't and got fired for it. (Bonhoeffer one-upped Barth by dieing as a resister, but Barth was still pretty cool).
4. He kept writing until he died, and still didn't finish his work.
5. He was, arguably, the first post-modern theologian.
6. Despite saying so much (his major opus, Church Dogmatics, stacks about four feet high), he also knew when to keep his mouth shut. He was able to say "I don't know" when he didn't.
7. He was cool with other people. Despite being very much a reformed, protestant, Christian theologian, he had a whole lot of appreciation/dialouge with people outside of those traditions.
8. He learned as he went. Barth had a lot to learn when he was first hired as a professor, and often had to go straight from the library to his lectures. His students loved learning with him as much as from him.
9. He reached out. Despite being very much in demand as a theologian, he made time to preach to prisoners, because he knew that God cared for prisoners.
10. His quote: "We should preach with the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other."
10/15/2007 10:04 #41658
Cable?I got a new digital camera, but do not currently have a card reader/USB cable. My brother will give me one come thanksgiving, but I want to start posting pics now! My guess is that one of you technical people has an extra one to spare. Am I right?
10/11/2007 11:36 #41596
Churches and Gay PeopleCategory: religion
Last Sunday, members of my Sunday School asked me to teach a class on homosexuality and the Bible.
Which I expected would happen eventually, because really, Christians tend to talk about sex more than anything else.
But I was hoping to avoid said topic, because people tend to fight and not listen and judge when they talk about sex. And I want to avoid these things.
But they really wanted to talk about it, and promised they would be kind, and hinted that a lot of people would be interested and come to hear if I talked about what the Bible said about Homosexuality, and really, the proud part of me wanted a lot of people in my class, and I thought I could make an even handed presentation so I said, "Yes, I will do the class."
But since then I have changed my mind.
And here's why. There are no (out of the closet, at least) gay people in our church. So the class would be full of people that want to discuss an issue that DOESN'T apply to them, and that doesn't seem to be a worthwhile use of our time.
So instead, I plan on offering a class called, "Why we aren't going to talk about homosexuality for at least one year."
Points will include:
Right now, nobody (on any side of the issue) is open to change. If education does not lead to a change in heart or behavior, than it isn't really worthwhile or necessary education, in my book.
Right now, this does not (as far as I know) directly apply to anybody that will be attending the class. It is a waste of time to talk about hypotheticals when there is real stuff that we can deal with in the moment.
Christians have a reputation for being obsessed with sex and hypocritical about it. Such a class would feed into that unhealthy reputation.
Our goal for the next year is to welcome young families and people without a Christian community. Right now, we need to learn how to do this, and this class does not feed into said goal (It also does not feed into our mission of Loving God and Loving People, at least not right now).
There are right ways and wrong ways to develop any ethical position, and I would much rather teach the right ways to develop said position with a non-polarizing issue, so that those same principals can be applied to other situations.
So maybe in one year after focusing on other things, we will be ready to address this issue which I know IS important to talk about, for people of all positions.
So my question, critical thinking friends, is: Am I dodging? Is this a cop-out? Will this make things better? Worse? I am I being true to my calling, both to work for justice and to preach the word faithfully?
I really want your opinion on these matters, so please don't be shy.
drew - 10/12/07 11:23
Sure enough, but as Janelle explained, its a little bit complicated.
Officially, the PC(USA), the denomination to which I belong, has barred non-celibate gay people from marriage and/or ordination. There is a large movement within the denomination to change this, and another large movement that is fighting this change.
Because the latter group thinks that the denomination as a whole is compromising, that group is leaving the denomination, and thus getting smaller.
Because the former group doesn't really do a good job of helping people become Christians, that group is also gettings smaller, but not quite as quickly.
So, from a demographic standpoint, it looks like the policies will change, but at that point we may be such a small group of people that we will be irrelevant. Calculating the rate of change: soul calculus! (that's a great song waiting to be written)
Some churches, such as First and Westminster in our neighborhood, have become aligned themselves with those in the first movement--they want the rules to change. Some churches in that movement break the rules, others ignore them, others do a semantic dance to play by the letter of the rules but not the spirit.
Others have declared themselves to be in the second group. Sometimes those in that group have organized to prosecute any rule-breakers in the first group. Lately, they have done that less and decided that they are better off forming a separate group that is not a part of the same denomination as those in the first group.
My church has made no declaration, and would have a hard time reaching a consensus, either way. We are like most Presbyterians in that way. Some people think that this throws GLBT people under the bus. Others think that this throws the Bible under the bus. A lot of us realize that this has been a battle for the church for some time and are tired of fighting. Others are too eager to fight.
In short, we don't march in the pride parade, but we don't hold up signs and shout at the parade, either.
I know that we have lost people from both sides of the aisle by not taking a firm position, and I understand how keeping quiet almost (never?) helps people move forward. These two facts mean I should probably speak up, but as soon as I give a position, it can (likely will) kill any discussion.
I find this important, because both of the groups outlined above have flaws, and both could learn from one another, but instead they blame and fear one another. Because of the way they treat their "opponents," I do not want to be a part of either group.
Anyway, the church's unwritten position is something like this.
All people are welcome. All people are invited.
All people are also sinful (gay and straight).
God forgives all (or, at the very least, all who express a desire to be forgiven--depending on who you ask).
God also calls us all to radically re-shape our lives. Everything, our time; our money; our homes; and yes, our sexuality (regardless of orientation) is changed by the new life that we discover in Christ. In short, we no longer live to please ourselves (we found that didn't work anyway) but join with Christ in expressing his love for (and therefore reconciliation with) the world. This is done through death (not attacking and killing death, but accepting our own deaths, joining ourselves with Christ's suffering on the cross) and resurrection (again, Christ's resurrection--a new life that is the same, but radically different at the same time.)
Therefore (getting more particular, again)If your sex life is more important than following Jesus, you cannot be a follower. We have to be ready to even abandon our own mothers and our own lives.
Now for some particulars, that may or may not reflect the theology outlined above, may or may not be good and faithful, but are what we do:
GLBT are welcomed into membership, and encouraged to join us in our worship and in our mission. Some in our church would consider their behavior sinful, but would likely keep their mouths shut, as they also recognize their own sinful behavior, and don't like having it pointed out, either. Extremely harmful sin, however, is dealt with by the community. We recently had to do just that, and it wasn't about sex, but I won't say anymore because we love and respect the person involved.
GLBT people are not likely to be elected as leaders (this is against our constitution, but is often ignored and rarely prosecuted). I am barred from marrying a gay couple, but allowed (by the denomination and the state) to "bless a union."
If I did bless a union, the congregation would be upset with me, and likely would not allow it to happen in our building.
Sure enough, but as Janelle explained, its a little bit complicated.
Officially, the PC(USA), the denomination to which I belong, has barred non-celibate gay people from marriage and/or ordination. There is a large movement within the denomination to change this, and another large movement that is fighting this change.
Because the latter group thinks that the denomination as a whole is compromising, that group is leaving the denomination, and thus getting smaller.
Because the former group doesn't really do a good job of helping people become Christians, that group is also gettings smaller, but not quite as quickly.
So, from a demographic standpoint, it looks like the policies will change, but at that point we may be such a small group of people that we will be irrelevant. Calculating the rate of change: soul calculus! (that's a great song waiting to be written)
Some churches, such as First and Westminster in our neighborhood, have become aligned themselves with those in the first movement--they want the rules to change. Some churches in that movement break the rules, others ignore them, others do a semantic dance to play by the letter of the rules but not the spirit.
Others have declared themselves to be in the second group. Sometimes those in that group have organized to prosecute any rule-breakers in the first group. Lately, they have done that less and decided that they are better off forming a separate group that is not a part of the same denomination as those in the first group.
My church has made no declaration, and would have a hard time reaching a consensus, either way. We are like most Presbyterians in that way. Some people think that this throws GLBT people under the bus. Others think that this throws the Bible under the bus. A lot of us realize that this has been a battle for the church for some time and are tired of fighting. Others are too eager to fight.
In short, we don't march in the pride parade, but we don't hold up signs and shout at the parade, either.
I know that we have lost people from both sides of the aisle by not taking a firm position, and I understand how keeping quiet almost (never?) helps people move forward. These two facts mean I should probably speak up, but as soon as I give a position, it can (likely will) kill any discussion.
I find this important, because both of the groups outlined above have flaws, and both could learn from one another, but instead they blame and fear one another. Because of the way they treat their "opponents," I do not want to be a part of either group.
Anyway, the church's unwritten position is something like this.
All people are welcome. All people are invited.
All people are also sinful (gay and straight).
God forgives all (or, at the very least, all who express a desire to be forgiven--depending on who you ask).
God also calls us all to radically re-shape our lives. Everything, our time; our money; our homes; and yes, our sexuality (regardless of orientation) is changed by the new life that we discover in Christ. In short, we no longer live to please ourselves (we found that didn't work anyway) but join with Christ in expressing his love for (and therefore reconciliation with) the world. This is done through death (not attacking and killing death, but accepting our own deaths, joining ourselves with Christ's suffering on the cross) and resurrection (again, Christ's resurrection--a new life that is the same, but radically different at the same time.)
Therefore (getting more particular, again)If your sex life is more important than following Jesus, you cannot be a follower. We have to be ready to even abandon our own mothers and our own lives.
Now for some particulars, that may or may not reflect the theology outlined above, may or may not be good and faithful, but are what we do:
GLBT are welcomed into membership, and encouraged to join us in our worship and in our mission. Some in our church would consider their behavior sinful, but would likely keep their mouths shut, as they also recognize their own sinful behavior, and don't like having it pointed out, either. Extremely harmful sin, however, is dealt with by the community. We recently had to do just that, and it wasn't about sex, but I won't say anymore because we love and respect the person involved.
GLBT people are not likely to be elected as leaders (this is against our constitution, but is often ignored and rarely prosecuted). I am barred from marrying a gay couple, but allowed (by the denomination and the state) to "bless a union."
If I did bless a union, the congregation would be upset with me, and likely would not allow it to happen in our building.
janelle - 10/12/07 09:26
Interesting point about church members having the right to know the church's position (e:Libertad)!
In one sense, the members ARE the church. So to some extent, the members are the ones who determine what the church's position is. That's where the unity bit gets tricky, because it can be difficult for the members to find a position for the church that allows for diversity in belief on the issue instead of splitting the church.
I think it definitely can be done in time though!
Interesting point about church members having the right to know the church's position (e:Libertad)!
In one sense, the members ARE the church. So to some extent, the members are the ones who determine what the church's position is. That's where the unity bit gets tricky, because it can be difficult for the members to find a position for the church that allows for diversity in belief on the issue instead of splitting the church.
I think it definitely can be done in time though!
libertad - 10/12/07 09:14
Most openly gay people I know want their religious organization's views about homosexuals clearly spelled out. I actually assumed that your church had already done so and thought that they were one of the many churches that march at gay pride every year. I imagine this must be a difficult situation for you. Keeping unity is important, but on issues like this I think members have a right to know their church's position.
Most openly gay people I know want their religious organization's views about homosexuals clearly spelled out. I actually assumed that your church had already done so and thought that they were one of the many churches that march at gay pride every year. I imagine this must be a difficult situation for you. Keeping unity is important, but on issues like this I think members have a right to know their church's position.
drew - 10/12/07 00:24
Wow. Good stuff. A little more clarification:
Class would be for grown-ups, but may include some high school students.
If I did have the "Why we aren't doing the class" class, it would be advertised as such.
Bringing Christian gay people would be part of this, but not to be a part of a debate. I don't want this to turn into a "sides" issue. It would be to make a group of "them" into humans.
I would never force anybody out or otherwise violate a person's choice to participate or not. If this class did happen, there would be very clear ground rules that would have to be agreed on to even be a part of the class. I normally don't do this with other classes, but really sexuality has become THE litmus test by which churches divide. Now, there are times for division, I will admit that, but I also think that people of good faith can disagree about rules for ordination and marriage and remain in community together. In fact, I think they SHOULD remain in community together.
Janelle is right--I have big plans for this crowd. I have already pushed them a lot in just 6 months, and I think that this might put them into overload. That being said, I like the church and trust the church, and we will have to deal with these questions sometime, but I hesitate because I think the conversation will e more fruitful if we first grow even more in collegiality, generosity and trust (again--all of these things are pretty high, but I've only been part of the community for 6 months, so they aren't to the point with me that they could be.)
I really do appreciate the feedback.
Wow. Good stuff. A little more clarification:
Class would be for grown-ups, but may include some high school students.
If I did have the "Why we aren't doing the class" class, it would be advertised as such.
Bringing Christian gay people would be part of this, but not to be a part of a debate. I don't want this to turn into a "sides" issue. It would be to make a group of "them" into humans.
I would never force anybody out or otherwise violate a person's choice to participate or not. If this class did happen, there would be very clear ground rules that would have to be agreed on to even be a part of the class. I normally don't do this with other classes, but really sexuality has become THE litmus test by which churches divide. Now, there are times for division, I will admit that, but I also think that people of good faith can disagree about rules for ordination and marriage and remain in community together. In fact, I think they SHOULD remain in community together.
Janelle is right--I have big plans for this crowd. I have already pushed them a lot in just 6 months, and I think that this might put them into overload. That being said, I like the church and trust the church, and we will have to deal with these questions sometime, but I hesitate because I think the conversation will e more fruitful if we first grow even more in collegiality, generosity and trust (again--all of these things are pretty high, but I've only been part of the community for 6 months, so they aren't to the point with me that they could be.)
I really do appreciate the feedback.
jim - 10/11/07 23:20
Janelle, it looks like one of your comments got eaten, I'll email Paul about it.
Janelle, it looks like one of your comments got eaten, I'll email Paul about it.
janelle - 10/11/07 23:20
I take a more long term perspective. Drew has a larger vision for the church of it being a community church, which among many things also includes being welcoming to the GLBT community. When you have a vision, you have to lay a foundation. This church needs healing from is past division and a foundation of trust in one another and in its minister. Fear of the congregation fracturing from introducing the topic prematurely is IMO a perfectly legitimate reason. A fractured church is an ineffective church that will not reach its vision of being a community church that's inclusive of GLBT community, it could halt what might be an incredible ministry or at least make it significantly more difficult to accomplish.
I think the discussion strays from actual issue, which is, should the topic be addressed now, or later, when the congregation is ready. Drew never says that he WON'T address the topic, he is simply wondering if the topic should be best addressed now or later and if it's a cop out to discuss later.
I think the conversation also represents a common issue in civil rights. Both the black civil rights movement and the womens rights movement struggled internally over whether change should happen immediately at any cost or whether a long term approach has the best outcomes in the long run. There's plenty to debate on both sides with no clear cut answer in my mind.
I take a more long term perspective. Drew has a larger vision for the church of it being a community church, which among many things also includes being welcoming to the GLBT community. When you have a vision, you have to lay a foundation. This church needs healing from is past division and a foundation of trust in one another and in its minister. Fear of the congregation fracturing from introducing the topic prematurely is IMO a perfectly legitimate reason. A fractured church is an ineffective church that will not reach its vision of being a community church that's inclusive of GLBT community, it could halt what might be an incredible ministry or at least make it significantly more difficult to accomplish.
I think the discussion strays from actual issue, which is, should the topic be addressed now, or later, when the congregation is ready. Drew never says that he WON'T address the topic, he is simply wondering if the topic should be best addressed now or later and if it's a cop out to discuss later.
I think the conversation also represents a common issue in civil rights. Both the black civil rights movement and the womens rights movement struggled internally over whether change should happen immediately at any cost or whether a long term approach has the best outcomes in the long run. There's plenty to debate on both sides with no clear cut answer in my mind.
fellyconnelly - 10/11/07 22:46
this whole thing reminds me of lauren's parents, both of whom are active members of the presbyterian (sp?) church of their town. I know that they would love to go to one of these classes. they aren't gay, but you know i bet they would take comfort in the education. I bet they would also take that information and use it to open the minds of others.
LAUREN SAYS:
but i would just like to point out that never ever should anyone be asked, outrightly or inadvertantly, to out themselves or people they know...this can put people in a very compromising position.
this whole thing reminds me of lauren's parents, both of whom are active members of the presbyterian (sp?) church of their town. I know that they would love to go to one of these classes. they aren't gay, but you know i bet they would take comfort in the education. I bet they would also take that information and use it to open the minds of others.
LAUREN SAYS:
but i would just like to point out that never ever should anyone be asked, outrightly or inadvertantly, to out themselves or people they know...this can put people in a very compromising position.
lauren - 10/11/07 19:29
(e:joshua) - not talking about sexuality for fear of it fracturing his congregation would indeed be a cop out. There is nothing to learn from comfort. There is no change, no movement, only stagnant self righteousness. It is highly unlikely that any discussion about homesexuality would be solely positive and if that was the only thing keeping you from discussion, you will never get anywhere.
I do however agree with you that bringing in some openly gay Christians (or reading their work) might be a good place to start. The key is to keep the discussion grounded in whatever way feels best so as not to get of topic. This could easily damage the potential outcomes.
And (e:Drew) I say dance! What else can we do? Nothing can be accomplished from the sidelines or the bleachers, the only way to live is to get out on that dance floor :)
(e:joshua) - not talking about sexuality for fear of it fracturing his congregation would indeed be a cop out. There is nothing to learn from comfort. There is no change, no movement, only stagnant self righteousness. It is highly unlikely that any discussion about homesexuality would be solely positive and if that was the only thing keeping you from discussion, you will never get anywhere.
I do however agree with you that bringing in some openly gay Christians (or reading their work) might be a good place to start. The key is to keep the discussion grounded in whatever way feels best so as not to get of topic. This could easily damage the potential outcomes.
And (e:Drew) I say dance! What else can we do? Nothing can be accomplished from the sidelines or the bleachers, the only way to live is to get out on that dance floor :)
ladycroft - 10/11/07 16:35
When you say Sunday School; is this an adult class or teens? The motive for wanting the discussion may be different for those. You mention not wanting to discuss it for several reasons and I can see where your concerns are understandable due to your church's history.
I agree with Lauren's thoughts that they may not necessarily be asking for themselves, but consider a friend or family member they may be struggling with.
I think it might be a bit to much to presume the topic does not directly apply to any of your class. Even if they are all heterosexual, how is it a waste of time to discuss it?
To be very frank, if I were in the class and we talked about having a session on this topic,then you agreed to it, and then showed up with "here's a class on why we AREN'T going to talk about it"...I'd be pissed. That's just me. Maybe I'm just a hard ass and hold people accountable for meaning what they say and saying what they mean.
Perhaps you can use some experiential exercise circles to create an agreement as part of the class. (I can explain in more detail privately if you're interested.) It can help to keep people focused on the real purpose of your discussion and not get lost in judgements. Not everyone will agree with what you have to say, but you already know that.
When you say Sunday School; is this an adult class or teens? The motive for wanting the discussion may be different for those. You mention not wanting to discuss it for several reasons and I can see where your concerns are understandable due to your church's history.
I agree with Lauren's thoughts that they may not necessarily be asking for themselves, but consider a friend or family member they may be struggling with.
I think it might be a bit to much to presume the topic does not directly apply to any of your class. Even if they are all heterosexual, how is it a waste of time to discuss it?
To be very frank, if I were in the class and we talked about having a session on this topic,then you agreed to it, and then showed up with "here's a class on why we AREN'T going to talk about it"...I'd be pissed. That's just me. Maybe I'm just a hard ass and hold people accountable for meaning what they say and saying what they mean.
Perhaps you can use some experiential exercise circles to create an agreement as part of the class. (I can explain in more detail privately if you're interested.) It can help to keep people focused on the real purpose of your discussion and not get lost in judgements. Not everyone will agree with what you have to say, but you already know that.
joshua - 10/11/07 14:29
They want to talk about homosexuality and church. The first question for me is, to what end? If it can't be assured that the discussion would be positive, the whole thing could be self-defeating. There is no point in fracturing your congregation. This could also slip into politicization of religion, which is terrible destructive and serves no appreciable purpose. If an approach like advocating for gays brings about some derision amongst your congregation, its simply not worth it. Its nice to be idealistic about rattling cages, but if it is going to cause chaos it shouldn't be done.
If I were in your shoes, I'd approach it very, very delicately. Its my belief, anyway, that as Christians its not our job to be the judge and jury of our fellow man. I've always felt that if it is indeed wrong and sinful to be gay, then God can sort it out. For the time being I'd rather encourage people to be happy, good neighbors and not have to feel marginalized within the context of religion. Unfortunately, there may be some at your church that don't see things that way.
Maybe an approach that might help is to have some gay, committed Christians participate in the discussion so that your congregation can see what its like to struggle with religion and have the shoe on the other foot. There are people out there that happen to be gay but are devoted to God. If I'm talking about religion and homosexuality, for me anyway, I would really want to hear what they have to say.
Ultimately though, I would say that the needs of your congregation come first, so whatever you do I'd consider that obligation first and foremost. If you choose not to discuss it, that is no cop out... wipe that idea out of your head.
They want to talk about homosexuality and church. The first question for me is, to what end? If it can't be assured that the discussion would be positive, the whole thing could be self-defeating. There is no point in fracturing your congregation. This could also slip into politicization of religion, which is terrible destructive and serves no appreciable purpose. If an approach like advocating for gays brings about some derision amongst your congregation, its simply not worth it. Its nice to be idealistic about rattling cages, but if it is going to cause chaos it shouldn't be done.
If I were in your shoes, I'd approach it very, very delicately. Its my belief, anyway, that as Christians its not our job to be the judge and jury of our fellow man. I've always felt that if it is indeed wrong and sinful to be gay, then God can sort it out. For the time being I'd rather encourage people to be happy, good neighbors and not have to feel marginalized within the context of religion. Unfortunately, there may be some at your church that don't see things that way.
Maybe an approach that might help is to have some gay, committed Christians participate in the discussion so that your congregation can see what its like to struggle with religion and have the shoe on the other foot. There are people out there that happen to be gay but are devoted to God. If I'm talking about religion and homosexuality, for me anyway, I would really want to hear what they have to say.
Ultimately though, I would say that the needs of your congregation come first, so whatever you do I'd consider that obligation first and foremost. If you choose not to discuss it, that is no cop out... wipe that idea out of your head.
drew - 10/11/07 13:49
yeah. Here's a couple more issues:
Not too many years ago this WAS made an issue in an exclusionary way. At the same time, several churches made it clear that they were open and affirming. So the population has already shifted, even though we do have people that think differently in this community.
Lauren, I totally hear what you are saying, which is why I wonder if I am being a wimp. And I don't want to perpetuate an "otherness," either.
I hope I haven't underestimated the people here. To be honest, so far they have done nothing but impress me.
Maybe I will teach the class after all, but if I do, it will be a dance.
yeah. Here's a couple more issues:
Not too many years ago this WAS made an issue in an exclusionary way. At the same time, several churches made it clear that they were open and affirming. So the population has already shifted, even though we do have people that think differently in this community.
Lauren, I totally hear what you are saying, which is why I wonder if I am being a wimp. And I don't want to perpetuate an "otherness," either.
I hope I haven't underestimated the people here. To be honest, so far they have done nothing but impress me.
Maybe I will teach the class after all, but if I do, it will be a dance.
james - 10/11/07 13:05
Lauren has a lot of good points.
But if you really feel that the group wont learn from the conversation, then it really isn't worth having.
Lauren has a lot of good points.
But if you really feel that the group wont learn from the conversation, then it really isn't worth having.
jason - 10/11/07 12:57
Without going too long here -
Identity politics, sadly, rule the day, and there is a certain level of rigid ideological orthodoxy that unfortunately goes along with that. If you step out of line, you risk being crushed by people who want to control messages and minds.
I think you have a fantastic opportunity to smash that mentality into pieces, and I hope you do. I understand the apprehension, and I could be wrong here, but I think it is quite possible your message about how to approach ethical issues could be more effective with a polarizing issue than with some vanilla no-brainer. Whether that means they need pre-reqs or not is up to your discretion - you know them better than we do.
Without going too long here -
Identity politics, sadly, rule the day, and there is a certain level of rigid ideological orthodoxy that unfortunately goes along with that. If you step out of line, you risk being crushed by people who want to control messages and minds.
I think you have a fantastic opportunity to smash that mentality into pieces, and I hope you do. I understand the apprehension, and I could be wrong here, but I think it is quite possible your message about how to approach ethical issues could be more effective with a polarizing issue than with some vanilla no-brainer. Whether that means they need pre-reqs or not is up to your discretion - you know them better than we do.
lauren - 10/11/07 12:01
Hmm...ok. Where to start?
First of all, I think it is dangerous ground to say that since there are no homosexuals, you needn't talk about homosexuality. What if someone is closeted in your community? What if someone has a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, child, etc...who is gay or who they think might be gay...? Furthmore, I would argue that not talking about one group because you aren't in that group creates an otherness...and can perpetuate a reliance on the other to teach you about them. Should it always be up to the marginalized group to educate the priveleged? This is indeed how it has been in the past, but I think a progressive politic would include educated yourself, not relying on "them" to do it for you. Finally, homosexuality is never a hypothetical...it is real and alive and moving forward always. Just because you (not YOU Drew, but the communal "you") are not gay does not mean that you are in any way immune to the influences and effects of homosexuality.
However, I do agree with you that it is indeed possible that your congregation is not looking to learn, but rather reinvest in their already made assumptions about what the Bible says about sexuality. But perhaps you are not giving them enough credit, or the benefit of the doubt.
Will they ever be "ready"? If you are indeed looking for young families without a Christian community, and you wish to include homosexuals in that category...don't you think your community should be ready for them? If you do indeed wait to talk about the subject and by then have a homosexual in your congregation...will they become the "token" gay person who is expected to explain his/her position to the whole?
Oh dear...I have ranted! Surprise surprise :) I hope I have sparked some ideas for you Drew... I know you have the best intentions and I wish you luck...I wouldn't want to be in you shoes!
Hmm...ok. Where to start?
First of all, I think it is dangerous ground to say that since there are no homosexuals, you needn't talk about homosexuality. What if someone is closeted in your community? What if someone has a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, child, etc...who is gay or who they think might be gay...? Furthmore, I would argue that not talking about one group because you aren't in that group creates an otherness...and can perpetuate a reliance on the other to teach you about them. Should it always be up to the marginalized group to educate the priveleged? This is indeed how it has been in the past, but I think a progressive politic would include educated yourself, not relying on "them" to do it for you. Finally, homosexuality is never a hypothetical...it is real and alive and moving forward always. Just because you (not YOU Drew, but the communal "you") are not gay does not mean that you are in any way immune to the influences and effects of homosexuality.
However, I do agree with you that it is indeed possible that your congregation is not looking to learn, but rather reinvest in their already made assumptions about what the Bible says about sexuality. But perhaps you are not giving them enough credit, or the benefit of the doubt.
Will they ever be "ready"? If you are indeed looking for young families without a Christian community, and you wish to include homosexuals in that category...don't you think your community should be ready for them? If you do indeed wait to talk about the subject and by then have a homosexual in your congregation...will they become the "token" gay person who is expected to explain his/her position to the whole?
Oh dear...I have ranted! Surprise surprise :) I hope I have sparked some ideas for you Drew... I know you have the best intentions and I wish you luck...I wouldn't want to be in you shoes!
My two paisa-worth. I think Wegmans is slightly cheaper than Tops for everyday non-exotic produce. But Tops is better for greens and dried lentils. I don't buy any prepared foods, so I don't have a clue.
I have shopped at both Tops and Wegmans and don't really see all the big of a price difference for the items that I buy. Those prepared foods are very expensive on the other hand. I recall buying a quart of soup from that section(without looking at the price) and I almost had a heartattack when it was 6 dollars.
my understanding is that wegman's is 'nicer', but more expensive than tops. But I haven't done a serious side by side comparison.
okay serioiusly guys - for basic household needs - which is more expensive? Tops or Wegmans?
Yeah... wegmans really does have unreasonable sushi prices. At the Price Chopper (the local supermarket here), they sell decent Vegetarian Sushi for three dollars.
Hm, can't explain the discrepancy other than maybe regional differences in pricing?
Although I did hear on NPR news that Tops is a high priced grocers due to a lawsuit they suffered and so cannot charge competitive prices.
Hmm. You think so? I was going by what my friend in the grocery business always said, as well as what some of the factories I've visited that supply there said, not to mention my own experiences with the markets you've listed and more. I suppose we'll have to disagree. The only one that I can think of that possibly might be more expensive are the west coast chains.
I've been in 20 different Krogers around the country - I've always thought they are shabby. Same for Tops for that matter.
I really like their pre-made pasta dishes. I had a basil sauce with penne one day and it tasted great. I then realized I could probably do it myself, even with my meager ability.
If you're talking pre-made food, (e:joshua), I'm in full agreement. Otherwise, it's prices are cheaper than Giant Eagles, Acmes, Tops, Schnucks, Krogers, etc...
Wegman's is one of the most, if not THE most, expensive supermarket chains in the USA. All of the premade food is overpriced. I never, ever buy the sushi there, not necessarily because of the quality, but yeah... Kuni's is better and more cost effective. And, its closer! I fail to see a downside.
All the food in that section is over priced - a take out meal there costs as much as going to a restaurant, not just the sushi.
We must have had enough bottles to actually to completely cover the cost of the pierogies, right?! We had an ungodly amount of beer bottles laying around! Thank you sexy man for taking them back!