Those Two

Twenty years ago today, at 4 pm, The Judge and me walked down the long aisle at Highland Park Methodist and said our wedding vows. As I knew would eventually be the case, I can't consciously recall much about that day now, and so I'm mighty pleased to have the pictures.

The first thing that strikes me is how much of our lives now was completely unknown to us, then. Things we have come to cherish, more than anything in the world, were yet to be revealed.

I mean, there's the big and obvious one: there was not yet a "Divine Miss M." She'd come along four years later.

But, Dennise wasn't a judge yet either. In fact, she hadn't even started working full-time. There was no sense that I'd ever be pastor of Northaven, or play my own music live.

Looking back, it's amazing just how uncertain any of it was. I mean, not only was Dennise not a respected ten-year jurist, but what she did have was a stack of rejection letters --hundreds high-- from law firms that didn't hire her. (Including some, I am sure, who would be horrified to realize this now…) The idea that she could be elected judge, and would now be looking at ten years on the bench would have stunned us that day.

I was an associate minister at Highland Park UMC, just a year away from being ordained an "elder." I was doing college and singles ministry. As of yet, I'd never been to Russia (I would eventually go nine times), Haiti (five), Nepal, or any of the other cool places I later got to go. I'd never yet helped build any of the thirteen Habitat Houses we'd build, or preach every Sunday at Cox Chapel.

I could not have fathomed the idea of being the senior pastor at Northaven, and certainly could not have imagined now having been there a decade. Which means I probably would have laughed at you if you told me we'd build a brand new $5.2 million dollar campus there, and see hundreds of new member join.

I'd just started writing songs again. I'd still be a year or two more before I'd start playing out at open mics at places like Poor David's Pub, with friends like Annie Benjamin. It'd be eight years more before I'd put out a CD of my own songs. And it'd be almost thirteen more before that crazy band, Connections, would be formed.

Maria would be born in 1997. I could not have imagined her on that May-day in 1993. I mean, the most important person in my life, besides Dennise, wasn't even an idea that day. Since I can now not fathom life without her, it's hard to truly think back to that time before there was no "her."

We'd move into a small house on Groveland Street in "Little Forest Hills" that week, the first of several East Dallas houses we fell in love with.

All we were on that day were two very young people, with little money, and not the vaguest of inklings that the life we have now would be ours.

And as for me? I was terrified. The "unknown" of this future terrified me…where we'd go…how we'd live…what we'd be like as parents, if we were lucky enough to have a kid.

As I've noted before, that first year was crazy. Dennise was insistent that we get married right after she finished law school. Reluctantly, I agreed. It was the timing that got me. I mean, in the span of two weeks we did four things:
-- She finished law school
-- We moved all our stuff into a house in East Dallas
-- We got married
-- She started a new job and started studying for the bar.

Therapists tell you these are four of the top five stressors in life. The only one missing is somebody dying. That first year was a blur. It evened out after that.

I don't want to rose-color it, though. There have been difficult times too. Times that are, frankly, none of your business. There were times of depression and despair that stressed us, pulled us in directions we didn't want to go, and sometimes caused us to question the future.

But, here we are, twenty-years-on. And it's absolutely amazing to look back.

This song I've posted here, "Those Two" is one I wrote for Dennise about two-years-ago, looking forward to this day. It's a much briefer way of describing all the changes I've just now mentioned. (lyrics below)

It could be easy to pretend  twenty years gives you some kind of special, brilliant knowledge as to what makes a marriage last. Frankly, I haven't a clue, really. I really mean that. Part of my hesitance at pretending to have brilliant knowledge comes from looking around me in any direction. I mean, I can point to dozens of friends who I thought had strong marriages that didn't make it this far. Why did we?

The only thing I can point to is something like the following…

First, we're still "those two" deep in the core of our souls. Just like the song says. But, we've also been willing to grow and change, too. No matter how much it terrified us, we've been willing to jump into whatever the "next step" has been, even when there was little evidence where we'd land.

But what is clear to me now is that marriage isn't just one leap on your wedding day. It's  series of leaps into a future that is ALWAYS unknown, unrevealed, and uncertain. Every stage, every fork in the road, was chock-full of uncertainty, doubt, fear, and anxiety.

But we've jumped, anyway. And taking the risks have always seemed to be worth it. Of course, a whompin' load of those jumps have turned out great. We've been very fortunate have many a "soft" landing, where as we've seen many friends not get the same breaks. So, it seems to me, there's a fair bit of luck involved too. Luck, grace, a bit of planning, a whole lot of not only learning how to grow together, but also learning how to live apart too.

It's learning to ignore, frankly, many of the things that bug the hell out of you about your partner. And maybe also realizing that those things that bug you are, often, lessons you need to somehow learn yourself.

Let me tell you this about Dennise. First, I love her with all my heart. You'd expect me to say that, right?

But I'm also a bit amazed and in awe of her. I'm amazed at the grand plans she set out for her life (and our's) and how many of those dreams have come true. I'm amazed at how she can pushed through her fears, push down her doubts, and step into her "next steps" as a wife, mother, judge.

What an amazing ride it's been.

Please, God, give us many many more….many more days…years....and many more fearless leaps.


Those Two
You fell in love
with a guy in jeans and boots
who never wore a suit
and played guitar all night long

I fell in love
with a girl of revolution
pushing back the institution
in places it was wrong

Where'd they go,
those two?
I believe they're still inside
me and you.

You fell in love
with a guy, chronically late
who forgot important dates
but who could always make you smile.

I fell in love
with the girl who had a plan
for every second in her hand
and survived every trial.

Where'd they go,
those two?
I believe they're still inside
me and you.

Things we found attracting
Grow frustrating and distracting
Each year, these scenes we're acting
Keep repeating, time again.

And so, the greater mystery
Is how, with all this history
We can yet persist to be
Lovers and friends.

I'm still in love
with that quiet girl who knows me
doesn't say, but simply shows me
all the safety of a home.

Your'e still in love
with that guy who sees the world
as a place to show that girl
with fields still yet to roam.

Where'd they go,
those two?
I believe they're still inside
me and you.

Every day, they're still inside
me and you.
Words and Music by Eric Folkerth.
All Rights Reserved.

Read More

Extra Beats

Ever since my medical tests last week, I've been visited by a vague and unsettled feeling. A restlessness of a sort. It's a feeling that something's changed even though, technically, nothing has. It's not physical.

Physically? I'm great. In fact, I'm better-than-great. I mean, what a gift to know (as the cardiologist said) my arteries are "as clear as the day you were born."  Didn't know that before last week. Now I do. That's a gift.

So, it's not physical.


It's definitely spiritual. Psychological. Deep-level stuff. A kind of a brooding feeling, almost.

Been talking with The Judge about it. Talked about it with my therapist and group today. Here's how I can describe it to you…

It's like I was on a bus, and the bus was going along just fine. When, out of nowhere, somebody jumps up and pulls the emergency brake. The alarms screams. The bus lurches to a stop. You're thrown forward, headfirst into the seat in front of you. Then, you're yanked back the other direction, as the bus shutters and shakes to a complete stop.

And after a momentary pause, some voice in the back of the bus timidly shouts,
"Oh…sorry…my bad…never mind."

You hear the exhale-sigh of brakes loosening again. And, in a matter of seconds, the bus is headed back down the road, just like nothing ever happened.

But, something did happen. And even after you're underway again, there's an adrenalin surging through your veins. A looking-back over your shoulder.

Which reminds me of the time our dogs cornered a possum on the back porch. It sounds like something that might happen out in the country, but it was right smack dab in the middle of North Dallas.

One night, we were awakened by our small dog, Scruffy, barking his little head off. We looked out on the porch, and there was our other dog, Grace, nose to the ground, eyes focused ahead on the prize…a possum that had wandered on to the back porch and was now corned and clearly outnumbered by the two dogs.

Grace --border collie at heart-- had that possum cornered. Scruffy --running maniacally back and forth-- was sounding the alarm.

That possum looked horrible. It's face was disfigured into a snarl. It might have been drooling. It was definitely hissing. We thought it might be rabid.

Anyway, we brought the dogs inside, thinking that this would allow the possum the space to safely wander off into the night. While we are at it, we took a brief visit to "The Google," to look up possum behavior. Frankly, given the way it looked, we were afraid this animal might have been rabid.

Turns out, all these features are but one manifestation of the "playing possum" adaptation. Playing possum doesn't just mean playing dead. Apparently, it can also include looking rabid, dangerous, sick…such that a predator will take one look at you and say, "No ma'am, I don't want any part of that…"

Reassured by this, and since twenty or so minutes had passed, I stuck a flashlight through the sliding glass window, to see if the possum was still there. I figured, with the danger long gone, he'd probably seized the moment to wander off.

To my complete surprise, not only was the possum still there in that corner of the porch, but it was in exactly the same position as it had been, twenty minutes before! Same snarled mouth. Same crazed look. As if the two dogs were still right in front of it, still threatening it's life.

I went back twenty minutes after this. Same thing! In exactly the same position, snarling out at the empty night.

I finally went to bed, and we kept the dogs inside that night. Somewhere during overnight hours, the possum did wander off. But it's clear the animal spent at least an hour, frozen in that same fear-response position, as if a long-gone threat was still immanent, pressing, and an immediate danger.
-------------------------------

I feel like that possum, I suppose.

I guess I ought to just get up and wander off. But I'm frozen. Wondering.

What does all this mean? What if the worst had happened?
And yes, I go there:

What if I had died?

I mean, I am getting older. I turned fifty last September. I wrote about how that sucked. It still does. But I moved through that milestone, and just kept moving on.

So then, holy crap, here's an actual medical test that, no matter the result, reminds me of the truth I'm already living: I'm older. I'm gonna die some day.

It's not like I didn't already know all that. But this test became an outward and visible manifestation of the inward and spiritual reality.
So, yes, getting older is a part of it.

But, so too is just thinking about the past few months.

You see, I keep going to back over the days, weeks, and months just prior to last Tuesday. It's been a busy time. A very very busy time. I believe I've written about it. (If not here, on Facebook…)

Starting with Holy Week, I worked a string of about forty straight days without a full day off. I am not bragging. I am reporting/confessing. Funerals. Other extra events. Just regular church stuff.
It's been very busy. That kind of busy you can honestly call "a good busy."

But it's not balanced. It's not what I "preach" to others all the time. It's not "keeping Sabbath." I get that.

I preach about keeping things in balance. I sit with folks in my office and tell them how they ought to do it. I talk (sometimes I probably brag) about my hobbies and interests, and the great and busy life Dennise and me have.

Hell, I blogged about all this, just last week! I bragged, at the end of this very blog, about the great lives Dennise and me have…

We're busy, but "it's a good busy."
We're tired, but "it's a "good tired."

I'm still able to say, "It's a great life."

But is all the busy "good?"
Or, is a "good tired" ever a good thing, beyond a rare occurrence, now and then?

I'm left asking: "Is the last month-and-a-half how I wanted to spend my last days?"

It's theoretical. I get that.

But I'm afraid the answer would be, "No." That's what's coming to me, at least.

Sure, a lot of what I did, I'd do again. In….ahem…a heartbeat.

But all of it? Would I work all those days in a row, or would I find the way to take some time off?

For example, I can't recall when I last picked up my guitar and just played for a day. Or even a few hours.
When was the last time I wrote a song?
I cannot remember.

That can't be good.

Yes, I get away to ride my bike pretty regularly.
But even during a lot of these rides, as I'm peddling away, my mind is already on whatever-comes-next…worried that I won't make the next thing; failing to even see the beauty of the lake.

All the time (and I mean all the time) people tell me, "Eric, how is it that you move so fast?"!!"
Or, "I've never seen anybody move as fast as you!"

I've always taken these as compliments.
Or, as a shield. A shield against the inner voice that says "You're not doing enough…"

But maybe it's not really a compliment or a shield.
Maybe it's an indictment.
A condemnation, even.
A flaw.

Here's the image that came to me today:

My life has an "extra-beat." Life is a song in 4/4 time, and I'm always cramming-in just one extra downbeat. A fifth beat in the measure, that makes the rhythm a little....bit....off.

You probably see where I'm going with this
 Because this is what they're telling me about my heart too.

My heart has an "extra beat."
It's not beating too fast, or too slow.
My blood pressure's good.
No blockages.

But, there's an extra beat in the rhythm.

So what hit me between the eyes today is: As goes my heart, so goes my life. I have an "extra beat."

So, the next question, for me is: what to do about it.
Or, existentially, probably not do.

I mean, the heart problem will get solved, I am sure. I'll go to the cardiologist in a few weeks, and we'll talk about what, medically, might be causing these extra-beats. What the next step is, etc, etc...

But I don't need a cardiologist to tell me what's causing the extra-beats in life.
I can pretty easily identify that.

The question is: Do I cut something out?
If so, what would that be?
Or, When it's all good, what do/can you cut?

What would a regular life-beat look like?

These are my questions.
These are my confessions.
I don't come here tonight with answers, but simply a willingness to hold the questions before me in tension.

What am I going to do about the "Extra Beats?"

Stay tuned...

(Leave a comment below. If you like this post, then "share it" or "like" it on Facebook/Twitter by clicking the box below, so others can see too. Comments here are moderated, and are approved at my discretion, when I can get to it..so be patient if they don't appear right away)  

Read More

Profound Disappointment in the Obama Administration

It's hard to take in these two scandals rocking the Obama Administration right now.

First, on Friday, the news that the IRS specifically targeted conservative groups. Tea Party Groups

Today, the news that the Department of Justice had been surveilling  the phones of Associated Press reporters.

There is certainly no love lost for me when it comes to Tea Party Groups. I find them dangerous and politically unhelpful to our democratic process.

Also, I believe that the IRS is right to crack down on groups that are misusing the 501c4 designation as "social welfare groups." You may recall, this is the kind of group that Stephen Colbert set up last year, during the campaign, to highlight just how ridiculous the "soft money" groups had become.

Having said both those things --that I have no real love for Tea Party groups, that I do think the IRS should crack down on abuse of "social welfare" Superpacs-- this story is very very disturbing.

No group should ever be flagged simply because of their affiliation with a political movement, right or left. Profiling by politics, age, gender, race, sexual orientation...this should never be done.

It's a troubling, troubling story.

But today, I'm even more troubled by the DOJ spying on Associated Press Reporters.

As usual, Morning Joe had a great discussion of these issues this morning. So, rather than rehash it here, I'd just invite you to watch:

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

Of course Bernstein knows a bit about these things, doesn't he?

I agree with everybody around the table. The real chilling effect here is on sources and their willingness to talk to news outlets. This kind of surveillance will "chill" sources everywhere, and may have already put people in danger.

Terrible terrible news on both these fronts.

People might say, "But Obama didn't know about these things."

And in both scandals, I am sure that is true. But, ultimately, as people used to say about President Bush related to the Iraq War, the "buck stops" at the president's desk.

So,  I don't know what he'll end up saying about these things, or what he even can. It's troubling.

Conservatives: If for years you've felt that the press was in the back pocket of the Obama Administration (something I've never been convinced was true), the good news for you is that the honeymoon is officially over. My training as a journalist training teaches me that the White House has gotten its last "softball question" between now and 2016.
But, beyond this, you conservatives should be concerned about any targeting of journalist anywhere.

Liberals: If you're somehow happy about Tea Party Groups being targeted, how happy will you be when it's groups that are pro gun safety, or LGBT rights, or pro-immigration? And, you know how much paranoia there is on the Right.
 Now it will be said, "Just because you're paranoid...SEE! They ARE out to get us!!"
This ain't gonna help.

This DOL targeting should be condemned by everyone too.

All the way around, whomever you are, and where ever you fall out on the Purpleland spectrum, there is little to rejoice about today.

(Leave a comment below. If you like this post, then "share it" or "like" it on Facebook/Twitter by clicking the box below, so others can see too. Comments here are moderated, and are approved at my discretion, when I can get to it..so be patient if they don't appear right away)  

Read More

Is Schism The Best Future for the UMC? Why? Why Not?

Very pleased to be a part of DreamUMC's 1st Anniversary "Sync Blog" tonight. The assignment for this blog is its title.

Although, if I had a "do-over" on this entry, I'd title this blog:

"Game Theory And the Possibility of Schism."

I'm going to take the question literally, and answer it as such. I'm also going to mainly be answering from a "Game Theory" perspective, not what my own personal view might be.

Secondly, I'm also going to primarily limit my discussion to the American Church, since that's the theological/social situation I understand best, and since we're really not a Global Church.

Finally, and only for ease of conversation, I am broadly stereotyping American United Methodists into three categories: Progressive, Conservative, Moderate. (1)

 The Question: Is Schism The Best Future for the UMC? (underlining important here...)

It depends. If the goal is "preserving the future of the entity called 'The United Methodist Church.'" then there are more theoretical scenarios where schism hurts, rather than helps. All of it depends upon what kind of schism were to actually happen.
So, let's delve into that...

The are two likely schism scenarios, using the stereotypes:
Scenario 1) Progressives Leave.
Scenario 2) Conservatives Leave.

Here's what I think would happen, then, under each of those scenarios, followed by some short analysis.

Scenario 1. Progressives Leave
If the goal is preservation of a denomination known as the "United Methodist Church," then this is, by far, the worst option. In fact, it's the option most likely over time, to assure the complete destruction of the entity known as "The United Methodist Church." (2)

If progressives leave, this would result in two new bodies:
A. New Progressive Methodist Denomination
B. New Moderate/Conservative Denomination

However, this would almost assuredly result in yet another split, among the second group (The new "Moderate/Conservative" Denomination). In fact, this second split would likely happen so fast, it would make heads spin. Promise.

Here's why...

As a very very smart moderate told me about a year ago, just after General Conference, "Eric, what you don't understand is that Moderates are terrified of being left with the Conservatives. If Progressives leave, we'll split again."

I must confess, I'd not considered that possibility. But the second he did say it, my Poli-Sci/Game-Theory brain told me he was right.


You must remember this about Moderates: Moderates hate conflict.

If Progressives leave, it would not lessen the amount of conflict in new-denomination "B." In fact, Conservatives would simply next turn their attention toward  Moderates and some of their social views. (Abortion. Rights of Women. Medical Science, etc...take your pick...)
Homosexuality is but one social issue where the far-Right in the United Methodist Church disagrees with the middle and the left.

Moderates would, much to their discomfort, now find no "foil" between them and  Conservatives, to fend off direct attack. As it is right now, a part of the current UMC "stasis" is that the Left/Right theological dipolarity keeps the heat off the Moderates.
(Most Moderates are blissfully unaware of this, btw, just as they are unaware of most of these issue, and even the possibility of schism raised by this whole sync blog!)

So, in a nutshell, if Progressives leave? Moderates and Conservatives will eventually split as well.

Therefore, would Scenario 1 be "best" for the United Methodist Church?
No.
In fact, my argument is that this would most likely be the worst of all outcomes, on the whole. It would almost assuredly eventually leave three, much smaller, deep fractured, groups to claim the mantel of the former UMC;  none of them truly strong enough to have much real societal impact.

Scenario 2. Conservatives Leave
What would happen next would entire depend upon how Progressives would choose to live in the new configuration. Of course, the two groups created in this model would look as follows:

A. New Conservative Methodist Denomination
B. New Moderate/Progressive Denomination

As I've already stated, theologically, socially, even politically, Moderate and Progressive United Methodists share far more in common than separates them. Because of Moderate's desire to "live and let live," and Progressive's nature desire to respect other view points outside their own, they are a natural fit.

It's entirely likely that Moderate/Progressives could make their new denomination work.

But! This is entirely dependent upon whether or not Progressives would be willing to allow for Moderates to fully "catch up" on all issues. Should Progressives become "hardline," (as Conservatives most assuredly would in Scenario 1) all bets are off. And we could find ourselves with, yet again, three small groups.

Theoretically, breaking into three is not at all a foregone conclusion in Scenario 2. It almost assuredly is in Scenario 1.

Therefore, would Scenario 2 be "best" for the United Methodist Church?
Surprisingly, I still answer this with a "no."

And here, I will shift to my own personal theology and view, and not just a politicial, or "Game Theory" analysis of the likely scenarios.

Yes, Scenario 2 would likely yield a denomination consistent with the American mission field.
That would be a good thing.

As perhaps some are not yet fully aware of, the United States is now a "center/left" not "center/right" nation. I argued this in a post-election blog last fall, titled "What the Presidential Election Should Teach the United Methodist Church." You can read it here.

The gist of that blog is America is a "Center/Left" not "Center/Right" nation. That means our "Mission Field" --those who are "unchurched," those who are among the growing group of the "Nones"-- are, on the main,  to the "Left" in their theology and politics, not to the "Right.

By the way, many many savvy political analysts (not just arm-chair preacher-analysts like me) have come to this same conclusion. (This is why the Republican Party is so feverishly working out "outreach" to women, ethnic minorities).

So, yes, the new "Moderate/Progressive" denomination would be spot-on well positions to reach the "mission field" of the American UMC. As such, it would also likely grow.

But I still don't personally believe it would be a good idea. Mainly because I'm still, at heart, a "big tent Methodist." I'd like to believe a truly inclusive "big tent" denomination is still possible; where all are welcomed at the table; where churches, left, right and center, are encouraged to grow and thrive.

My own Wesleyan theology tells me that there is a "live and let live" position we are not currently pursuing, and that we should. Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter tried to move us toward at General Conference last session. They were defeated in this. It's still a direction worth pursuing.

In Scenario 2, the New Progressive/Moderate denomination would be well positioned to meet the American mission field of the future. But we'd lose the opportunity to be the truly "big tent" by keeping "Conservatives" within the big tent that I believe God is still calling us to.

My Own "Best Way Forward?" REGIONALISM
I will not recount my view here again, since I put it forth in another blog, titled "United Methodism Is Not a Global Church." It's a long blog, so if you wish to cut to the chase, scroll down about halfway and you'll see the major points about regionalism.

The argument is that, for better or worse, we've always embraced some kind of regionalism. The very existence of  five American Jurisdictions has always been a tacit admission on our part that the only way to "unity" is embracing a type of regional diversity. It's what has kept the denomination together this long. And if we fail to understand this, then we are glossing our own ecclesial/political history.

In my opinion, some kind of "Regionalism" is the key to our future, and is the BEST option for the future of the United Methodist Church. Not, schism.

It would allow Progressives to fully minister without one hand tied behind their back. (As we are now).
It would allow clergy and congregations who wish to approve of gay marriage to perform those ceremonies in their congregations.
It would allow Conservatives to remain Conservative. If they wish to "conserve" their tradition, withing their congregations, have at it. 

Trust me, Conservative Friends, if you've made it clear you oppose gay marriage, gays and lesbians are not gonna break down your door, demanding that you do their wedding.

However, I know they'd like me to to do them. And I'd love to.

A new "live and let live" would allow for this.

Progressives could fully reach their mission field. Conservatives could continue to oppose social change, as they see fit. Moderates would decide...whatever they wish...because they're moderates.

I see the same way forward, concerning LGBT clergy too. Regionalism, that is.
I realize that, in both these two views, many of my Progressive brothers and sisters would disagree with me. But, I'm trying to answer the the question "what is best for the denomination?"
Not, "what would I personally want?"
Or, what would be best for Progressives?

Is My "Best" Choice Likely to Happen?
I don't know. I believe it to be the way forward. However, frankly, I don't see the path.
Not without some kind of seismic shift in the way we do business.

Let me say it this way: General Conference, as currently structured, does not have a 2/3rds majority to affect changes to our Constitution that would make regionalism as possibility. Nor are the votes there, frankly, for any other kind of restructuring.

Bluntly, General Conference couldn't find 2/3rds of the delegates who would agree that, "Peanut Butter is delicious!" That's how divided and dysfunctional we are now.

However, I Believe Change IS Likely:
And I say this, based on "Game Theory." Bottom line: something's got to give. The present model is absolutely not sustainable, over time. If you believe the denomination can simply continue forward, as is, you are misreading the signs of our times.

Despite the fact that the votes aren't there to get regionalism, and that neither of the "Scenarios" I've mentioned above are a "best" choices, my strong hunch is that change is very likely.

Homosexuality continues to become less and less of a contentious issue in our society, while remaining a greater and greater sticking point within the United Methodist Church.

I actually agree with those who say they wish we'd quit talking about the issue. I agree with that. Because, frankly, the culture is making up its mind. And what they are telling us is that we're losing the "mission field" of America. We're losing many of our sons and daughters. How many adults have I talked to, who say "My children are no longer Methodist...their going somewhere more inclusive"?

As Adam Hamilton says, we will lose the next generation of American EVANGELICALS if we do not change. Therefore, we must change. In the end, we will find that it won't be an option, or even a debate. We will change.

Some will say: "But neither of these scenarios can happen, given the trust clause."Or, "Neither of these scenarios will happen, because the votes aren't there."

I believe that these statements are naive about how change may happen(3). And I would say to anyone:

If you believe change isn't coming because of the "trust clause" or because the votes aren't there, you have your head in the sand.

Some final thoughts on this...

Don't Put Your Trust in the Trust Clause
If you're putting your trust in the "Trust Clause," don't.
The "trust clause" only works as a deterrent to individual congregations leaving the denomination.

Should entire blocks of Progressive or Conservative congregations band together and challenge it, it would fall like the straw man it really is. I guarantee this. I'm not threatening this, understand (See Footnote #3). I'm still speaking of "Game Theory," here.

But should, as an example, dozens of Progressive or Conservative local churches chose to "give back" their properties in each  Annual Conference? (Maybe not even dozens...maybe just three to five...).

The trust clause would evaporate.

Annual Conferences would not be able to financially sustain that many vacant properties. There would almost certainly be negotiations between the groups (either Progressives, or Conservatives) about how they would be able to amicably leave with their properties. Mark my word. This is absolutely possible at some future point.

Again, the bottom-line-point I'm making here is: If you're putting your "faith" in the Trust Clause, don't.

People Vote With Their Money
This is yet another way our system can still change. Yes General Conference takes the "votes of record" for the United Methodist Church.

But money is also a vote.

Every local church understands this. A local church can "vote" to build a new building. But the capital campaign for that building is also a "vote." If it does not go well, it doesn't matter what the "vote of record" says. People also vote with their money. The United Methodist Church is a voluntary association, and the funds that keep the entire enterprise going are given voluntarily by each congregation.

My point is, even  though General Conference is hopelessly gridlocked and unable to change its Constitution under the normal rules, it's  plausible that Congregations, Annual Conferences, Jurisdictions, can and will "vote" through their use of funds to support the General United Methodist Church....or to not support the General United Methodist Church.

Btw, this is, again, neither my idea, nor my preference. We Methodists, myself included, are incredibly uncomfortable with the whole idea of "withholding apportionments." (Our church has never done it!)

But it's reasonable to assume it could happen, under Game Theory. In fact, it's already been suggested by smart folks whom I've never even met, and who are (to my knowledge), not particularly Progressive or Conservative.
Read the clearest explanation of it here.

Point is, money is a vote just as potent as General Conference "votes." If things don't change via some other "regular" process, they will change through how we spend/don't spend our apportionments.

Conclusions
Is change coming to the United Methodist Church?
Yes. Absolutely. Without question.

The only question is how will it happen?

We can change through a managed process that yields one of the first two "scenarios" I outline. Or, we could still, by the grace of God, choose a regionalism that keeps us all under one big tent. (My favorite).

Finally, we can splinter via total collapse of the trust clause and the funding for the General Church altogether. That is also a choice. (Not a good one, of course...)

The choices are still ours.

What is not a choice is Homosexuality, and its acceptance into mainstream American life.

That is happening, and may even be  fully integrated (at least with respect to gay marriage) before our next General Conference.

If the sticking point to our future together is truly "Homosexuality," then we have missed the whole point of what is happening in the United States right now. I mean, literally right this minute.

As I write these words, comes the news that the 12th state has approved gay marriage. That's effectively 1/4 of the states.

As I have said many other times, this societal change on homosexuality is not primarily a political movement, nor a social one. This change is a true moving of the Spirit of Jesus Christ in American society today.  To not see it as such is a colossal failure of spiritual vision.

I hope and pray my beloved United Methodist Church finds the way forward to embrace this inclusive moving of God's Spirit. 

To not do so is really the only choice that will kill us.


1. These are, as I've just said, stereotypes. I myself do not see myself as "Progressive" in every realm, but feel quite comfortable with many "Moderate" positions. In fact, my upbringing and (I would argue) my Annual Conference, is something of a bellweather conference for American United Methodist Moderates. We "get" the middle around here. Hence, although I'm fully supportive of Progressive UMC causes, I also perhaps understand the middle in ways that Progressives in other parts of the country cannot. Just sayin'

2. Keep in mind, I am taking the question literally here. I am not asking "is it good/bad for progressives, conservatives, or moderates?" Just is is "best" for the "United Methodist Church."

3. And I emphasize the word "MAY." I know of no movements afoot to innact any of what I describe here. I just know it's naive not to believe that if change is not managed through the UMC's traditional legislative process, it will not eventually happen in some other manner, such as collapse of the Trust Clause, or the withholding of apportionments.

My goal here is to speak to these as logically possible, without going further and endorsing them as my view.
That distinction is what I am attempting to do here. 

(Leave a comment below. If you like this post, then "share it" or "like" it on Facebook/Twitter by clicking the box below, so others can see too. Comments here are moderated, and are approved at my discretion, when I can get to it..so be patient if they don't appear right away)  

Read More

Reframing Clergy, Clergy Spouses, and "Smokin' Hot Wives"

Ordained ministry is not the only profession struggling with the role of women in leadership. Truthfully, I don't know how we fare when set alongside other major professions. My hunch is, in some ways, the church is doing better than other professions. In other ways, probably far worse.

These issues are difficult, of course, precisely because they get at fundamental understandings (assumptions) about the intersection of family and professional life. And they are pronounced for clergy because, for better or worse, few other professions have quite the public-life that our clergy-family members face. (Perhaps only politician's families come close, and there is a similar conversation at play there…)

The "Reframing We Need"
I am led to the following: Precisely because ministry is a profession that intersects with almost every "family" you can think of (clergy family, church-member family, congregation-as-family), The Church should be leading on these issues more than we are now.

Because what we do, what we "assume," has an impact not only our our individual "clergy families," but also on all these other kinds of families too.

To really see a significant change in the role of clergy women today, we need a "reframing." We must "reframe" our understanding of "clergy families." Neither clergy men or clergy women get left out of this reframing, nor do their spouses. All are called upon to "reframe" as society and the Church also change.

What's inspired me to write on this is an incredible blog by my colleague, Rev. Christy Thomas. The title alone pulls you in and demands your attention: "Missing Babies, Feral Males, "Smokin' Hot Wives," and Female Appointments."

Man o' man. That just might be the single greatest blog title in recorded history.

It's well worth your read, and you probably won't fully "get" where I'm going, or why, unless you spend some time with it here.

The careful thread Christy weaves is about the relationship between men, women, and power. The first two points ("Selective Abortion," and "Feral Males") are powerfully connected thoughts, primarily in an international context.
I pray she's wrong about the whole thing. I'm pretty sure she's not.

Then, Christy shifts the conversation back to our American context with: "Smokin' Hot Wives," and "Female Appointments."

I must confess something, and I hope in this I am not rendering myself totally naive and out-of-touch. But never before reading this blog had I heard of the "Smokin' Hot Wives" phenomenon. If you're clueless too, Christy's got a link that will bring you up to speed.

I guess that's a part of the male-clergy culture I have missed. (Do I need to get out more?)

About "Smokin' Hot Wives," Christy says this:
"For the last several years, young, virile, charismatic male superstar pastors have made a big deal of their “smokin’ hot wives.”  It appears to be a way to let everyone knows how sexually potent these pastors are…The  phrase objectifies women, placing all their worth only on their ability to be sexually attractive."

Of course, I think she's dead-on. The thread she weaves in her final section, "Female Pastoral Appointments" is connected to "Smokin' Hot Wives," in that the one virtually excludes the possibility of the other.
If a church is used to a "Smokin' Hot Wife," what happens when a woman pastor shows up?
One with a fairly average-looking husband? Or even a single one?
How are either one of them able to live up to the assumptions about "family" that have been put in place by the "Smokin' Hot Wife" model?

It's a mighty good question.

BTW, The Judge just came in and read the draft of this blog. Her take on "Smokin' Hot Wives?" If you need to brag about your wife publicly, you're probably not nearly as viral, studly, and charismatic a man as you think. Those that are, don't brag.
(I love that woman…)

Near the end of the blog Christy offers up a word of hope:
"Why can’t we do this in real partnership?  Male AND female?  Young AND old?  Beautiful AND plain?   Charismatic AND quiet? And, yes I will dare to mention this:  Heterosexual AND homosexual?  But all with formed characters, impeccable moral lives and unwavering love of God and neighbor?"

To these questions, may I say: AMEN!

Christy seems somewhat sanguine about the possibility of real change toward "real partnership." So, I suppose the whole point of my blog here is to suggest unless we move toward real partnership, we're sunk.
Really, really sunk.

A Hopeful Way: Clergy Families As Mutual Partnerships
My entire ministry career, I have heard clergy (usually male) talk about how their ministry is a partnership between they and their wives. But when they describe what they mean by that, it's clear that the "partnership" they are describing is their own ministry within a local church, and the things their wives do to support that.

OK, I get that definition. But it's a funny way of describing what a "partnership" is. That's actually a one-way commitment, really. It's not a "partnership," is it?

I'm suggesting the hopeful way forward, the "partnership" that needs "reframing," is our idea of clergy families. All of them. Christy's blog primarily addresses women, and clergy women. That's important. But unless we "reframe" clergy families so that we see them as partnerships between two equal adult human beings, we're not likely to see real change in the situation of clergy women.

Clergy families must be seen as partnerships between men and women who are both equally called to professional and family life.(1) We desperately need to more fully celebrate clergy families in their mutual professional callings. Some of us are the clergy-members (male and female) of a family unit. Others of us are clergy-spouses (male and female) with their own careers and interests, sometimes not connected with the church.

The way to confront the "Smokin' Hot Wife" phenomenon is not to put the focus on the specific women designated as such, or even women at all.

But to ask:
How are our clergy spouses called?
To what are they called?
How do we clergy, and our church-families, support them?

My strong hunch is out of this will grow a new, and more healthy, understanding of the role of clergy...both women and men.

Do we believe the Discipline, and its section "The Ministry of All Christians?"

If so, then we implicitly affirm it for our spouses too. Our spouses (male and female) often have callings outside of church ministry. At least they can. Spouses are not necessarily "called" to serve the Church as their primary calling in life. Nor are they primarily called to assist us in our calling either.

Now, obviously, it really helps us if they are supportive, and it can really hurt us if they're not. It helps if they show up for church, and participate in its activities. But there are ways to frame this, where clergy families are no different than any couple in our local churches. As we all know, it really helps a family unity if everybody shows up for worship and Sunday School, and is involved, in the same congregation week after week.

Stories of The Judge and Me
I'd like to share some personal stories from our lives --about family, church, ministry, and calling-- in the hopes that they will help illustrate much of this "reframing" I'm talking about here. I suppose these might sounds like my own "Smokin' Hot Wife" stories. That's not my intent. The intent is suggest another way entirely...

Fact is that, early in our marriage, Dennise and I realized that the family life we wanted to have would be a new model. We certainly would not be alone, or anything like trailblazers, in this model. Plenty other couples have travelled the road before. For decades, really. But, we also realized it wasn't "traditional" either.

Early in our life together, we agreed that we'd both work, professionally. We'd both share housework. We'd both share child-rearing. That's the gist of it.

Practically, in our house it means I make breakfast for everybody (including the famous "green drink"). I fix lunches for Dennise and Maria. Therefore, I'm the last one out the door in the morning. Dennise takes care of most dinners. She's almost always home before me. (Evening meetings…imagine that!) We both pick up Maria from school and deliver her to/from an ever-growing list of youth activities.

We understood at the time that there would be few role models for us. Clergywomen say this all the time about themselves, but it's really true of their families too; and of all dual-career families too.

"How Long Have You Been In the Ministry?"
A story about Dennise, related to my "calling."

When Dennise and I were just engaged, a well-meaning church member approached her and asked "So, how long have you been in the ministry?"

Raised Roman Catholic (Without the benefit of any clergy spouse models, good or bad…), the question really threw her.
She looked over at me, and said, "Oh, I'm not the minister. He is."

Later, she grew to understand what was behind the questioner's query. Truth is, the question itself showed just how pervasive the "out-of-balance-partnership" model really was twenty years ago.

This person could not conceive that Dennise might have a "calling" outside of the local church; a calling of her own. Thankfully, things in many places are changing. Mainly, because most families today are "dual-income families."

 In many of our church families, a working clergy spouse (male or female, "stay at home," or "career") is the now, and will be, the norm. And it's what church folks see in their own families too. My strong belief is that, as our church-families "reframe" their own lives in terms of "dual-income" households, so too they will expect it of us.

"Is This Mr. Garcia?"
But! To make this work, as a part of this, we clergy must also "reframe" our roles too! We must reframe our relationships to our spouses. We, male and female clergy alike, must make the time, find the space, to become supportive spouses. Busy as we are, with all the demands we have in our own ministry, clergy must make space, find time, for those of us who have spouses with full-time careers, to support our spouse's careers too.

A long time ago, when I was an associate pastor, I was the guest preacher at Sachse UMC one Sunday morning. That afternoon, their crack team of volunteers vigilantly called the house, because Dennise had signed the visitor log that morning. Because of our different last names, they had no idea they were calling the house of that's morning's preacher.

I answered the phone, and an eager volunteer said, "Mr. Garcia?!"

After a few seconds hesitation --still not knowing who was calling--  I said, "Yes!"

Yes. Sometimes I am, proudly, "Mr. Dennise Garcia."

Sometimes I am "The Judge's spouse." Sometimes, an evening-event is her event, not the church's or mine. Sometimes, it's my "calling" to support her, to be the spouse on her arm. Frankly, it's a whompin' load 'o fun. It's fun for both she and I to watch the roles shift and change. Sometime she leads. Sometimes I do. Sometimes we both try at the same time (watch out…that can get ugly…).

More Than the Couple Must Change
For this to work, takes more than the decision of a couple in their own marital vow. Because The Church is also a "family system" it also takes the whole UMC system also "reframing" these issues too.

Early in ministry --when talking about appointments with my then-District Superintendent, a man very near retirement at the time-- I shared with him that when I looked ahead, I could envision a time when I followed Dennise somewhere. For example, were she to ever get a great job in Washington DC, or Austin, I could envision me being the one who would re-locate for her sake. (For our family's, really)

This absolutely threw him. It was like he'd never heard anything so ridiculous. He really had no idea how to respond; and, for a few seconds, almost looked mortally offended.

But then, after some awkward silence, he said, "Well, I have a daughter who's a lawyer. So, when I think of it that way, I guess I understand."

Lots has changed since this encounter. Some has not.

I'm honored to serve Northaven Church where, long before we arrived, the congregation had developed just this ethos of mutual partnership between the two-halves of a clergy couple. For example, every year, the every UM church must file a "Church Profile" that with the Annual Conference, stating just what kind of pastor they're looking for.

Years before we arrived, Northaven Church began including the following sentence in their profile: "We do not have a stated expectation for the ministry of the pastor’s spouse, except that he or she should follow his or her own call."

Amen and Amen!

You can't imagine how wonderful it has been for us to have a local church affirm that ideal of the "Ministry of All Christians" when applied to the clergy spouse too.
That's precisely the kind of leadership we need from all of our local churches.
We need our Annual Conference officials to encourage this view too. (Increasingly, they do!)

In addition to pushing churches to say "we will take a man or a woman as pastor," we must simultaneously say something like that sentence about clergy spouses….in every profile for every United Methodist Church.

Yes, clergy spouse can be stay-at-home wives/husbands.
Amen to that. That is a beautiful professional "calling."
Yes, clergy spouses can be active in the ministry of their local churches, supporting their "spouse who is a clergyperson."
Amen to that. As we've just noted above, that's deeply helpful too.

In fact, I believe Dennise would say that precisely because our local church has so honored and respected her career, she has been much more willing to volunteer than perhaps she otherwise might have. She baked dozens of lasagnas for the youth talent show last Saturday night, for example. She's taught Sunday School. She's even been involved in Annual Conference committees.

But clergy spouses can also have full-time careers outside the home too.
And a final "Amen" to that.

Called, As All Christians Are Called
So, let me keep sharing about "The Judge" and me, as an example. Dennise sees her role as a Judge as a "calling." It absolutely is. It would be absolutely impossible for me --based on my understanding of "The Ministry of All Christians"-- to see it as anything less than but what God has called her to.

She deals with families and their futures each and every day in ways that intimately affect their lives. It's often painful and messy; high-stakes and high-stress.

But, from the very first day she took the bench, she has seen it as a "calling."

Other spouses I know are called to hundreds of other possible careers too. Called to raise children. Whatever the calling, it  must and should be honored and supported by local churches and "the system," and individual clergy themselves as family members.

Only when we have made this shift --only when we fully see our men and women clergy spouses as fully "called" to their work, whatever it is-- will we fully confront the "Smokin' Hot Wife" phenomenon. But, not by confronting it, head-on, at all. Instead, by drawing a totally new frame around our definition of who clergy and their spouses are.

Why Do We Need To Do This?
Because it reflects real changes at work in our world. Because as I've already noted, these are increasingly the families in our pews. Check out this incredible report from the Pew Center, on "Modern Parenthood." It's worth noting how the family itself has been changing.

Yes, I suppose we can lament this. Or, we can celebrate and embrace it, and ask ourselves: what are the implication for our church-families, our clergy families, too?

While working women clearly still spend more time on housework and childcare than do working men, there is a whole lot more parity out there than the "traditional 1950s" model ever assumed. What I am saying in this blog is that reframing is not only limited to how we behave around other men, it's also changing the understanding of how men and women both "lead."

In families.
In churches.
In society as a whole.

This is where The Church is now. This is where The Church is going in the future.

 And it will, of course, take change on the part of men, clergy and their families.

Oops. Women Must Change Too.
Implied in much I have said here is the old idea that men's roles in the family must change.
But! Lest you miss the overall point, it will also take change on the part of women. Clergy women, too.
A small illustration….

Dennise is currently an officer in the NTC "clergy spouses" group. It's a challenging role, as you might imagine, for somebody will a full-time career. Over a year ago, she was trying to recruit more "male spouses" to attend clergy spouse events. In her mind (and I agree with her) one of the shifts that needs to happen is for "professional spouses" (men and women) to find some *new* role (still emerging) as "clergy spouses" too.
Not the "traditional role," but new ones. For better or worse (both, I am sure) male and female clergy spouses share a lot in common.

So, Dennise mentioned this to a female clergy colleague of mine.
She said something along the lines of, "Hey, you should get your husband to come to the clergy spouses group."

To which this person replied (to Dennise, mind you)

"Oh, he couldn't do that…He has a full-time job."

Um……Oops.

See? This is part of the issue too. So deeply embedded, we don't see it. We can't see that there's still a role for a professional spouse (man or woman) to support their clergy spouse, and vice-versa.

Along with spouses supporting their male/female clergy partners? Clergy must find ways to support their spouse's careers too. The future will be a two-way street of mutuality.

My Own Experience, as a Man
Privately, do I tell my wife that she's "smokin' hot?"
You know what? That's none of your business. I will leave you to guess.
But publicly, as many of you know, I call her "The Judge."

And while that's always been a kind of joke, it's not just a term of endearment (Or, even bragging). It's a reminder to me, to her, and everybody else watching, that this is how I see her:
As "The Judge."
As more than appendage to my career, but instead as full partner in our marriage and life together.
As someone with her own unique calling and career that I respect, admire, and support.

Twenty Years On
Is any of this easy?
No. It is not. It's hard work. Frankly, Dennise and I are often quite tired. Many people look in on our lives ask "How do you do it?"

Interestingly, that's not really a question we ask ourselves a lot anymore. It's not to say we're not tired, or that we sometimes don't doubt we'll "get everything done." But the "tired" is an exhilarating kind of tired.

Fact is, each and every day, we wake up and pinch ourselves. We pinch ourselves about how lucky we are to have each other, how lucky we are to have such an incredible daughter, and how lucky we are, professionally, to get to live-out the callings we live out each day. We're always giving thanks to God.

We're coming up on our 20-year anniversary in just a few weeks. That alone is hard to imagine. The decision we made, years ago --to forge a different, "reframed," kind of "mutual marriage"-- has been deeply fulfilling each and every day, even when we didn't have many mentors to lead us along the path in the beginning, and even during the many days when it's absolutely exhausting.

But the truth is, lots of folks are walking this path now. We're not really that unusual anymore.

So, I've shared these stories of our lives as "model/mentor stories" that we didn't have when we said those wedding vows; twenty-years ago. "Reframing" can be done. It can be done well, and it can be a blessing to you, your spouse, your children, and your church

 Life is always full of change. Nothing, not even the rock and the trees --much less our human institutions-- ever stays the same. Heraclitus was right about that river:
“No one ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and they're not the same person.”

Keirkegaard noted that Heraclitus had a Disciple who took it a step further:
"No one steps in the same river once."

And whether or not your path is like ours, the point is all our clergy families are changing, being "reframed;" because family itself, The Church itself, are also constantly being reframed as humanity moves into its future.
That's a good thing. Really, it is.
It's hopeful. Really, it is.

The way to confront the "Smokin' Hot Wives" phenomenon, the way to advance the issue of pastoral appointments for women, the way forward for all of us, will involve reframing…in each clergy family…in each local churches…among our Cabinets and Bishops.

It will be hard and tiring work. But it will be exhilarating too. And if we do it, in an era where both men and women increasingly lead in the private sector, the United Methodist Church could be uniquely suited to lead the future Church of Jesus Christ.

(1)Because it is my own family situation, I am mostly going to address the situation of a "dual-income household" here. I am not attempting to minimize the role of a "stay at home parent," whether male of female. In fact, I attempt to stay -- and trust I am heard to say-- that this is a truly important "calling" that a clergy spouse might undertake. I'm hopeful that others who are following that path, might be able to address more fully the "partnership issues" and "reframing" issues related to families with one stay-at-home parent. Because, even though this is a more "traditional" model, modern family life is leading this model to subtle, and not-so-subtle, changes too.

(Leave comments below. If you like this post, "share it" or "like" it on Facebook by clicking the box below, so others can see too. Comments here are moderated, and are approved at my discretion, when I can get to them. So, be patient if they don't appear right away) 

Read More

Blog Changes

After many years with the same layout, I've taken the plunge and changed my blog layout. It's probably well beyond time for this.

Change is good, and in the digital world that changes every day, it was probably silly to keep the same layout for almost a decade.

The layout was tied to my website, which really also needs serious updating.

In fact, I manage three websites, and all three of them need serious upgrading pretty soon. Look for that. Very soon.

In the meantime, now might be a fun time to journey back through some of the entries here. This new layout is a part of Blogger's "Dynamic Design Templates," and they're pretty cool.

Just click on some entries to see the fun interface.

Even more fun than this, close out this entry, and find the menu up in the top left....it probably says "Magazine" as the default.

Scroll through some of other cool ways you can look at organize all the content here. My favorite is "Flipcard." You can arrange things by date...and by "label" Both, very very cool.

The only annoyance right now is that Disqus does not seem to work with this interface. That's a serious annoyance for me. I hope they figure that out soon.

So, change is good.

Check it out.

Read More

All Is Well

The incredible news of yesterday was no blockages!!!
The doc said the arterties were "clear as the day you were born," and the nurse called them "textbook."
YES!!

Here's the video...

 

So, that means some kind of electrical problem with "extra" beats in between the regular cycle of beats.
The doc is not worried about it for now, and even indicated that there might be nothing to do about it for now. I will see him in a few weeks to discuss.

So, we'll see how this unfolds.

A little rest over the next few days....and lots of prayers of gratitude.

Every now and then, I get reminded of two blessings...
a) That Facebook can actually be kinda cool, and
b) That I have amazing friends.

Friends: I can't tell you how powerful it was to have your prayers, thoughts, jokes with me yesterday while I had my heart procedure.
Stopping to read FB comments now and then was....AWESOME.

The sense of prayer, and happy thoughts, was overwhelming. Thank you. Sincerely.

Read More

Stuff Happening With Me

Tuesday morning, I will go in for an angiogram on my heart. This results from a series of tests that docs have been running on me in the past few weeks. It started with the recognition by my primary care doc that the electrical circuitry in my heart appeared to be off. (Just a routine exam...)

That led to stress test, holter monitor, etc....

The result of that is the discovery that my heart apparently beats a whopping 20,000-more times a day than the average heart should. (Who knew?)

There are no physical symptoms of this, whatsoever. My heart rate is good. So is my blood pressure.
But it is troubling, to be sure.

So, Tuesday morning is an angiogram.

If it shows no blockages, then by process of elimination, it's an "electrical problem." The heart doc seems to think there's a decent chance this is all it is. The evidence supporting this view is that the extra beats seem to go away when I am exercising. (That's apparently a good sign...)

However, the troubling part is that the *pattern* of my extra beats is one that often indicates blockages. So, hmnn...thus the angiogram. That's the gist of it.

So, we're looking at one of these options:
a) Electrical problems...which means a short hospital stay Tuesday, and further treatment down the road.
b) Blockages...which means stints literally that day, and maybe staying overnight.
c) Blockages, which means surgery later on.

Needless to say, this has all been unfolding rather quickly.

Dennise, me, and my parents will be at the hospital at 6 am on Tuesday morning. I'm supposed to be in the procedure by 8 am. (arrival time, 6 am). We're choosing not to say which hospital at this time, since I may only be there a few short hours. If I must stay overnight, we'll let you all know more.


We'll probably post updates to Facebook as we know more on Wednesday. Several clergy friends will be with me Tuesday morning, and I've asked Mary Clair to hold down the fort at the Church. We will be giving out info to Northaven through her.

So, point is,  asking for your prayers and happy thoughts.

More soon.

Read More