More on California United Methodists and Same-Sex Marriage

This is from the United Methodist News Service:

California United Methodists react to same-sex ruling (UMNS)
By Marta W. Aldrich

On the heels of a California Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to same-gender unions, two United Methodist legislative bodies in California have approved gay-friendly statements that are stretching the denominational promise of "open hearts, open doors, open minds." 

The church's California-Pacific Annual Conference, convening June 18-22 in Redlands, approved three measures that support same-gender couples entering into the marriage covenant. Each "encourages both congregations and pastors to welcome, embrace and provide spiritual nurture and pastoral care for these families," according to a June 27 letter to the conference from Bishop Mary Ann Swenson and other conference leaders. 

That same week in Sacramento, the California-Nevada Annual Conference approved two measures on the same issue, including one that lists 67 retired United Methodist clergy in northern California who have offered to conduct same-gender marriage ceremonies. The resolution commends the pastors' work in offering continued ministry. 

The statements are the strongest yet on the issue by California United Methodists and have drawn cheers from gay rights advocates, who say the church and its pastors should extend to same-sex couples the same level of support it provides heterosexual couples. Others say the conferences are on the verge of breaking a Scripturally based covenant with the rest of the 11.5 million-member worldwide denomination. 

The United Methodist Church, while affirming all people as persons "of sacred worth," considers the practice of homosexuality "incompatible with Christian teaching." Its policy book, called the Book of Discipline, prohibits its pastors and churches from conducting ceremonies celebrating homosexual unions. The denominational statements were affirmed last spring during split votes by General Conference, the church's top legislative body. The assembly, which met April 23-May 2, convenes every four years and represents United Methodists worldwide. 

That same month, California's high court overturned a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, making California and Massachusetts the only U.S. states to allow gay couples to marry. California began to issue licenses June 16. For more on this story, log on to http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2433457&ct=5661893.

In Treatment

Quote of the day:
"Just the knowledge that a good book is awaiting me at the end of a long day makes that day happier."
--Kathleen Norris

The HBO series “In Treatment” is unusual in many ways.

First, it is on every weeknight. Other than an occasional 3-part miniseries, I can’t think of another drama series airing every night.

Second, each night of the week is a different storyline. All are linked by Paul the therapist, played by Gabriel Byrne. There are four different patients, and Paul himself talks with a therapist on Friday nights.

Third, HBO has a canny programming strategy. It is running two episodes each weeknight. At 9 p.m. is a replay of last week’s episode, followed by the new episode.

This might sound like a convenient way to avoid missing an episode. And it is. But Merrie and I find ourselves watching the whole hour every week. This show is so good it deserves two viewings.

The most important way this show is different is that each episode features two people in conversation. That’s it. Storylines do unfold, but there is no action, and the setting is always Paul’s office.

“In Treatment” is not for everyone. People who have a hard time with the idea of psychotherapy will have a hard time with this show.

To make matters worse, in early episodes Byrne is so passive that he seems to be uninterested and underacting. What happens as the series develops, however, is really something to behold.

This is an extraordinary and addictive series. It is by far the best thing on television.

Into the Wild

Quote of the day:
“Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.”
--Bertrand Russell

The movie “Into the Wild” is worth seeing. Sean Penn directed and wrote the screenplay, based on the book by Jon Krakauer

It’s the true story of Christopher McCandless, who graduates from Emory University in 1990 and then heads out on the road, eventually leaving behind all his possessions, money, credits cards and ID.

He is seeking freedom but, more than this, he is seeking life. There is a scene in the film in which he quotes a famous writer that the human soul can only live through new experiences.

McCandless interprets this two ways. First, it is necessary for him to not stay in one place or with the same people too long. Second, his relationships with other human beings are not as important as his relationship to unspoiled nature--to wildness.

The interesting thing about his interpretation is that many people share it. They may find this movie disturbing.

Some people live their lives on the basis of seeking new experiences and avoiding doing the same thing twice. This must be the origin of one of my very-least-favorite expressions of all time: “Been there, done that.”

To me, that statement says: “Nothing I have done or seen is worth doing or seeing again.” And its corollary: “No one I’ve ever met is worth meeting again.”

“Into the Wild” works on many levels. It is an excellent though awkwardly structured road film. It is a fascinating portrait of family dynamics and how they influence our worldview.

I especially enjoyed the wide variety of people McCandless meets along the way. These are some very well-drawn character studies, with top-notch acting. Honestly, sometimes I found these people more interesting than McCandless.

The journey this film takes is deep into the reality of living transiently and living outside of human relationships.

And the question that comes up is: Where do we find true meaning in this life?

Survivor: China: Lying and Betrayal

Quote of the day:
"We are, perhaps, uniquely among the earth's creatures, the worrying animal. We worry away our lives, fearing the future, discontent with the present, unable to take in the idea of dying, unable to sit still."
--Lewis Thomas

I think the TV show “Survivor” has something to teach us about presidential elections.

The message is simple. The person who plays the game best wins. Honesty, integrity, talent, goodness and responsibility do not matter in determining the winner.

Skills or experience do not matter. The only skill that is measured is the ability to play the game.

The honest person with integrity cannot win, because the game is played using lying, deceit and betrayal.

The final program of “Survivor: China” had two parts. The first part had the three finalists making their case before the jury.

The seven people on the jury were the last seven people voted off the show. Every jury member had been lied to or betrayed by at least one of the finalists.

The process became choosing the “least bad” person as the winner. Sound familiar?

As they were questioning the finalists, several of the jury got quite angry and hurt in describing how they had been deceived or betrayed. These feelings seemed very real. Of course, everyone had been in the wilderness for 39 days, so emotions were understandably raw.

But those emotions were also quite true to the situation.

The second part of the show shifted to a live broadcast from a Hollywood TV studio to reveal who got the most votes from the jury to win the game. The mood of the jury was suddenly very, very different.

A few months had gone by. Everyone had gone home and discovered what celebrities they had become. They had lots of food and sleep and hot showers.

In the studio, the jury was happy, and very forgiving. When asked how they felt being betrayed, everyone smiled and said, “that’s just how the game is played.”

Soon, another “Survivor” will begin. So will the lying, deceit, betrayal, hurt and pain.

But it’s ok. It’s just how the game is played.

Sharing

Quote of the day:
“When wealth and the wealthy are valued in the city, virtue and good men are less valued. What is valued is practiced, what is not valued is not practiced.”
--Plato

We don’t understand sharing. We think the word belongs either in kindergarten or as a label for a computer process.

Some people loathe the word. Indeed, some hate it so much that if the word is spoken in their presence, they will run you over with their Hummer.

Speaking of kindergarten, Robert Fulghum, in his well-known book, called sharing one of the things about life that we learned in kindergarten.

But, of course, we didn’t learn it. Not really.

The core of the problem is, as I said before, that we have trouble doing it because we don’t understand it. We don’t understand sharing because there are so few opportunities to learn about it in our daily lives.

Sharing is not supported in our culture, except at miscellaneous times of crisis, when the news is overrun with stories of what we see as sharing. I say it that way because so often people mean well and view themselves as generous, but they are just giving away things they don’t want.

Sharing involves sharing things that you value--your stuff and your time. More than this, sharing involves giving yourself, and allowing those with whom you are sharing to also share with you.

It’s a two-way street. It’s integral to the value of sharing.

Question: can we open ourselves to another to allow them to share with us, as well as us sharing with them?

This is, after all, how life gets better.

How Conflict Begins

Quote of the day:
"Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment."
--Damon Runyon

The other day I read a classic story that described how human conflict begins.

Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah. When Rebekah was pregnant, she felt the twins struggling.

As infants they were very different. Esau, the first born, grows up to be a hunter--a “man of the field,” while Jacob becomes a quiet man “living in tents.”

Esau comes in from a long day of hunting and asks Jacob for some food. Jacob gives it to him, but only after Esau agrees to give him his inheritance and position as firstborn son.

These are two opposite personalities. One is extraverted, active, emotional and rebellious; the other is introverted, reflective, intelligent and obedient. One is careless and indifferent about the future; the other is clever and knows how to manipulate for political advantage.

Conflict between these two personality types is all around us--at home, at work, in the news.

If you grew up with a brother or sister, you know who was the responsible, obedient one and who was the careless, rebellious one. You know who was good in sports and who was good in school.

You carry your feelings about your brother or sister everywhere you go, for your whole life. People who are like your brother or sister will trigger those feelings.

This is how a lot of conflict begins, and how all conflict is made worse.

Think about conflicts in the news. For San Diegans, it’s Mayor Jerry Sanders and City Attorney Mike Aguirre.

Political groups and nations have these personality types, which triggers and exacerbates conflicts among them.

The bible is extraordinarily insightful when you let it be that way. Specifically, it is insightful about nature of human beings and their families, and where the trouble in our lives often originates.

A Very Challenging TV Series

“The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun.”
--Ralph Nader

HBO has begun a new series called “Tell Me You Love Me” in its marquee 9 p.m. Sunday slot. It’s a risk. Not just for HBO, but for viewers.

The premise of the show is simple. It follows four couples as they struggle with intimacy.

“Struggling with intimacy” is redundant because intimacy is always a struggle. It’s not necessarily hard to get close to another human being, but to stay close requires constantly being faced with things we don’t like that we see in the other person. Whether and how we can honestly come to terms with these things is the basis for intimacy.

The process of establishing or deepening intimacy is often not pretty. But it is the realest thing we go through in our lives. This is why the 20th century theologian Paul Tillich used intimacy as one of two ways of understanding God. (The other was ultimacy.)

In movies and TV shows, sex is used as an easy surrogate for intimacy. But it is unusual to find a story that focuses on the reality of long-term intimacy.

“Tell Me You Love Me” attempts to put the struggle for intimacy on the screen. In includes sex--some of it fairly graphic, even for HBO. But the sex is just an indicator of what is to come.

Because the subject matter is so difficult, watching can sometimes be an uncomfortable experience. It has been for me.

After a couple of episodes, though, I find it very rewarding indeed. And I find that I care about the characters, as unbelievably aggravating as some of them are.

It’s a very, very fine show. HBO has done it yet again.

Fads Sometimes Contain Truth

Quote of the day:
"Much as I resented having to grow up in Des Moines, it gave me a real appreciation for every place in the world that's not Des Moines."
--Bill Bryson

We devour, collect and discard self-help notions about as often as we change cell phones. There is an unfortunate fact that dooms most self-help systems.

In order to sell books, CDs and videos, a self-help system must tell us what we want to hear. If we don’t want to hear it, we won’t buy it. Yet, as all of us know, there is no “easy” way to help ourselves. If we want to change ourselves, some kind of pain, anxiety, depression or some negative emotion will be part of it. So, by telling us what we want to hear, a “successful” self-help system is ensuring that it won’t work.

In spite of this, some of the self-help systems of the last 30 years or so contain nuggets of very useful information. One of these nuggets is John Bradshaw’s notion of the inner child.

This idea continues to be the butt of numerous jokes and put-downs. But it is a useful way to understand ourselves--especially how we react to difficult situations. Somehow, we faced a similar situation as children, and the emotion we had at that time was imprinted on us. This “inner child” comes into our lives unconsciously when we face a tough time. Whether we know it or not, and whether we like it or not.

Do Adolescents Care About Others?

New research suggests that teens and adolescents “hardly ever use the portion of their brains associated with thinking about other people’s emotions and thoughts,” according to Scott LaFee in today’s "San Diego Union-Tribune."

Neuroscientist Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of University College London has done brain-imaging research to indicate the extent to which adolescent brains are still developing. (http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/sblakemore/book.htm).

In addition to empathy, parts of the brain responsible for prudence and caution also are still growing and not fully functional, Blakemore says. As Lafee puts it, “When confronted with making decisions about people and emotions, a posterior portion of the brain, used in perceiving and imagining actions, took charge.”

This brought to mind something that Peter J. Boyer wrote about in the September 4, 2006 "New Yorker":

“When the [story about the alleged rape by members of the Duke lacrosse team] broke, last spring, [Duke Instructor] Elizabeth Chin’s anthropology class was studying Margaret Mead’s ‘The Coming of Age in Samoa,’ occasioning lively inquiry into the mores governing Duke’s undergraduate life.

“For Chin, a visiting professor from Occidental College, the sessions were surprising, and instructive. Several of the young women in her class were members of Duke’s elite sororities--the Core Four, as they are called. ‘The sorority women in particular were trying to convince me that the sexually free and exploratory world that Mead describes is pretty much the same thing as the hookup culture,’ Chin recalls. She wasn’t buying it.

“’The whole hookup thing is, you get really drunk so that, at some level, you can’t be responsible,’ she says. ‘And then you hook up and then there’s no obligation. It’s bad manners, in fact, to sort of get connected to the person. But I don’t think any of them like it that much…. It’s dehumanizing. And it’s very alienating. It’s sort of like they have to deaden themselves before they can do it.’”