Universal Life Church

It may at first seem contradictory for an atheist to become an online ordained minister in order to officiate his friends’ wedding—after all, marriage is, at least for the traditional Catholic or Christian, a holy sacrament and a compact between bride and groom on one hand, and God on the other. What, then, would drive somebody who rejects not only religion, but also belief in God, to don the title ‘Reverend’ at his friends’ behest? Perhaps the role of minister is not fixed, pre-determined, or dictated, but lies in the minister’s own hands and can be molded by that person to fit the unique needs of the clergy and lay members concerned.

This seems to be the attitude of Irish-Jewish atheist Jason O’Bryan, who became an ordained minister online with Universal Life Church Monastery in order to fulfill his friends Vissy and Harry’s request to perform a non-traditional, modern wedding ceremony for them. His first thoughts, he admits, were, “what an incredible honor” and “how absolutely insane”. Like most ministers with ULCM, O’Bryan didn’t know the first thing about how to officiate a wedding—indeed, in many people’s minds, a highly theoretical knowledge of theology still seems to be a prerequisite for performing wedding ceremonies. Even though he moved beyond his own personal distaste for religion and marriage for the sake of his friends, O’Bryan asked, “What the fuck do I know about weddings?” His friend Harry’s response was a resounding, “Who cares?”

Such a reply challenges even non-theists to re-consider what it truly means to be a minister and to re-think the most important, meaningful contributions a reverend can make. Harry and Vissy reminded O’Bryan why they wanted him to get ordained—not because they wanted him to become a conduit of God and communicate divine approbation of their union, but rather because they wanted a friend, somebody they understood and cherished, to articulate their love for one another. As the bride-to-be herself pointed out, “Why would I want some stranger leading one of the most important days of my life?” It seems like common sense—in the view of a growing number of modern-day couples, the very reasons for selecting a wedding officiant is familiarity and first-hand experience, not traditional priest and minister training. O’Bryan acknowledged this point by composing an entirely original speech and set of wedding vows to reflect his friends’ unorthodox outlook on the role of ministers and the purpose of weddings:

The speech ended up as a collection of small, sweet stories about them as a couple, stories that, when taken in aggregate, explained why they were perfect for each other. It was rounded out by a citation of faith—not to [sic]a God in which neither of them believed, but in their love, in each other and the future.

It would appear that now, in our postmodern world in which the complexities of race, class, and gender continue to defy our expectations, even the role of the clergy is being turned upside down on its head. As philosopher Judith Butler argues, “identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results”—in other words, what it means to be a minister is not a predetermined notion; it is created by the minister herself in the way in which she chooses to define and carry out her ministry. Certainly belief in God will remain essential to the role of most ministers for a long time to come, but in the end, there is nothing actually contradictory about an atheist minister, since the function of a minister can be determined by such an individual himself. What we are left with is the portrait of a more relevant, accessible, accommodating wedding officiant.

The idea that traditional roles are relative and malleable can be re-assuring for newly ordained ministers who fear for their integrity, worry about impediments created by wedding laws, and ponder the legal status of online ordained ministers. But as the market evolves to allow for greater creativity and interaction between vendor and consumer, aspiring ministers will be surprised to find that they have the very qualifications that their clients seek—relevance, practicality, and a uniquely personal touch.

Browse our Guide to Divinity to learn more about atheism and non-theism.

Source:
The Boston Phoenix

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The women in the canonical New Testament are often relegated to feminine stereotypes such as mother (the Virgin Mary), temptress (Salome), and prostitute (Mary Magdalene)—the placid, doe-eyed nurturer, the lusty, bloodthirsty dancer, or the obsequious, prostrate whore. Yet if conservative theologians are mistaken in their opposition to an open canon and continuous revelation, we may be unearthing evidence supporting the position that the greatest apostle of all was Mary Magdalene herself.

The role of Mary Magdalene in the early Christian movement has been the topic of both historical research and fiction. In an excerpt from his book The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene which appeared in a recent special issue of U.S. News & World Report, religious scholar Marvin Meyer takes the approach that the apocryphal Gnostic gospels provide as much insight into the truth surrounding the historical (or at least legendary) Mary of Magdala as does the accepted canon.

Meyer gives several reasons for treating Mary not as a servile, repentant prostitute who tags along after the men (as portrayed in the Bible), nor even as an equal with the other disciples, but rather as Jesus’s favorite apostle of all and one who has truly grasped the mysteries of her mentor’s teachings. She is one of at least three women who form a part of Jesus’s following, travelling with him in their own right, independent of any husband, family member, or other chaperon and without any male intermediary serving to interpret for them the teachings of Christ. In addition, Meyer claims, texts such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the Pistis Sophia all portray Jesus associating equally with women and men. In these early literary sources, moreover, Mary serves as an “articulate advocate for the gospel” and “an eloquent leader of the faith” who emboldens the male disciples upon Jesus’s departure, assuring them of his protection and encouraging them to have confidence in themselves and in his teachings. She seems to show the greatest ability to comprehend the mystical quality of spiritual liberation encoded in Jesus’s teachings when, in the Gospel of Mary, she recounts for the other disciples a vision she had of the soul’s journey toward its fate, despite the contentions of Peter and Andrew with the authority of a woman’s insight. In Pistis Sophia, she is described as the most important disciple and interprets the teachings of Jesus and scripture for her peers, explaining for them the nature and quality of salvation; Jesus tells her, “[y]ou are one whose heart is set on heaven’s kingdom more than all your brothers”. Finally, when Mary finds the risen Jesus outside his tomb and reports his Resurrection to the others, she becomes known as the apostle to the Apostles. Certainly a respectable curriculum vitae by anyone’s standards.

But perhaps most controversial of all is the claim that this seemingly strong, independent, and single-mindedly devoted woman may have been the literal bride of Christ, who sired at least two of her children. Many who are familiar with this theme from popular historical fiction and Hollywood movies such as The Da Vinci Code will roll their eyes at this notion as a farfetched, romantic myth, but at least one early text suggests this relationship between Mary and Jesus. In the Gospel of Philip, notes Meyer, it is said not only that Jesus loves Mary more than any other disciple, but also that he kissed her frequently, and that she was his partner, companion, and consort; meanwhile, religious studies professor James Tabor argues that Jesus intended not to establish a new religion centered on his divinity, but rather to set up a dynasty and a new kingdom based on his descent from King David. If Mary was in fact Jesus’s consort, this would have made her not just a wise mystic, but a queen. If we are not to take it for granted that divine revelation began and ended with the compilation of the canonical Bible some time in the fourth century, it would behove us to consider the theories based on these texts more closely.

If Meyer’s view of Mary is legitimate and the Gnostic gospels constitute a part of the Christian revelation, it would seem that we have been duped by the Church for centuries, and that it has led us to reduce a mystical adept to a brown-nosing prostitute. This would explain why in the Dialogue of the Savior, as Meyer argues, teachings uttered by Mary are attributed elsewhere to Jesus: it may have been too much for the young Church to attribute such spiritual insight to a mere woman. Meanwhile, the Gospel of Mary and other apocrypha remain important works in the tradition of Gnosticism. It is a complex, esoteric question that requires much further exegesis and textual comparison, but if we ever solve the mystery of Mary’s identity, it may change everything we have assumed about the spiritual authority of women in Christianity and the crucial contributions of these women to the original elements of Christian theology.

Read more about the history of Christianity in our Guide to Divinity.

Source:
US New & World Report

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

When Gutenberg’s printing press was invented in the fourteenth century, it allowed a whole new generation of literate churchgoers the opportunity to interpret the teachings of the Bible themselves rather than rely on priests as intermediaries to do so for them. This self-learning most likely contributed in part to an increasing suspicion over the Catholic Church‘s control over its parishioners and, ultimately, to the Protestant Reformation—the masses now demanded direct, personal access to divine wisdom. In a previous blog, we discussed the blessing of laptops and mobile phones on Plow Sunday in a church in London in an effort to adapt the English Church to modern-day life.

Is a similar revolution occurring with the rise of the internet, and must churches become more Web-and-media-savvy in order to retain congregants?

Universal Life Church Monastery is one of numerous online churches that seek to exploit technological innovations for the purpose of spreading its interfaith message to a wider audience; in addition to these internet churches, traditional churches have been investigating ways to use computers and the internet to minister to a potentially broader congregation. This need to incorporate technology into sermons and other church activities was the focus of the recent “Church 2.0″ conference at Claremont School of Theology, where ministers, scholars, and laypeople gathered to discuss the concept of “theology after Google”. Ultimately, says Mitchell Landsberg of the Los Angeles Times, the consensus was, “[i]t’s a whole new world out there. Churches will ignore it at their peril”.

The conference’s attendees leaned toward the liberal side of the spectrum, according to Landsberg. One of these is Doug Pagitt, who, with his ear piercing, goatee, and eccentric wardrobe, looks more like a hipster than a preacher, who runs a church. Pagitt, who comes from an entirely secular background (neither his parents nor grandparents attended church) converted to Christianity at 17 and now runs a church in Minneapolis called Solomon’s Porch. In an almost revolutionary tone, Pagitt told Landsberg, “I think things like denomination and ordination are part of the old system of control and domination that has to go”. This sentiment was echoed by fellow conference attendee and Claremont professor Philip Clayton, who, comparing Web ministry to the Protestant Reformation, noted, “Ladies and gentlemen . . . we are talking today about a transition equally as great.”

In their effort to propel their more modern, liberal theology forward through attractive Web sites and, ultimately, on to people’s computers, they will have to compete with the religious right, which is hardly a stranger to internet ministry. Right-wing conservative preachers are even patrolling Youtube in search of “demonic, occult symbolism” used by pop stars to sway the impressionable minds of the young. One such individual, who goes by the username “ThePopCulturePastor”, posted a video montage of British synthpop band Goldfrapp in which he accused the highly artistic and eccentric lead singer, Alison Goldfrapp, of demon worship in her frequent use of Egyptian All-Seeing Eye (or Eye of Horus) symbolism, her embracing a man dressed as a giant owl in one of the band’s photo shoots, her wearing a wolf mask onstage, and band artwork bearing the images of wolves, horses, and rabbits; like many religious conservatives, he makes the argument that such symbolism is pagan, hence occult, and hence necessarily evil, and that the recording industry is using asymmetrical eye make-up, wolves, owls, and bunnies against us in “spiritual warfare”. (Ironically, his condemnation made me like the band even more.) Denominations such as those at the Claremont conference thus have a technologically astute enemy to combat, or, at least, compete with in this era of Web-based ministry: in Landsberg’s words, “One theme that emerged [at the conference] was how smart the Christian right has been about using new media, and how progressive churches need to catch up.”

But exactly how should progressive churches use technology to promulgate their own interfaith message of respect for the positive contributions of all the world’s religions—whether Baptist, Buddhist, or Wiccan—as well as a more positive depiction of youth culture? Perhaps we need to begin by learning how to integrate new and different media to create a complete church experience: minister training in videography, photography, weblogging, and software is a crucial step towards creating a modern, Web-based ministry, and this approach combined with a more progressive theology should attract younger generations, re-affirm their values, and, hopefully, help turn the tide of right-wing supremacy over Web-based ministry.

We are interested in hearing the thoughts of our own ordained ministers about the increasingly complicated relationship between technology and church ministry. Feel free to give us your own experiences in integrating technology into your ministry or ideas how churches can better adapt to technological innovations and remain relevant to their congregations.

Wicca and paganism are often feared and misunderstood; learn more about what these ancient traditions really stand for in our Guide to Divinity.

Source:
Los Angeles Times

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Since part of Universal Life Church Monastery’s doctrine is freedom of and from religion, and since issues surrounding religious freedom are a direct concern of the church, it seems only appropriate to cover the recent ruling by a U.S. federal appeals court endorsing the use of God on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in many schools. Putting law and constitutionality aside for the time being (for this debate is outside the scope of this article), the chief question becomes how the court justified its decision, and whether this decision was founded on sound reason. The court’s explanation ultimately remains questionable.

Last Thursday, 11 March, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold references to the monotheistic Judeo-Christian deity, God, in the public school Pledge of Allegiance, and, in a separate ruling, the court ruled 3-0 to uphold the reference to this deity on future minted currency. The rulings are a reversal of a 2002 decision in which the same court decided in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, ruling that the Pledge violated the First Amendment by serving to blur the boundary between church and state. In response to that ruling, national furor arose, largely among Christian pastors and ministers, who accused the judges of judicial “activism”. According to Terrence Chea of the Associated Press, the backlash against the ruling backing increased secularization was so heated that “President George W. Bush called the . . . decision ‘ridiculous,’ senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats”.

Is such a backlash fair and rational, or should it set off alarms? What excuses did the court provide?

The decision’s reversal was explained in writing for the majority by Judge Carlos Bea. In defense of the court’s decision supporting the Pledge in schools, he argued, “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded”. Certainly a heartwarming piece of rhetoric, but, ironically, such support for the Pledge may in fact constitute the opposite of what American principles stand for. In addition, Bea pointed out that students were free to opt out of the Pledge. In defense of the court’s decision supporting the invocation of the Judeo-Christian deity on U.S. currency, he maintained that it “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.” But exactly how were the ruling judges able to convince themselves that a government minting coins and bills reading “in God we trust”—whereby the state plainly speaks on behalf of every citizen—does not reflect government establishment of religion any less than, say, the state performing a baptism for every newborn?

For secularists, each of Judge Brea’s arguments is rife with problems. Let us take a look at both.

In the first case, he argues that reciting the Pledge unites Americans and nurtures a loyalty to traditional American ideals and principles. We know that the line “under God” was inserted into the Pledge by members of Congress in a 1954 federal law that sought to distinguish Americans from “godless Communists”, and hence it was a government endorsement of religion (perhaps even an irrational display of jingoism). And yet the First Amendment bans the establishment of religion in order to reflect a core American principle upholding separation of church and state. So, if the recitation of the Pledge is intended to nurture traditional American values, it cannot contain the line “under God”, for this conflicts with the American principle of religious neutrality in government. In the meantime, all of the other great ideals the Pledge symbolizes would remain intact.

In the second case, Bea posits that allowing the line “in God we trust” to be printed and inscribed on U.S. currency does not violate the First Amendment, since it has nothing to do with religion. But this claim seems counter-intuitive, and, indeed, upon further scrutiny, patently self-delusional. The court will be hard-pressed to explain how a government issuing currency which includes such a line does not reflect an adopted theology on the part of the government and therefore violate the First Amendment. Stripped down to its most straightforward elements, the argument, in effect, states circularly that a government endorsing religion does not equate with a government endorsing religion.

We might say that there are more pressing matters at hand than a “petty” debate about the mention of God on money or in a public school pledge, but if we consider the potential course that the upsurge in religious fundamentalist backlashes could take, it becomes a slippery slope from a secular democracy to a theocracy. At Universal Life Church Monastery, where we believe everyone should be free to practice any religion, or no religion at all, we look at these events with a cautious eye and hope that the court’s decision does not help thwart America’s struggle to prise itself out of the increasingly tight grip of religious reactionaries.

While they have different names, the gods of Judaism and Christianity have a strikingly similar heritage. Read more about these influential world faiths in our Guide to Divinity.

Source:
Associated Press

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Law enforcement officers hold dangerous jobs, and the injuries incurred from violence naturally make us indignant against the perpetrators, while the workplace accidents often seem meaningless and inexplicable. They are, after all, only doing their duty to serve and protect the community. Despite the all too often tragic consequences of police work, there is sometimes a happy ending. The story of Chicagoans Mary and Densey Cole, which surfaced in a recent issue of the Chicago Tribune, is an example of the good that can potentially result from such tragedy. It also happens to demonstrate the many opportunities for wedding officiants to make a difference in people’s lives.

The Coles had been planning their dream wedding when Densey was involved in a three-car accident while responding to a burglary call. He was paralyzed. To top things off, while he was still pinned inside his car, a thief stole his gun and threatened to kill him. Densey, who received a severe spinal cord injury, spent months in Denver’s Craig Hospital, known as one of the foremost facilities for injuries to the nervous system. Eventually, they returned to Chicago, where Densey continued to recover. Finally, after he awoke from a four-week coma, the couple held a tiny wedding ceremony inside Densey’s hospital room, a far cry from the lavish ceremony and reception they had planned. Densey even notes that just ten minutes after they said their wedding vows, he became too ill to go on.

Such is the course life all too often takes, and cheerless, sometimes angry questions accompany our frustration. But sometimes, what begins as a curse ends in divine justice, or so it seems.

While Mary Cole was shopping at Crate & Barrell—a major U.S. furniture chain store—she found out that the store was sponsoring an “Ultimate Wedding” contest worth $100,000, so she entered herself and her husband in the contest, which required a one hundred-word essay about how they met and fell in love. Because the winner is determined by popular vote, the Coles have been leading by at least double the amount of the next highest vote. So far, if the Coles keep up their pace, their humble little hospital wedding might turn out more lavish than they had ever expected. Some of the fantastic wedding and honeymoon getaway ideas they have been mulling over include a wedding on the beach in Hawai’i or Playa Del Carmen, Mexico. But not everyone is so lucky. Nevertheless, in anticipation of finally getting their dream wedding, Densey has made gains through physical therapy and can now sit upright on the edge of his bed.

With copkillings and violent tragedies dominating the recent news—not least of all here in the Seattle area, where, despite a declining homicide rate, several police officers have been murdered in the past few months—the story of the Coles is a refreshing glimpse at triumph over adversity and our fellow human’s capacity for sympathy. In addition, it highlights the many unique circumstances in which online ordained ministers can demonstrate their commitment to serving their community and proving that personal passion, and not necessarily traditional minister training, can make a difference.

One way of making your work as a pastor even more fulfilling is to seek out the least fortunate members of the community and hold a sermon, send a prayer, or take the opportunity to officiate a wedding for those whose dreams have been postponed. While the Coles might just get their wish, there are many other young brides and grooms whose ceremonies are even more dismal than a hospital wedding. While ministering in this way would be but a small contribution, it would be far more personal and meaningful than hiring a stranger as an officiant or settling for a mere trip to the county clerk’s office; it would also allow friends and family to play a prominent role in the most important day of a couple’s life, making it a truly special occasion.

The face of marriage is changing rapidly, and this includes an increasing number of unconventional, modern wedding ceremonies. We more than welcome our ministers to share their stories about some of the more unusual weddings they have solemnized, some of the exigent circumstances they have had to deal with, and how they managed. It certainly does not have to describe a lavish retreat to the French Riviera or a trendy ceremony inside an Apple store—even the most mundane wedding can be the most inspiring. How has your experience affected you or the couple you married for the better?

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here at the ULCM blog, we have been monitoring trends in psychoactive drug use as a form of sacrament or communion with God. In a recent blog article, we discussed state control of psychoactive drugs and how such action might constitute impingement on spiritual freedom; we also discussed the growing tolerance towards cannabis use, reflected in the increased relaxation of marijuana laws in numerous U.S. states. But perhaps there are other religious purposes for drugs than the sacramental one; perhaps traditionally taboo or highly restricted drugs serve the purpose of healing, or at least pain relief, in which religious organizations can play an instrumental role.

This is the approach of Wayne Dagit, who became ordained online with Universal Life Church and set up a cannabis “club” in Michigan’s Williamston Township when that state legalized medical marijuana in 2008. Green Leaf Smokers Club serves as a sort of bar for medical marijuana patients, who arrive with their identification and medical marijuana cards. The medicine which Rev. Dagit dispenses ranges in form from the traditional joint to cannabis brownies and coffee laced with “New York Diesel” cannabis. Perhaps ironically, Rev. Dagit set up the club to combat the effects of drug abuse: having lost friends to prescription drug overdoses, he preaches against the harm of prescription drug addiction while advocating the use of cannabis to counteract the ill effects of such drugs. For doctors to administer such harmful drugs to patients in order to combat their illness, Dagit argues, is like saying, “You are going to die and we will help you, but we are going to let you feel good going.”

So how does Dagit bring the church into the picture? Not only is he an ordained minister, but he and his business partner, John Olson, operate Green Leaf Smokers Club as an outreach branch of Dagit’s church, known as the Church of Compassionate Care Ministries. According to Andy Balaskovitz of the Lansing weekly City Pulse, the goal of CFCC and its cannabis club is “to get people off hard prescription drugs and offer them a way to God without being ostracized in a typical church setting”. “If you’re not interested in being thrown out or made a pet-project by most churches, come to mine,” says Dagit. “You can stink, be a biker or a prostitute, I don’t care. We are not a resort for saints—we are a hospital for sinners.” The church even runs a school—Green Leaf University—a program which offers free classes and certification in cannabis-growing. Even the church shop sells fluorescent lamps for patients who wish to grow their own cannabis at home.

But does CFCC constitute a real church? One test is whether it has a regular meeting place. Beyond a physical place of worship, though, the traditional church worship service includes a sermon, liturgy, or ritual followed by a reception where congregants gather to have refreshments. CFCC has a gathering place–the Roadhouse Driving Range and Banquet Center in Williamston; in addition, Dagit holds sermons here from 10 a.m. to noon Sunday mornings, followed by a free lunch and reception where patients can exercise their right to smoke cannabis. During the sermon, Dagit read a passage about liberation from the book of Luke in the Christian Bible, using the text to emphasize the right to practice religious healing without persecution.

Attitudes towards the church vary. Law enforcement authorities have shown suspicions over the organization’s club and public outreach branch, which has been “dubbed one big party by the county sheriff”, according to Balaskovitz. But, in Balaskovitz’s words, the Reverend maintains, “it is close-minded to believe everyone is there just to get high”. “If a marijuana user becomes a patient, it often means they have already been prescribed opiates”, he points out, asking, “If it’s only about getting high, they already have the best drugs to do that—why would they need pot?” Debbie Warner, who leases Dagit his office space and owns the church building with her husband, sees his actions not as blight, but as a boon not just to the church’s congregation, but to the larger community: “He is a good man,” she said. “With us, it’s all about community service and that is exactly what he is doing.” Low-income patient Mandy Swee, who relies on the club for much of her cannabis dose as well as social support, echoes this sentiment, stating, “There is a world of difference between a sick person using marijuana and some 18-year-old just trying to get high”.

It certainly seems as though CFCC and its pastor are on the right track regarding the use of medical cannabis; after all, one of the duties of religious organizations is to care for and minister to the sick. And it seems even more reasonable for ministers to provide their laity with drugs which mitigate the ill effects of more damaging prescription drugs. Perhaps drugs indeed have a religious function, and not just as a sacrament, but also as a healing remedy.

Source:
City Pulse

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In a recent post on the role of religion in HIV prevention, we discussed how religious attitudes can either hinder or facilitate education and awareness about the disease, either helping or marginalizing patients. Pressure on religious leaders to educate and minister to their congregations about the issue has come to the forefront again with the commencement of the United States’ National Week of Prayer for the Healing of AIDS, which lasts from 7th to 13th March. Although some conservative religious voices still contest the idea of religious organizations educating about HIV prevention, leaders from diverse religious backgrounds—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike—have moved beyond judgement and petty differences and sought to bring awareness to their congregants and laity in an organized interfaith effort.

One place where the baton has been taken up, as it were, is Thorne Chapel Baptist Church, in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, where local educators and religious leaders kicked off the Tri-County Interfaith Aids initiative at the ninth annual Caregivers Appreciation Banquet. According to John Henderson of Rocky Mount Telegram, the Banquet seeks to recognize the efforts of caregivers in supporting people with HIV and AIDS, providing such individuals a social safety network, and raising community awareness about the facts regarding the disease. In attendance were master of ceremony Rev. Reginald Silver and mistress of ceremony Arlinda Ellison, health educator with the Edgecombe County Department of Health, who was presented by Silver with a certificate recognizing her efforts. There has probably never been a more opportune time or place for such a gathering—Edgecombe County has the highest percentage of HIV infection of any North Carolina county.

The exchange highlights a practical approach by at least some mainline Christian denominations, which have steered away from inveighing against sin and vice at the pulpit to caring for the ill and honoring their caregivers. “The whole week is about exposure”, pointed out Ellison in down-to-earth terms. “We’re putting the word out about testing. We’re putting the word out about coming together as a community. We’re putting the word out about supporting individuals who are infected, or even the family members who are affected.” According to her, the Interfaith AIDS Initiative is seeking to get churches of various denominations and faiths involved in making HIV and AIDS awareness a priority in church ministry and minister training. Melvin Muhammad, outreach coordinator for Carolina Family Health Centers in Wilson, North Carolina, echoed Ellison’s belief that religious organizations should be pioneers in prevention and education, saying the initiative is about “genuine love”.

Many of us assume that it is only natural for any religious organization to safeguard the health of its community by educating it about health risks and to honor those who care for the ill, weak, and vulnerable, but there is still a strain of thought among the pious which ignores the kind and loving efforts of leaders and fixates on the sin of the act which supposedly incurred the disease in the first place. This lingering prejudice became evident when one commenter in the Telegram article inquired, I am curious as to if these churches are teaching about morality also and a great way to prevent AIDS is to not have sex until marriage. Dont [sic]do drugs and you will not get the virus. Are they leading the community to Christ also? Are they trying to minister to the homosexual people at Battle Park and lead them to Jesus? Just curious.

Some of our readers may agree with this challenge, but others, of course, will already have an arsenal of arguments in mind to wield in response to such sentiments. Does it not constitute morality—not to mention magnanimity—to forgive the “sinner”, move beyond the sin, and show them support through their illness? Is it not also Christ-like to do exactly this, just as Christ himself loved the prostitute? There is the even bigger question whether or not an act which potentially results in the contraction of a life-altering condition constitutes sin in the first place. After all, it may be purely accidental, and we know it is possible, though perhaps vanishingly rare, to contract the illness through the benevolent means of blood transfusions.

With these questions in mind, Universal Life Church Monastery would like to give our own ordained ministers the chance to share their thoughts on the efforts of Thorne Chapel Church and the Tri-County Interfaith Aids initiative. If one thing is certain, it is that collaboration among faith groups in standing up for fundamental principles is possible. This can be done in many ways—whether by raising awareness about the issue on our church discussion forum, reading a sermon, or sending a prayer online. In the end, we hope that more of our ministers, regardless of spiritual persuasion, will see the great opportunity for putting purpose into their ministry by supporting and caring for the less fortunate.

Learn more about interfaith traditions: read about Unitarian Universalism in our Guide to Divinity.

Source:
Rocky Mount Telegram

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The conflict between church interests and local zoning laws is not a new phenomenon; in the United States, communities have often sought to restrict church building expansions and, perhaps to a lesser extent, church activities in the public realm. The chief question at the heart of the issue is to what extent a congregation has the right to practice its religious freedom unimpeded.

The conflict between church public outreach and the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood has reached the federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, where city officials have ordered a halt to a CrossRoads United Methodist Church’s breakfast for the homeless in an upscale neighborhood park. Officials, who say the event violates zoning laws, instituted the ban in response to complaints from neighbors about the alleged criminal activity of some of the event’s homeless participants. According to Amanda Lee Myers of the Associated Press, “Residents say the homeless create blight and pose a danger to them, pointing to the case of a homeless felon caught with child pornography in the neighborhood”. “[S]ome have stuck around and have urinated in yards or broken into cars”, claims resident Jason Morris, who argues, “[The ban is] about a law that applies to every property owner.” Church pastor Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank argues, “It doesn’t make sense that they would leave here, where there’s a bathroom, and go urinate on someone’s yard”. The man possessing the child pornography was found in an alley just outside the home of Kevin Swatich. However, Escobedo-Frank claims that the incident was an isolated one and happened months prior.

But does CrossRoads Church have the freedom to carry out its charitable services in public parks despite the concerns of neighbors, or is its freedom limited by certain responsibilities which all citizens and corporations are granted? Exactly how far does freedom to practice religion extend?

On one hand, the actions of the city potentially violate First Amendment protections for religious freedom, argues Kevin Theriot, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale-based legal group which takes on legal cases in defense of Christian congregations. “Feeding the homeless and feeding those who are hungry has been recognized as an important religious belief for years,” he says, according to Myers. “My guess is if they were serving a pancake breakfast to local neighborhood folks that aren’t homeless, then nobody would have a problem.” Theriot claims the homeless event was banned because city

officials target the homeless in an attempt to keep them invisible. On the other hand, residents posit that the First Amendment does not cover unimpeded church activity, and that the same laws which apply to citizens apply to religious organizations: “This has never been about the First Amendment,” Morris says. “It’s about a law that applies to every property owner.”

Whether or not Morris is correct in his assessment, it is becoming more difficult for local jurisdictions to restrict public religious events: in 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a law which guarantees greater protection for religious groups in zoning disputes and requires solid evidence to show that the event endangers the public.

Exactly what constitutes religious freedom? As the above law already presupposes, religious organizations do not possess the religious freedom to impinge on the civil or human rights of other citizens or entities. Given this stipulation, why should faith groups be exempt from zoning laws and permitted, for example, to build outlandish suburban “mega-churches”—only too often segregated along class and race boundaries—on wetlands, farms, and other delicate ecosystems? After all, such unregulated growth might arguably impinge on the rights of the general population to have access to sustainable natural resources and recreational opportunities.

Of course, the breakfast in the park held by CrossRoads Church does not exactly constitute environmental degradation. However, it is a church event held in a public park, and the community who swayed officials to ban the event provided tenuous evidence that the homeless participants vandalized property or generally threatened the children of the community; indeed, what stands out most of all seems to be an underlying classism.

It is probably a blessing that online churches such as Universal Life Church Monastery avoid this problem by conducting their public outreach largely through the medium of the Internet and smaller and more frequent worship celebrations in our Seattle Sanctuary’s Le Jardin.

Still, the use of public space is a concern for most churches. We always welcome the thoughts of our ministers; give us your opinion on this matter.

Source:
The Seattle Times

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

It seems as though wedding trends are constantly being superseded by even newer, more outlandish ones, reflecting the continual evolution of the modern wedding. Ministers in general—and not just in their capacity as wedding officiant—have had to adapt to the rapid innovations in technology which have come to define our everyday lives. As we discussed in a recent article, the vicar of one Anglican church in London is now performing the consecration of laptops on Plow Sundays. However, the blessing of laptop computers and mobile telephones was insufficient For newlyweds Ting and Josh Li, who decided to forgo the traditional church setting and surround themselves with the latest gadgets on this most special of occasions by holding their ceremony in one of the grandest palaces of technological innovation—the Apple store on New York’s famed shopping thoroughfare Fifth Avenue.

Nor was the occasion a private one attended only by friends and family; rather, the congregation consisted of a random assortment of individuals. Like many shops in New York, the Fifth Avenue Apple store stays open till the wee hours of the night in order to accommodate the enormous city’s diverse population, and amid Ting and Josh’s friends and family lingered hapless late-night shoppers checking out the latest gadgets. The spectacle inside was, apparently, an odd mixture of timeless tradition and modern savoir-faire, a truly post-modern defiance of expectations. Even the young couple’s pet was invited to watch the wedding officiation. As Stephen Hutcheon of Victoria, Australia’s The Age reports, “[o]n the stroke of midnight on Valentine’s Day, the couple, wearing full wedding regalia, their pet shiba inu, Shio, and 20 guests walked down the glass spiral staircase” at the store.

The officiant, Henry Hu, might resemble anyone you would meet on the street: he works by day as a premier relationship manager at HSBC, and by night as an aspiring magician. Hu became ordained as a minister through Universal Life Church and paid a small fee for his minister’s ordination credential through the online church. To top things off, Hu read the wedding vows from his iPhone. To commemorate the occasion’s technologically savvy congregation and surroundings, Hu did not don the traditional priest’s cassock or alb, or even a crisp mainline Protestant Christian minister’s suit, but rather the jeans and black mock turtle-neck skivvy of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Even the higher power presiding over the ceremony and commanding the adulation of its celebrants appeared to be none other than this mere mortal. “Hu”, reports Hutcheon, “said Josh was a big fan of Apple and an even bigger fan of Jobs”. Even the vows and sermon were unorthodox. Rather than a Bible, Hu incorporated in the couple’s modern wedding vows a line from a speech that Jobs delivered at Stanford University: “You have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down.”

Rather fortuitously, it was the couple’s mutual interest in Apple computers and telephones which led to their acquaintance inside the store, where their relationship grew and flourished into a full-fledged romance, so it was perhaps only appropriate that they should make the birthplace of their love the place to solemnize it too.

Like a growing number of couples, the Lis have eschewed the exclusively traditional wedding ceremony and opted for an inspiring and contemporary twist. Their wedding is just another example of their identity as a couple—in this case, a reflection of their place in modern technological culture. Environmentalism is an important consideration for other contemporary couples, who seek to make theirs an eco-friendly, green wedding as a statement of their own values. However one defines marriage, it is evident that this institution is changing at a rapid pace to echo the personal preferences, passions, and values of a new generation.

Source:
The Age

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Three blocks from the U.S. Capitol and just a half-block from the Cannon House Office Building sits an old Victorian townhouse from 1880 the occupants of which have long secluded themselves there virtually unnoticed. The house, known simply as C Street Center, is in fact the home and meeting place for a delegation of fundamentalist Christian Congress members, who convene there to hold prayer sessions in their free time, outside work, which lies just down the street. The group, which calls itself C Street Center after the building, claim status as a church and have thus far avoided filing public tax returns, as is usual for non-profit organizations. Thirteen ordained ministers are now pressing the IRS to revoke the center’s status as a church, however, and force them to begin filing tax returns just like every other NPO.

Already, it becomes a concern whether the association between church and state at the center is a lawful one. But which activity in fact impinges on religious freedom–the attempt on the part of the ministers to constrain the center’s church status, or the blurring of church and state in an exclusive club for lawmakers where religion is practiced?

On first thought, it seems that any attempt by the government to rein in the allowable set of criteria which constitute a religious organization would give it enough power to discriminate against religions that do not fulfill the criteria and thus force them to file public tax returns. This, in turn, might constitute religious bias on the part of the government, violating the First Amendment guarantee of religious neutrality on the part of the government. On second thought, by using such a set of criteria, the government may not be cherry-picking desirable from undesirable religions, but rather setting the standard for all religions; from this assumption, then, an organization which does not meet the criteria cannot claim to be discriminated against, since it is not considered a religious organization in the first place.

According to Peter Overby of National Public Radio, the group of clergy members cited fifteen criteria for defining a church for tax purposes, which sounds uncannily similar to the IRS Fourteen Points used for the same purpose. The ministers, some of whom undoubtedly suspect that the definition of religion has been diluted and perhaps even profaned by the goings-on at C Street, have delivered a complaint to the IRS which states, “[a]n organization whose chief activity is providing room and board to members of Congress is not a church.” A church, they argue, must be an organization which is accessible to the public, or consists of an open congregation, and which is certainly not restricted to government officials. Indeed, it seems inappropriate in a (nominally) secular state that a club operated exclusively for fundamentalist Christian Congress members deserves to be called a church, simply because they claim to be so, without having to account for their claim. Under such a premise, any organization should be allowed to claim status as a church, even when it consists solely of lawmakers, presumably for the purpose of deliberating on legislative decisions motivated by religious belief.

Is the C Street Center avoiding its public duty and blurring the boundary between church and state by claiming tax-exempt status as a church, even though it admits only lawmakers, or are the thirteen ministers who are challenging the center’s status pressuring the IRS to unfairly constrain the definition of religion? Let us know your thoughts.

Source:
National Public Radio

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•