Lectionary

Opinions Expressed

  • Opinions expressed in posts and comments belong to the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Reconciling Ministries Network.

July 10, 2009

A Poem After Open Communion at Pride

By Terri Stewart
After participating in open communion at PrideFest, Seattle

pink hair, ponytails
outrageous make-up
silicone breasts popping
the buttons of a polyester shirt
rainbow scarf waving in the air
a neon-green mini-skirt
revealing muscled legs
in tattered fishnets
with size 11 feet
in 6 inch heels
made in the image of God

brown hair, styled
like Clark Gable
lightly speckled face
from a long-ago shave
baggy Fitch shirt over a
naturally expanding chest
faded jeans worn at the hips
and a rainbow belt
with size 7 feet
in brown loafers
beloved child of God

the bread of life
given for you
to live a life as you were
made and created
loving as you were made to love
the cup of a new covenant
given for you
to create a space
to meet the one
who loves you
communion with God

June 29, 2009

July 08, 2009

Reflections on New York Pride

By Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

1. A Gay Pride weekend is no different from a Black Pride weekend. James Brown addressed this in his song "I'm Black and I'm Proud" ("Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud").  Any community or group of persons that has and does experience demeaning, de-humanization, suppression and oppression because of who they are MUST for its own sanity and to avoid being rendered invisible, CELEBRATE! Ralph Ellison said it well in his book about race, Invisible Man: "I am invisible because people simply refuse to see me."  Persons or groups that live their lives in "closets" become accomplices to those who wish they did not exist.

2. There will be critiques of what some call "shocking" displays of sex and the sexual.  One must ask the question, "Is it because of the sex, or is it because the Gay community dares to express its own version of 'The Audacity of Hope' by going public with the fact the Divine has given us the gift of sexuality whether it is expressed activity or not?"  In a society that is ashamed and/or unwilling to admit that our parents "did it" to produce us, Gay Pride weekends make public, that some would deny, "We are sexual beings."  Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There is no there, there." Public affirmation that we exist and that our existence is the result of sexual activity lets the world know that in us, there is a there there.

3. Some religionists critique same gender sexual activity because they say "sex is meant only for a man and woman, because the purpose of sex is procreation and little more."  I am not a Biblical scholar, but each time I read Song of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible, I read little of procreation and I find words that affirm the magnificence of the human body and how bodies interact in ways that express affirmation of the God who created them.

4. The rainbow colors that dominate the visuals of Gay Pride weekends remind me of how natural rainbows are created: a mix of rain and sunshine.The pride that accompanies the displaying of those colors is a way of saying that the inner tears provoked and evoked in persons who are Gay because of rejection by family, friends, society, church, and sometimes by self, have met the sunshine of love, acceptance and affirmation.  Thus, a human rainbow has been created. Gibran is right about the mix of joy and sorrow.  The Gay community is a living expression and embodiment of the joy that comes from celebrating each other and celebrating self. Each of us is a "Rainbow" composed of a mix of tears and sun; but too often it is only those who have been oppressed and denied who understand that.

July 06, 2009

The Strength to Be Faithful

By Adrienne Trevathan

Anna has been much on my mind.  A few days ago was her official commemoration day, and I had the honor of reading some highlights from her life in a worship service.  Since then, her wisdom and strength have been a breath of fresh air for me throughout the week as I think about her struggle with the Methodists.

Anna Howard Shaw was the first woman to be ordained by the Methodist Protestants, a group who separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the early nineteenth century.  In 1875, The Methodist Episcopal Church refused to ordain Anna on the grounds that she was “inferior.”  Anna writes about the event:

And when they came to read out the names and all the young men went up to be ordained they read out our names and the Bishop refused them. Then afterwards we went to him and asked what we could do. We said we had been trained for ministry and that we believe the Lord intended us to preach and that the church refused to ordain us: we both had parishes where they were perfectly satisfied with us, except that we could not baptize or marry them, and we had to be ordained to do that; and what were we to do [?] He said we had better get out of the church. I asked what kind of encouragement would he think that was to a young man who had spent years preparing for the ministry to be told to get out of the church! He said he was sorry but that was all he could say. And I said I would not get out: that it was hard enough to get on anyhow and I wouldn’t waste my strength trying to fight the Church too, that I was going to be ordained and if they wouldn’t ordain me, I’d go where they would.
[Nancy N. Bahmueller, “My Ordination: Anna Howard Shaw,” Methodist History 14/2 (January 1976): 126-131. Excerpts.]

At the advice of a male colleague who advocated for women in ministry, Anna went before the Methodist Protestants for ordination.  After the interview, the committee of the Boston Conference took two days discussing Anna’s character before they finally called her back:

The next day they had me come back and they asked me a whole lot of questions. The first ones they asked were about [Saint] Paul of course. Did I know what Paul said and did I believe it. And I said yes. Then they said what did I [think] about his having said “Wives obey your husbands.” So I told them…and they hadn’t heard of that. Then I added, but even if he did mean as they said, it didn’t apply to me for I had no husband to obey. But they said I might have. I said I might have but if they believed in Paul the only thing for them was to ordain me, for I might have a husband who ordered me to preach and if they would ordain me now I could, whereas if they ordained me and he ordered me not to preach I could stop if I married. Well, of course that made them terribly mad…

Oh, they asked me all sorts of questions of that sort, but I had the best of them, for they were not educated people at all, and of course I was straight from studying the Bible in Hebrew and knew a great deal about it. And then of course I’d taken special pains with that part of the subject and knew all about it.


Finally, Anna was accepted for ordination as a Methodist woman.  As she stood for ordination, she was surrounded by a large crowd of people, most fascinated to see a woman ordained, some likely amused that it was happening in the first place:

I nearly died of shame. I was the only one being ordained and when I had to stand up there all alone I thought I should faint. The wife of Mark T., such a tiny little woman she was, just about a head and shoulder shorter than I, saw how I felt…and she came and stood with me and held my hand. I thought it was so nice of her. I’ve never forgotten it, it was one of the kindest things anyone could do. And she was an Episcopalian, too!

I find many things about her account powerful, not only for me, but potentially for all people who struggle with the Church and its definition of freedom.

First of all, Anna knew her limits.  She knew the struggle she would have as a woman, and she chose to find another community.  I think it’s important to recognize that she didn’t just leave her community out of frustration; she left it because she didn’t have the strength to fight it.  For Anna, being faithful to her call meant using that strength instead to walk through another door and prepare a way for other women.  She used the opportunity she had to be faithful.  Some LGBT brothers and sisters have found themselves in a similar situation and have been met with the choice of staying in the church or leaving it.  While it may be easy to critique them, perhaps we should remind ourselves of how much strength it takes to struggle for basic freedom and rights that the hetero-normative world takes for granted.     

Secondly, as we can see from Anna’s story, she was a woman who “knew her stuff.”  Not only did she know it, but it became such a part of her that those around her couldn’t deny it.  I also love her sense of humor in other sections of her account.  Who’s to say that the children of God can’t toss out a zinger every now and again?  I wouldn’t say that it’s only those fighting for rights, however, that need to speak and teach a new language to the church.

This brings me to my last point, which is that someone was there to hold her hand in her time of need.  I can only imagine what it must have felt like to be the first woman ordained, to stand in the spotlight of skeptical men who were calculating future failures.  Thank God for the “wife of Mark T.” who stood up next to her, gently grabbed her hand and gave her a breath of fresh air.  Thank God for everyone who has stood with anyone “Other” in this society and affirmed them.  Thank God for the people who have shown me that my sexuality is only one part of the beautiful story of God.    

As I think about freedom today in conjunction with Anna’s testimony, I am reminded
of what I’ve heard several people tell me in the last few years: Freedom is not the ability to make a choice.  Freedom is the ability for all people to have what God wants and desires for all to have.

I truly believe that God prepares a way for everyone; I guess you could say it’s part of my implicit theology.  It took me longer than I care to admit to realize this, but I can’t turn back.  My hope and prayer as an ally is that I can be one of the people who stands up to hold a hand and offer my love and energy.

I am haunted by the conclusion of Anna’s story:  

So that’s how I was ordained. It wasn’t very glorious. It was rather like sneaking into the ministry by the back door. But if they won’t open the front door to you, what else can you do? Some day they’ll open all the front doors and make a proper use of the enthusiasm for service that women have got—not only in ministry but everywhere. But until then we’ve got to keep climbing in the best ways we can. And there’s a good deal of fun to be got out of it if you can keep from being bitter and angry.

Keep climbing, people of God.  Keep reaching out for all God wants you to have.

July 03, 2009

Reconciliation and the Prime Directive

By Peter L. DeGroote

When we lose sight of Jesus’ prime directive, we lose sight of reconciliation. The prime directive is to love God and others. Its goal is our reconciliation with others and with all of God’s creation.  (Loving others requires honoring and respecting the creation into which all of us have been placed).

The prime directive can be easily overlooked for two major reasons.

First, Jesus inextricably tied the love of God and others together; we can’t have one without the other. We cannot claim to love God if we do not love others. Further, to love others is to love God, even if we are not even thinking about God and--perhaps--even if we are unaware of the idea of God. 

  • In contrast, we commonly claim God as a personal or group possession rather than the common Creator of all humanity, indeed, of all creation. Sometimes we go so far as to say that God is on our side as we do battle with the rest of God’s creation.

The second major reason we can easily overlook the prime directive is that our definition of love is so hopelessly jumbled that it can be used to describe emotional infatuation, a pious devotion to prayer, and much in between.

  • In contrast, the very idea that love can mean honor and respect for God and God’s creation is regarded as an irrelevant, if not adolescent, idealism in the practical working of our world and its institutions.

Jesus’ teachings are not definitions but behavioral guides that set us on paths of discovery towards living in harmony with God and others. So often mistaken for something called a Kingdom of God, Jesus left us with a vision of a domain of God built into creation—a location for becoming who we are and are meant to be.

From our earliest primal memories we have sensed a great gap between us and other species. Early Genesis stories describe us as the culmination of God’s creation and/or beings that are given the gift of power over the earth and its other inhabitants. Today, science is steadily increasing our knowledge of how we are a part of the fabric of all life. Having emerged and evolved from other forms, we remain inextricably connected and dependent on other species and the physical structure we all share. We are also learning of the choices we face of either living in harmony with the rest of creation or damaging it, in some ways irreparably. 

In a time and place that knew nothing of our science, Jesus' prime directive refocused the Genesis lessons by asserting that we are meant to live in harmony with our Creator and all that God has created. In order to do that, he taught that we need to love, honor, and respect both God and all of God’s creation—the prime directive.

When we lose sight of Jesus’ prime directive we lose sight of reconciliation.

June 29, 2009

"All Means All": It Sounds So New, but Isn't

By Transgender Clergy Person

My denomination is presently split over what is known as the "All Means All" campaign, essentially a grassroots effort to remove a long list of those especially welcomed in our churches to simply say, "All people are welcome in our churches." Somehow, our conservatives have interpreted this as a conspiracy to welcome LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Bisexual and Questioning persons] into our houses of worship. This, in turn has resulted in a well-funded and well-published effort to stop "All Means All" before it becomes a ratified change to our denomination's Book of Discipline.

Well, I and the congregation I serve already do welcome every person who comes to worship with the welcome of Christ. How could any Christian really oppose such a statement? Unfortunately, some of the more fearful in our denomination once again attempt to throw 'traditional family values' into the discussion, wanting to connect present conventional western [i.e. American] culture--including its interpretation of what constitutes a family--as that which follows a divine plan and maintains those current values as the apex of God's plan. Discussions and evaluations of LGBTQ persons [generally without our representation] inevitably enter into the center of such discussion, where we are deemed  'abominations, unredeemed, hated by God' and otherwise unfit for serious consideration.

The truth is that current definitions are far from those in place in Jesus' lifetime. In that time, women were considered property under religious law, without rights of inheritance, vote, or other public voice. This is one reason a woman such as the judge Deborah stands out, as well as other women who are named in the Old and New Testaments. Monogamy was not the law of that day, and it was common for one man to have several wives. There was also the custom of Levarite marriage, whereby a surviving brother was obligated to marry his deceased brother's wife and produce children in honor of his brother's name. None of these values survive in today's list of American 'traditional family values' as defined by some conservative Christians.

In fact, the acknowledgment and social inclusion of gender variant persons is noted in ancient Jewish texts and interpretations of Scripture. For example: In the Talmud, the Androgynos is a person who has both male and female sexual characteristics. There are 149 references in the Mishna and Talmud, and 335 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes concerning the androgynos. Contrary to the general interpretation of the "Adam and Eve" story in the Book of Genesis, Rabbi ben Elazar, commenting on this text said: "When the Holy One, blessed be the One, created the first 'adam' [human being], God made him an 'androgynos'. As here it is written,'in the likeness of God, God created them; male and female [Genesis 5:2]

Our spiritual ancestors acknowledged the positive presence of diversity in creation, including gender variant people. Honored spiritual leaders from centuries ago were capable of recognizing the value and unique perspective that gender variant persons of faith have to offer. If we really desire to return to traditional family values, we should look as objectively as possible at what such values were around two thousand years ago. There is no parallel between marriage and family culture in that time and those of a certain segment of American culture today. It would also benefit all persons of faith to consider what other scholars, such as those I mentioned, have to offer in our current conversations.

It seems that there have been times when "All Means All" was lived out in faith communities. It is impossible to understand why today more than 50% of my denomination trembles at such a vision. This is the very denomination which affirms in our Holy Communion service that "all are welcome at Christ's table," right next to our current communications campaign slogan, "Open hearts, open minds, open doors- the people of The United Methodist Church."  When will "all" really mean all?  

    

June 27, 2009

Bible Belt

By Langston Hughes

It would be too bad if Jesus
Were to come back black.
There are so many churches
Where he could not pray
In the U.S.A.,
Where entrance to Negroes,
No matter how sanctified,
Is denied,
Where race, not religion,
Is glorified.
But say it --
you may be
Crucified.

----

Written between 1951 and 1960. The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes.

June 24, 2009

Happy Father's Day, Richard Bruce Cheney

By Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell

In recent years, it has been my custom on Father's Day to write about a father who has been open in his support of a member of his family who is lesbian or a gay man.  A few years ago, I wrote about a father who at the time was a seminary president and was dismissed from his position because he presided at the marriage ceremony of his lesbian daughter. Richard Bruce Cheney is, of course, Dick Cheney, our former vice president. Although I have disagreed with his worldview and some of his political positions, I have sought to not allow those differences to get in the way of my applauding the open support he has given to his daughter Mary, her long-time partner Heather Poe, and their child.

In his chapter entitled "Confession and Communion" in the work Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer addresses Christian fellowship: "The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner...Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous." As one who has never pretended to be pious, nor judged others in the fellowship because they too are unpious, I have found sustenance in Bonhoeffer's suggestion that we should learn to "fellowship as the undevout, as sinners....The fact is that we are sinners."

Both in church and society, we sometimes find it difficult to celebrate anything that is positive in those with whom we disagree. It is as though if we acknowledge that we deem an idea or conviction is positive, we automatically embrace all that the person has been and is. I do not want anyone to embrace all that I have been and might be, but I do hope they will not refrain from embracing that within me that they agree with and support, despite some differences.

In a recent appearance at the National Press Club, Dick Cheney said, "One of my daughters is Gay....I believe she and others should have the freedom (granted by the state) to enter into a union or marriage" (paraphrase).  One of the ironies of this moment is that while President Barack Obama supports same gender unions but not marriages, former Vice President Cheney believes same gender marriages, if affirmed by the state, are appropriate. Barack Obama is a president whom I supported and support, but I disagree with him on same gender marriage. A Vice President whom I did not support and do not support on some issues, nevertheless, I am in agreement with in his support of his daughter Mary and same gender marriage.

I believe that it is time in church and society for us to transcend right and left thinking and judgment. Ariana Huffington has written; "The seismic shifts in our society have rendered rights vs. left thinking as archaic as a flat earth map." I believe that when we in the United Methodist Church no longer view acceptance and affirmation of LGBT persons and same gender unions and marriages as a "left" issue and not a "right" issue, we--to our surprise--will discover "communion" (Bonhoeffer) as we have not known in recent years. More and more persons whom some describe as conservative are now openly expressing their support for same gender marriage as a Constitution-granted civil right. If this is happening in secular society, why not in the United Methodist Church?

"Former Vice President Cheney, I offer you a belated 'Happy Father's Day'--not because of your justifications of the war in Iraq, or enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists, or your critiques of the current Administration's defense against possible terrorism--but because you as a father have not been silent in your support of your daughter Mary to be who she is, and to love and commit herself to whomever she pleases. May all of us as fathers, whether our children are Gay or straight, be as open and as bold in our support of them as you are of both of your daughters."

(A bit of history: The George W. Bush administration, I have learned, was the first administration when a President and Vice President in office at the same time shared the same denominational affiliation: The United Methodist Church).

Gil Caldwell

June 22, 2009

A Good Question!

By Peter L. DeGroote

1. Some of Jesus’ followers were threatened by a man who was not of their group healing in Jesus’ name and asked if they should stop him. How might we answer the question today? 

When others who are not of our church, denomination, beliefs, or faith do as Jesus taught, should we denigrate their motives, try to stop them, or take pleasure in their activity?
The way we answer these kinds of questions affects our definition of reconciliation.

2. The earliest gospel, Mark, reports that Jesus said, "Don't stop him! Whoever is not against us is on our side" (9:40).  The other gospels reveal a difference of opinion in the early church:  

A. Matthew: "The one who isn't with me is against me, and the one who doesn't gather with me scatters" (12:30).

B. Luke uses both: 
(1) "Whoever is not against you is on your side” (9:50).
(2) “The one who isn't with me is against me, and the one who doesn't gather with me scatters" (11:23).

4. Did Jesus teach contradictory ideas? That seems unlikely.
So, what is happening here?

A. The inclusive version (if you're not against us, you're with us) reflects the earliest gospel tradition. Corresponding to Jesus’ efforts to tear down walls between people, it is in harmony with his prime directive of loving God and others, the path of reconciliation.

B. The exclusive version (if you’re not with us you're against us) reflects the suspicion, oppression, and even violence directed toward the early church. Needing to know who they could trust and where they could feel safe, they sought to clearly define their group in relation to others. The upshot was (and usually is) the erection of barriers around their (our) group.  Erecting barriers around groups is a survival skill from our early tribal history. Defining “we” often means defining “them” as a threat to our survival. They become our enemies.

5. Several strains in Christian history and tradition introduce several conundrums for a follower of Jesus, three of which follow: 

A. Christians have rejected, demonized, and even killed those who differ with them. In direct conflict with Jesus’ prime directive to honor and respect God and others, (love) it is difficult to understand how a claim of being followers of Jesus is possible.     

B. A preoccupation with our own salvation can result in self-centered, self-satisfied, and self-righteous attitudes, something Jesus warned us about in any number of ways.

C. We can be led down the path of thinking that confessing Jesus as our Lord and Savior is sufficient. Jesus taught a way of life, not a creed. How can we call him Master or Teacher if we do not do what he said? 

6. The task of Jesus’ followers is to apply his prime directive in their time and place. Our history reveals many steps and missteps. Each generation is faced with questions that require attention. In our time and place, such questions would include the following:

A. Are non-Christians who honor God and others (love) with or against Jesus; with or against us?

B. Do we demand that people accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior before we will honor and respect them?

C. How do we deal with others (creations of God) who think differently than we do?

C. Are we to demand that people believe what we believe or are we to be like leaven in the world?

D. Do we dare to say that God is with us, but not with others?

E. If Jesus is the way to God; do we insist that we are the way to Jesus?


Note: Scripture quotes are from Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels. NY: Macmillan (Polebridge), 1993.

June 19, 2009

A Delicate Dance

By Stephen Griffith

“I live in two worlds.”

I said it aloud to a friend as we sat visiting after an event attended by a number of gays and lesbians. She thanked me for coming, and said how much it meant to them for me to show up in support. This set me to reflecting aloud with her about my two worlds.

In one world I work with church people: Good, wonderful, caring people who attend worship services and come to Bible studies. They participate in the youth group, sing in the choir and volunteer for mission projects. They come to me worried about illness, fearful for their teenagers, wondering about their faith. They report their successes and joys and ask for prayers.

My other world is Queer. That’s their word. My friends in this world include:

  • The parents whose son just came out and they’re afraid and confused.
  • A closeted executive who in public gives me a subtle, secret smile as if to say “thanks for understanding."
  • A teenager cautiously trying out the church again.
  • A couple pledging their absolute love and loyalty to one another.
  • A transgendered woman trying to figure out how to be engaged to a man, and what it means to love.

These aren’t 'church folk' for the most part. They’ve been hurt by church folk, or fear they might be, so they keep secrets and stay away. They hang out at support groups, Club Q, coffee houses or safe places on campus, but they have the same worries and fears and hopes as people in my straight world. They support charities and hold fundraisers, gather for potlucks and encourage each other. They celebrate their successes and anniversaries, console each other in their breakups, and grieve with each other.

They, too, come to me worried about illness, fearful for their teenagers, wondering about their faith. They’re not in church, but they’re hungering for meaning and for something of the Spirit, so I counsel them and pray with them. I try to stand with them and advocate for them when they ask. I identify myself as an ally.

These two worlds don’t intersect much. They exist side-by-side, much like parallel universes. I have the privilege of seeing both, moving between them, living in two worlds.

I wonder, sometimes fear, what my church-world friends would think if they knew my Queer-world friends. Many know I’m involved, of course; but few of my friends from one world have met those from the other.

Then my friend said, “You dance a delicate dance.”  That could mean a precarious, even dangerous, balancing act, and it might be true. But the way she said it, it sounded more like a graceful ballet; a delicate dance in two worlds; a pirouette at the threshold between.

The late Irish poet John O’Donohue commented on thresholds as those places and experiences in which we are open to new understandings, new possibilities for life and transformation. These are the experiences and encounters that open doorways into new ways of thinking and being, portals – or at least windows – into another world. There’s energy here at the threshold … and mystery. It’s often not clear what direction I should go or exactly what’s expected of me. It’s an unfolding adventure with a lot of uncertainty and some risk, but here I learn about issues, people and myself. Here I dance.

Later when I told another friend this story, he spun a reflection on the strength of a dancer: 

I know what takes to be a delicate dancer. I am married to one. It takes years of training, and great inner and physical strength. It requires concentration to balance and maintain balance, and a delicate tension between physical strength and gracefulness. The dancer must continually practice the disciplines in order to maintain her ability to dance.

Sometimes the dancer suffers injuries, but the determination to persevere is so strong that he will push on toward healing and recovery. There is a passion and a beauty to the grace-filled dancer. It shows in those who continue to dance the delicate dance through life.

I’m growing in my understanding of this dance. I confess that it doesn’t always feel very delicate – I’m still learning the steps. In fact it often feels clumsy, stumbling – hardly a dance at all. I am clear, though, that here is a threshold that beckons, and I have a sense that it is God who is beckoning me. So I pray for the strength and grace to dance this dance. I give thanks for friends in both worlds who help me see the way, and I invite others to join me.

Rev. Stephen Griffith is Minister to the Community at Saint Paul UMC, Lincoln, Nebraska.

A note on the word “queer:” My GLBT friends have mixed reactions to using the word.  Some choose the word deliberately as a way of including those who don’t fit precisely in any category – gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender – but who also know they don’t fit it the conventional straight world.  Some use it as a social and political statement.  Some identify themselves as “gender queer,” by which they mean they defy conventions of dress, behavior and role, whatever their sexual orientation. Others in the LGBT community are uncomfortable with the word, and see it as counterproductive in their campaign for acceptance by the larger society.  They remember it as an epithet equivalent to the N word, and they often resent the use of the word, even by insiders who apply it to themselves.  I have chosen to use it because it is used by most of the LGBT people I work with, and it captures the sense of not fitting in.

June 17, 2009

Whose Voice Do You Hear?

By Katy Krumbach

This is my child, my beloved in whom I am well pleased.
- Matthew 3:17

Last week we were looking at ‘old’ photos; in other words, pictures of me 30 years ago. The face in the picture looked familiar, and yet this young woman was someone I did not recognize.  Knowing this was who I had been, I wondered why she looked so unfamiliar.

My first thought when looking at myself 30 years ago was, "How pretty she is, and thin, too!" Yet I knew this picture was a person who had been told she was ‘too heavy,’ ‘plain looking, ’ and ‘uninteresting.’

One Sunday, about 15 years ago, I heard God’s voice. I heard God’s acceptance and invitation which ended with “This is my child, my beloved in whom I am well pleased.” How sweet that voice was in my ears. How cleansing are those words still in my heart. That Sunday, that voice, and my life changed forever.

I have since learned that the voices of my childhood have influenced what I thought about myself. There are still negative statements-- both my own and others--and I can still hear them.  Knowing I am God’s precious child, I wonder why I hear so clearly these negative voices. And, after hearing them, why are they the voices I remember so easily?

In the clamor of voices I hear today, I must remind myself of God’s voice: This is my beloved, in whom I am well pleased. I did hear God then, I do hear God now, and I will hear God again.  God’s voice is the one voice I choose to listen for everyday. This is the voice I love.

I have learned to hear other positive voices, too, and I still struggle to accept them and remember them as easily as I have the negative voices.

In his work Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster defines a spiritual discipline as those times, places and activities in which we choose to place ourselves so that God can bless us, grace us and strengthen us to live in the world and yet not of the world.

It has become a spiritual discipline for me to distinguish the love and grace of God from the clamor and criticism of the world.  I choose God’s voice of love and acceptance over the world’s judgment, not because it is easier or feels better, but because God’s word, love and grace are true.

I choose to be God’s child in every way, every day.

About Us

Search RMN

Meet Us

The Methoblog

  • RMN is part of The Methoblog. For conversations from the Methodist world, visit The Methoblog.