Something has to change

 

Something has to change.

I wrote this same sentence about mass shootings in my last blog, and I’m going to keep sharing this same message. Something has to change. I don't know what the answers are that will eliminate mass shootings. What I do know is something has to change. 

I don’t believe change will happen until enough people say, “this is not the culture that I want to live in; this is not the culture I want my children or grandchildren to live in. I don’t want children to be killed while they are celebrating Mass; I don’t want a person killed by a sniper while giving a speech on a college campus; I don’t want a politician and her husband killed when they go to the door in the middle of the night; I don’t want the President to know if he had moved his head six inches that he would have been killed by a bullet."

I would guess that over ninety percent of the public could agree with that last sentence. But the breakdown happens over the next step—what are the steps need to reduce mass shootings. 

I have no idea what the answer(s) is/are to stopping mass shootings. I don’t know if the answer is greater gun control, or more mental health resources, or more resources that will target people who are susceptible to being a mass shooter.  I don't know if the answer is a combination of these three ideas or something completely different.

Soon Governor Walz will call a special session of the Minnesota Legislature. I commend him for trying something. But I don’t look forward to the debate. Democrats will want tougher gun control; Republicans and some Democrats will say that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people—they’ll want more resources for Mental Health. I’ve never understand why this debate has turned into such an either “gun control or mental health support” conversation. Why can’t we have both? And why can’t our political leaders work harder by agreeing that we need to create a world in the United States where no mass shootings happen. 

To search for solutions, I went to the Sandy Hook Promise web site, sandyhookpromise.org. This is a national nonprofit organization founded and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. 

The site has some interesting information about mass shooters. On the site I came across the work of Dr. Jillian Peterson, who is a Professor at Hamline. She has her own website with information that shares common traits of mass shooters. The website with her research is www.jillianpeterson.com/research/

Some of what she found is the following:

“From this research, she found that most mass shooters aren’t random strangers. Instead, they’re “insiders.” They are part of the communities they target, like schools or workplaces. For example, many school shooters are actually students at the school. Knowing this lets us spot early warning signs and act before tragedy strikes.

After studying these cases, [Jillian Peterson] found four main stages that many mass shooters go through before committing violence. 

1.       Early Trauma: First, many mass shooters have troubled childhoods. They often suffer abuse, neglect, or the loss of a loved one. This early pain often leaves them feeling alone and hopeless as they grow older.

2.       Crisis Point: Next, as young adults, they often reach a crisis point. They may become isolated or feel like they don’t belong. This can lead to depression or suicidal thoughts. For some, committing a violent act feels like a way to end their own pain.

3.       Social Influence: Many shooters are inspired by others who did similar acts. They often become fixated on famous shooters from the past. Some join dark online communities that talk about violence as if it’s acceptable. It makes them feel justified in their plans.

4.       Access and Target: Finally, mass shooters tend to target places that they believe have wronged them, like a school or workplace. They often get weapons from familiar sources, such as family members or online.”

By understanding these stages, we can better see where and how to stop mass shootings. By helping people in crisis, we give them a chance to find hope before they reach a breaking point.

The second resource that I have found helpful is information shared by Braver Angels. This organization intentionally brings together people with different views. Chain of Lakes had  speakers from Braver Angels make a presentation. It was beautiful.

On the Braver Angels web site, braverangels.org/our-mission, they shared that they “envision an America with respectful embrace of political disagreements, where civic friendship flourishes and competing perspectives strengthen our nation."

“Embracing values of respect, humility, honesty, and responsible citizenship, our goal is not to change people’s views of issues, but to change their views of each other.”

One of the hardest videos I watched in the past week was not a video of Charlie Kirk being shot. I would never watch that. It was a video of his two children running up to greet him at an event. Those kids will never know their father. Those kids are the same age as my granddaughter, Elouise.  

Charlie Kirk said some things that I would never endorse. In fact, I’ve written blogs that countered the ideas that he shared. But at the end of the day, he had two daughters who will now grow up without a dad.

Again—I don’t claim to have the answers to this issue. But until we all get out of our boxes and reach out to others who have opposing views to look for common ground, I’m not optimistic that anything will change.

Something has to change!

I don't have the answers AND something has to change. Praus!

Last week the term “Annunciation Catholic Church” joined other terms like Sandy Hook, Uvalde, Virginia Tech, the Orlando Nightclub that describe a Mass Shooting. I’m old enough to remember the first one—Columbine—that tragically garnered widespread attention. Partly because this shooting happened in Minneapolis, I’ve been spending a lot of time reading about it since it happened last Wednesday.

And I’m willing to keep reading about it until a large enough number of people say, “Enough!” I shared in my sermon this past Sunday, found at: August 31, 2025 Worship Service,  that maybe the Holy Spirit will lead people of faith—and certainly people who don’t believe or practice faith are included—to say, "Something has to change."

"Something has to change." Perhaps this could be a new term of peacemaking.

In the past eleven years there have been over seventy Mass Shootings in Minnesota. A Mass Shooting is defined by the Gun Violence Archive as having a minimum of four victims either injured or killed not including the shooter. We’re all suffering because of this sickness. We have to keep talking about this sickness—in our families, at church, at school, at our work sites, at our community organizations, with all of our political leaders—basically with all humans.

I do not believe that this sickness will change until enough people say, “Something has to change.”

And unfortunately I’m not optimistic that the horrible incident at Annunciation Catholic Church will be the instigator for change. If change didn’t happen after Sandy Hook—where twenty students and eight adults were killed, or after Uvalde—where 19 students and 2 teachers were fatally shot, or after Virginia Tech—where 33 people were killed, or after the Orlando Nightclub attack, where 49 people were killed, then why would it change now?

However, my pessimism is smaller than my desire to see these shootings stop.

I certainly don’t claim to have the answers to what will work. But I do believe that we need to think about solutions in an expansive way. We need to use the word, “AND” much more instead of the word, “BUT.”

Already I’ve read articles about those who oppose gun control who say that more mental health resources are needed. I agree that more mental health resources are needed, AND I don’t think creating a zero-sum game of pitting gun control policies versus mental health resources is the way to go.

I do think it’s fair to say that if Robin Westman had received significantly more mental health support this likely would not have happened AND if she did not have access to guns that this incident would not have happened.

Already I’ve read where people are critical of those who have transitioned and are critical of policies that help people who have transitioned. I agree that transitioning is a complicated process, AND I believe that more support is needed for people who transition.

We need policies that bring people together AND do not scapegoat any group of people.

In my sermon on Sunday, I encouraged people to live by praus. Praus is a Greek word that means meek, or gentle strength. Jesus said, “blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.” I’d like to inherit an earth where no children or adult die in a Mass shooting. AND I’m willing to live by praus and encourage others until this becomes a reality.

Being meek does not mean we are pushovers; on the contrary it means we are rooted in something far greater than ourselves. Living with praus means each of us says consistently “this is not the world we want to live in. We don’t want to live in a world where children die from gunshot while attending Mass at their school.

My hope is the term “Annunciation Catholic Church” will be the last one on this horrible list of Mass Shootings. Even though I am pessimistic I’m willing to join a movement for change. I don’t claim the answers, AND I’m willing to work with others to find them.

Praus!

A letter to the Pohlads

 

A letter to the Pohlads, 

Yes, I’m extremely disappointed that you have decided not to sell the Twins. I’ve already had my Twins tantrum for the year—see previous blog. I’m not going to have another one. You have decided to continue to be the owners of the Twins. I don’t like it, but for my own mental health of being a fan I have no choice except to accept it.

 
You have shared that you want to win—that the recent decisions to give up (in my opinion) on the 2025 season and probably the 2026 season were not for financial reasons. . . . Okay. . . I don’t believe you and most Twins fans don’t either.

 
You have a massive public relations problem. Most fans think you’re cheap and care more about making money than putting a team on the field that can win.

 
If I were you, I would hire the best public relations firm that money can buy and follow their instructions. But since you haven’t demonstrated a desire to spend money on players, I highly doubt you would spend money to try to refurbish your image.

 
I have a better idea. For no cost I have eight ideas that would help. If you follow these eight ideas, you could earn back trust from a majority of fans and me.  

1) Commit to being in the top-half of payroll every…single…year. And why not aim for the top ten of teams? 

Now I get it, being in the top-half of the payroll will not guarantee that the Twins will be winners. (And let’s be honest—though you own the Twins, the fans are the true owners. You won’t exist as a winning club without the support of the fans.) 

You could demonstrate your commitment to winning by consistently spending more on your team than half of the other teams. And for sure, the payroll system of Major League Baseball is broken. Until some type of a salary cap happens, (like in the other three major men’s professional leagues) the competitive imbalance in Major League Baseball will continue.

You don’t own a small-market team. Don’t act like it.

2) Have a press conference every six weeks to communicate what is happening with the team. 

 For sure the first press conference will be painful. But you are not going to develop trust from the fans unless you communicate to us in settings that are not favorable to you. Invite ten fans to every press conference who are drawn in a lottery. Let each of them ask a question. I would sign up in a heartbeat. I have at least ten questions I would ask, but I would limit myself to one if given the opportunity. Don’t hide in your boardroom. Talk to the fans. Share your thought process. We the fans won’t agree with you on everything, but at least you’ll show that you care enough to engage us.

3) Explain clearly with Derek Falvey by your side what the *&^% you were thinking in your sell-off from last month. 

 You say that the Fire Sale wasn’t financial. No one believes you. Just level with us. Make the case why these decisions will make the Twins better in the long run. Because in the short-run you’re not going to win.

4) Admit the Fire Sale was the result of poor decisions by your management team. 

 You wouldn’t have done a fire sale if you thought you had a team who would win. Your management team was and is responsible for that collection of players. Admit it. This would help many of us move on.

5) Do not under any circumstances trade Pablo Lopez or Joe Ryan. 

 Pretty clear! No explanation needed.

6) Make at least one big-time signing in this off-season. 

 Why can’t the Twins be buyers in the off-season? Why can’t the Twins be buyers at the trade deadline? You made a horrible decision by reducing payroll after the 2023 season; you didn’t support the team by making a big-name trade at the trade deadline last season. If you’re committed to winning act like owners who are trying to win.

Sure, it didn’t work out with Carlos Correa, but I have more respect for you that you gave it a shot by signing him twice. Keep trying.

7) Stop trading for prospects.
This is what small-market teams do who only think they can win once every five years. You are not operating in a small market. The Twins have been trading for prospects for as long as I can remember. Prospects eventually are supposed to help the team win. This hasn’t happened. This philosophy of operation is not accepted by your fan base. The goal is not to have the best farm system in baseball. The goal is to win championships.

8) Give us hope 

 The main reason we fans are upset is we don’t have hope. We think you’re going to continue to value making money over winning championships. The Twins won two World Series under your Patron—the only championship that a men’s sports team has brought to Minnesota. You have one of the best ball parks in baseball. You have some intriguing players in Joe Ryan, Pablo Lopez, Royce Lewis, Byron Buxton, and Luke Keaschall. But you also have a fun base that doesn’t like you and doesn’t trust you.

Trust has to be earned. Do all eight of these, and many others & I will get back on the bandwagon. But without some dramatic action on your part, you'll continue to lose the fan base.

Go Twins!

Paul Moore

From a fan whose first memory of the Twins is watching them lose on television to the Baltimore Orioles in the 1969 playoffs.

Twins tantrum

 

Reader, beware—this is a Twins’ tantrum.

I’ve been watching the Twins for my entire life. I’m a fan—a passionate fan. This is the most upset I’ve ever been with them. What the catastrophe of the last 24 hours of trades reveals is that the Twins’ owners don’t care about the fans. That is the story of the gutting of “our” franchise.

And it is "our" franchise—the fans’ franchise. A professional sports team exists for the fans.

As a fan why should I care about the Twins when the owners don’t care? Sure, I love to watch baseball, and I love going to Target Field. But I get most excited when the Twins win. And the current ownership group does not care about winning.

I went to the first Twins/Blue Jays playoff game in September 2023. It was a marvelous day—the first playoff win after eighteen playoff losses. Royce Lewis was magnificent. He played like a true superstar—two homeruns and the sense that he knew that he could do anything he wanted. They won that series and eventually lost to the Astros. But as a fan I had the sense that something special could happen.

And then the Pohlads mandated that the payroll be reduced. What??? When I first saw that story, I actually thought it was a joke. Why would the Twins reduce payroll when they had a chance to win? Unfortunately the answer is the owners don’t want to win. An ownership group that wanted to win would have added quality players after the 2023 season.

I remember being a fan when Calvin Griffith was an owner. As fans we always knew that he didn’t have the money to compete successfully. But at least we believed he wanted to win. The Twins were a small-market team in a baseball system that didn’t reward small-markets.

When the Twins went to Target Field one of the promises was that we were no longer a small-market team. Sure—not like the Yankees. But a mid-level market team who wouldn’t use payroll as an excuse for not winning. I don’t expect the Twins to win every year. But it’s not unrealistic to think that the Twins could give the fans hope once—like every ten years?—that they could win the World Series.

The best thing that could happen to the Twins is if the team is sold. The--sooner--the--better.  

Since the All-Star break it became apparent that this current collection of players would probably not make the playoffs even though many thought they would win the division at the start of the season. So being sellers at the trade deadline was not out of the question. Reasonable. But gutting the team is different than being sellers. What has happened in the last 24 hours is not reasonable.

I still think Derek Falvey is a decent General Manager. But I would have the most respect for him if he had resigned—refused to accept the edict from the ownership to gut the payroll.

I don’t think Rocco Baldelli is that talented of a manager. But I would respect him if he resigned. For even if you love to be a manager, why would you manage for an organization that doesn’t want to win?

So I’ll check out for now on the Twins—until we have new owners. I will not go back to Target Field in 2025. And—please God—by the start of 2026 may the Twins have new owners. When that happens perhaps I can recapture the hope that this fan once had.

I can’t even say that I hope that today is the worst that it will be for the Twins. Because the Twins should never have landed in this place.

Micah 6:8--the foundation for social justice ministries

Yesterday I continued a summer sermon series called, “My Favorite Scripture.” Earlier this year I asked the people of Chain of Lakes to share their favorite Scriptures. They shared about forty. I then asked everyone to take that list and vote for their favorite. The top four vote getters are making up this series.

I’m so pleased that the congregation chose Micah 6:8 as one of their favorite Scriptures. I had the opportunity to preach on it yesterday. The sermon can be found at colpres.org and starts at the eighteen minute mark. 

This Scripture is a foundational one for those who are committed to social justice ministries. I've come to believe that the ministry of a congregation goes beyond its social justice commitment. And this commitment is important for all congregations.

And full disclosure--even though I am a hundred percent committed to serving a congregation who reflects a social justice mindset and shares these ministries, I'm also a hundred percent committed to serving a congregation that brings people into a relationship with God and grows in discipleship. I want the people of the congregation that I serve to be passionate about evangelism and Bible reading and prayer and powerful worship. The numbers people will point out that two, one hundred percent commitments are not possible; however God can do amazing actions that transcend the understanding of our human minds.  

I grew up in a household very committed to social justice. Ever since Bob Burnett preached with passion about social justice at Westminster Presbyterian church in Worthington, Minnesota I’ve been surrounded by people committed to helping the wider community look like the Kingdom of God. Because of this preaching my parents moved our family to Kansas City, Kansas to live in the Inner City when I was in elementary school. For the first time in my life, I saw the effects of poverty. I lived within a few hundred yards of “the projects.” We had trash in the alley and some abandoned homes close by. Not far away from our neighborhood was Johnson Country, touted at the time as the third richest country in the United States. The contrast in neighborhoods was jarring to my fourth-grade mind. I didn’t understand how people could live in such wealth while people in the neighborhood where I lived experienced such poverty.

Being surrounded by people committed to social justice continued when I worked for the farm workers in California just after graduating from college. I had the opportunity to speak at churches to solicit support for the grape boycott. I encountered many pastors, religious people, and lay folks committed to social justice.

Micah 6:8 was our foundational Scripture.

I shared in my sermon yesterday that this Scripture is a complete response to the question, “what is the meaning of life?” If congregations can live out Micah 6:8 in their ministries they will grow in all sorts of way—including in their numbers. Micah’s prophetic call is a vision for each of our lives. At my funeral if people shared that I did justice, loved mercy, and walked humbly with God, then my life will have been a success.

Doing justice AND loving mercy AND walking humbly with God together is key. We can’t be complete people unless we do all three.

I think of justice as removing that which causes suffering for those on the margins of society—specifically the poor. Justice is going beyond helping those on the margins—and helping is significant. Right now at Chain of Lakes we are involved in a campaign to bring a hundred bags of groceries to pack the pantry for HOPE 4 Youth, the only organization in the Twin Cities whose sole mission is to help youth who are homeless. Our congregation is halfway there. It will be significant to contribute to give this much food away.

AND to do justice means we have to ask the question of why youth are becoming homeless. Then we have to find solutions that help youth not become homeless. This work of justice is hard and can be controversial. But I believe that if Jesus was living in the north Metro he would do everything he could to encourage people to create a world where no youth is homeless.

The work can be daunting. According to the World Health Organization, 13,000 children under five die from starvation every day. That’s one child for every ten seconds. This is not living in poverty. This is dying because of poverty.

Such a high number is not going to immobilize my work for justice. I just have to find specific ways to channel my desire for justice that are effective.

The second admonition in Micah 6:8 is to love mercy. A synonym for mercy is kindness. This is a reflection of our heart. We are called to be kind to others.

Kindness is linked with justice. This is significant because when we’re doing justice it’s easy to be angry. It’s easy to condemn people for not doing more. I remember just a few years ago when I worked for the farm workers and I learned about how the farm workers were being poisoned as they picked crops. I was overwhelmed with anger. Why is this happening? Why do people accept this? Why aren’t more people doing more to prevent this?

My anger was righteous. But not effective. I learned over time that what Martin Luther King Jr said that appealing to another person’s heart is the key to justice. Appealing with kindness is more effective than appealing with anger. Anger does have its place. And sometimes we just can’t help but be angry. But just as Micah said to make systemic change for justice we are called to love kindness.

Being kind is how Christians are to be known. Christians should always be the kindest people in the room. If we want to excel as a Christian excel in kindness. This takes focus; it takes the ability to let go of our anger; it takes a level of maturity. Kindness does not mean we give in. I can be kind to you and completely disagree with what you are saying.

And finally Micah said we want to walk humbly with God.

Micah didn’t use the word relationship, but we can pull it out of this phrase. We’re called to have a relationship with God. it’s a daily walk.

Recently I was talking to someone who said that Presbyterians are good at the thinking about God. We have all sorts of theologies and ideas about God. Thinking about God and being in a relationship with God are not the same. A walk is not what we think about God. It’s really how we feel about God. Jesus took this idea in the second part of the Great Commandment when he said we want to love God with all of our heat.

I can’t adequately do justice without this daily walk.

I’m glad that Micah implored people to walk humbly with God. When I go for a walk with my wife, Amy, and I’m humbly walking with her then I’m putting my own needs aside and focusing on her. What is she saying, what is she communicating, what matters to her. The same applies to God. When I'm walking humbly with God I'm completely focused on what God wants. 

Doing all three together is what makes this verse from Micah one of the most important verses of the Bible.

Doing justice without mercy or a humble walk with God is actually dangerous. Loving mercy without justice or a humble walk with God is the worst of Minnesota Nice. Walking humbly with God without doing justice or loving mercy is spiritual narcissism.

We need all three together.

Though Micah lived about 2,800 years ago I’m so glad for his words in Micah 6:8.

Speaking up and out against Christian Nationalism

Yesterday I preached about Christian Nationalism. For the third straight week I’ve preached on a semi-controversial topic. A week ago Sunday I preached about being supportive of people who are LGBTQ; the week before I shared the case for women being ordained. No one can ever say we’re unwilling to talk about hard issues at Chain of Lakes Church.

Yesterday's sermon is part of the video of worship at Chain of Lakes. The link is at colpres.org. The sermon starts at the 26.30 mark.

The celebration of the 4^th of July prompted me to share the sermon. For me there is something almost mystical about the 4^th of July. Thinking that people in almost town in the United States are waving flags and watching fireworks and celebrating freedom is beautiful. My wife, Amy, and I went to a band concert on the 4^th at the Como Park Pavilion. Even though the median age of the audience was close to seventy, I loved hearing songs that celebrated America and loved singing “God Bless America.”

My love for the 4^th of July has nothing to do with Christian Nationalism. In my sermon I shared how Christian Nationalism is the fusion of love of country and love of God. A Christian Nationalist would argue that to love God a person must love the United States; and to love the United States a person must love God. I certainly love God and love the United States, but my love for each is not dependent on a fusion of the two. 

I love God, but I don’t need the 10 Commandments to be displayed in a school room; I love Jesus, but I don’t want a cross to be displayed at City Hall; I’ll sing God Bless America with all the vigor that I have, but I don’t think this request of a blessing makes the United States better than any other country. I would have no problem asking God to bless Canada and Mexico and Cameroon and even Iran. I do believe that America is exceptional--one reason is because of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But my belief in exceptionalism is not a missionary quest to impose freedom onto the world. Imposing freedom is a contradiction in terms. The best way to encourage others to be free is to live responsibly with the freedoms that are inherent in America’s founding documents.

In my sermon I looked at the conversation between Jesus and Pilate in John 18. Jesus clearly told Pilate that Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world. If his kingdom was of this world he would have encouraged his followers to keep him from being handed over to the authorities. 

When Peter cut off the ear of another person after Jesus was arrested, Jesus was horrified. He angrily said that if he wanted he could have summoned twelve legions of angels to defend him. Jesus was not going to use the tools that the state would use to defend itself. The Kingdom of Jesus was not of this world.

Instead one of the tasks of Jesus—not the only task, but one of his tasks--was to bring a set of values into the world. His Kingdom originated in heaven, and Jesus wanted the values of heaven to come into the world. He wanted his followers to live by the rule of love—to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. He wanted his followers to live by the Fruit of the Spirit (though to be fair Jesus never mentioned the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul mentioned it, but I believe Jesus would have affirmed the Fruit of the Spirit) love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Jesus wanted his followers to go out of his way—just as Jesus had—to love the outsider—Samaritans, women, the poor, the lepers. Jesus would want his followers to place these values first—above everything else. Jesus would want his followers to place him first. This was his Kingdom.

This philosophy would not fit a Christian Nationalist.

I was very pleasantly surprised at the positive respond I got to the sermon. Many people were genuinely happy that I had preached on this topic and were happy with what I had said. Many more people than normal told me that this sermon was meaningful.

This response says something to me. I think many people are afraid of Christian Nationalism and are not sure what to do. I would encourage all churches to have a day where they speak to the problems of Christian Nationalism. And why not have a day where churches across the United States sing “God Bless America” while lifting up the kingdom of Jesus and also denouncing Christian Nationalism.

There is a lot at stake in speaking up and speaking out!

I saw "Significant Other" at the Lyric Arts. It's worth seeing. Read more

 

Recently Amy and I had the opportunity to go on opening night to “Significant Other” at the Lyric Arts Theatre in Anoka. We were fortunate to get tickets, and found ourselves with good seats in that beautiful theater.

I had never heard of the play, but am so glad that the Lyric shared it. Significant Other was written by Joshua Harmon. The play chronicles the lives of four single, friends in their twenties who are searching for significant relationships in 21^st century New York City. The play centers around a character named Jordan. A gay man—he was part of a friend network with three others who were all single women. Alll four of them wanted to be married.

In one early scene Jordan and Laura (one of the single women) talk about what it would like to be married to each other. Each was not confident that they would get married, so they explored what it would be like if they were married. Would they adopt, how would they do money, what would their marriage be like, would they have sex?” The idea of a platonic marriage never would have been a though a hundred years ago. But Millennials are getting married at a much lower rate than previous generations. The meaning of marriage is changing.

We see Jordan’s desire to get married, and the attempts by him to be in relationship. When he meets another man at work, Jordan goes into a panic about what to do. Do I call him? What does this text mean? What should I do now? All of these questions he shared with Laura and the other two women. I felt like I was back in junior high—it was called junior high then—agonizing over every part of an interaction with a person with whom I was interested. Jordan didn’t do well in getting to know this other man. Nothing much happened after a first date.

Each of the three women eventually find partners, and Jordan finds himself alone. He didn’t respond well to this. He couldn’t get out of his own situation to be happy for his friends. In talking about her wedding with Laura, Jordan—was—a—jerk. His anger about being single overwhelmed him and his horrible conversation with Laura.

Jordan wasn’t living the life he wanted. Playwright Joshua Harmon shared shared what he was trying to accomplish in the play by saying, “How do you make life work for yourself when you feel that you’re not living the life you’re supposed to be living or want to be living? And how do you deal with that when the changes that you need to make are in some ways outside of your control?”

To me the star of the show was Jordan’s grandmother. Each time they saw each other she would ask him, “How’s your social life?” Jordan would share that it wasn’t going well. After Laura got married, he shared his fear that he would be single all of this life.

That moment brought me back to my coming to terms with being single. In my early thirties I went through a period of having no dates. This was long before the personals. I was working sixty hours a week in a small town, with little time to date, and not idea how to find someone who could be interesting. I complained to some of my friends about my own predicament. I talked to God about this almost every day. Finally I came to terms that I wasn’t going to let my lack of a partner define my identity. “I just might be a single person,” I told myself. 

Jordan couldn’t get to that point. 

His grandmother grounded him by sharing that life is a big book. He was in a chapter right now of being single. This chapter seemed like a long chapter and seemed like it was going on for a very long time; however it was only one chapter. He needed to see the entire book, and he needed to be patient that this chapter would end. 

Brilliant! 

Out of the blue I met my wife Amy. It was something that just happened. It was the best moment of my life. But I didn’t meet her until I had come to terms with being single. 

Each of us are always wrestling with our identity. Who am I? Who am I as a partner, parent, child. Who will I be in my work, participation in the wider community. Who am I in relationship to God? 

Jordan’s wrestling with his own identity revealed the wider identity questions we all face. The play is worth seeing. It might lead to a person questioning or coming to terms with part of the “Who am I” questions that each of us face.

Attending Festival of Homiletics

 

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the Festival of Homiletics (FOH) conference in Atlanta, Georgia. This idea of the FOH is simple. Find some of the best main-line preachers in the country and have them share sermons. The thought is that by listening to a lot of excellent sermons, participants will improve in their preaching. 

I attended FOH last year and wrote a blog about it at: Spiritual Musings from the north Metro: Attending Festival of Homiletics. I wasn’t planning on attending FOH this year. However the theme of the conference, “Preaching to Heal the Divide,” resonated with me. I identify myself as a both/and preacher. I want to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The opportunity to listen to sermons that heal the divide between these “camps” prompted me to attend.

The first sermon I heard was from Reverend Allen Boesak, a South African Black Liberation theologian. He had decided not to attend in person as he was very concerned about the new Immigration policies of the US Administration. He preached via video. The title of his sermon was “In Need of a Healing Moment.” He talked about the widening gap between rich and poor. He said that the disparity of wealth in South Africa today is higher than it was during Apartheid. He also shared that the top ten richest people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 95 percent of the world. He shared that because of this disparity we need to run to Jesus because he offers us a healing moment. Jesus encourages us to speak truth, to speak up when silence is easier and the love when we feel like hating.

I found his sermon quite captivating. I had heard him speak about thirty-five years ago in New York and thought he was boring. But that was probably my youth looking to be entertained coming out. I cannot image what it has been like for him to preach against Apartheid and in South Africa for his entire life.

I especially enjoyed sitting in the sanctuary of Peachtree Road United Methodist Church, the host of FOH. The congregation is celebrating a hundred years of ministry. As part of that celebration, they have hundreds of doves hanging from the ceiling of their sanctuary. The dove is a symbol of peace. So just sitting in the sanctuary I felt like I was sitting under a canopy of peace.

On Tuesday evening I had the opportunity to go with two men, Gray Marshall & Greg Bolt, to watch the Atlanta Braves play the Washington Nationals. We're typical pastors--we like baseball. I had never been to Truist Park before. The Braves were ahead most of the game and then gave it up at the end. Just hanging out with these two men was much more meaningful to me than who won the game. Truist Park is a lovely place to watch a game. Unlike my experience at Wrigley Field a week before, the concourses at Truist Park are wide.

 Brian Blount gave a powerful sermon/talk about faith and belief. He talked about how humans can believe and then change their mind and ultimately unbelieve. Humans make covenants and then break them. What is most important is to have faith—to be a follower. This is what Jesus wants—he wants us to follow. He talked about how Jesus never said, “your belief will make you well.” Instead, Jesus told his followers that their “faith would make them well.” Having faith is of ultimate importance.

A surprise for me was how much I enjoyed hearing David Gushee speak. I was able to catch the last 15 minutes of his workshop and then attended a lecture he gave called, “Proclaiming the Moral Teaching of Jesus.” He grew up in the conservative church but attended Union Seminary in New York City as a doctorate student. He had first-hand experience with conservatives and liberals. I had a similar experience as I attended Union Seminary in New York City; while there I served a conservative, evangelical church on an Internship. In his talk he gave an outline of his book, “The Moral Teachings of Jesus.” I especially appreciated his comments where he pushed back against the "sin" of the empathy movement. He talked about a compassionate response to people who are suffering can change us. Empathy and compassion are the way of Jesus.

I applaud the organizers of FOH for the conference.

My suggestions for changes are pretty much the same as I shared last year. First I wish the FOH would adapt. It’s the same conference that I attended about twenty years ago. The idea is to listen to a lot of good preachers. But I’m not convinced that all of us who attended will be better preachers in three months because we heard some excellent sermons. I told the congregation that I serve that they could tell me in three months if this conference helped me be a better preacher.

And second I’d love to see more technical workshops. I appreciate being inspired and hearing a really good story. But I want to hear more about the technical elements of preaching. How does a preacher put together series? How does a preacher determine if his or her preaching is effective? What can a preacher do when they hit a block? These are the nuts-and-bolts questions that pastors rarely receive help with after seminary. The FOH could provide a much-needed resource of these type of resources were provided.

And third, I’d like to hear more sermons from pastors—not professors at seminaries. I want to hear from people who preach forty times a year. What are their stories about preaching that works? What have they found that helps them bridge the divide? What are the challenges they've encountered in weekly preaching and what strategies do they use to overcome them?

Despite that I wrote in last year blog that I wouldn't attend FOH for a while, I enjoyed my time in Atlanta. My hope is the experience will continue to resonate within me and prompt me to be a better preacher.

Presbyterian Church Growth Network

After last summer’s General Assembly I read an article that shared the top ten areas of focus at that gathering. None of the ten mentioned church growth. This was very disappointing to me as the PC(USA), the denomination that I love, has declined significantly in numbers of people. 

I wrote a blog sharing my disappointment which was entitled, “Presbyterians can grow, right?” The link is here: Spiritual Musings from the north Metro: Presbyterians can grow, right?

The blog got traction. Some others within the PC(USA) were also talking about how more attention to church growth needs to happen. About fifteen of us then started having monthly Zoom calls. The purposes of our calls were to share what was happening in our local congregations, to learn from each other, and to talk about what we could do to help Presbyterian congregations grow in numbers of people.

We initially decided that we wouldn’t share widely what we were doing. The main reason is we believed that some within the PC(USA) would look at our efforts with skepticism. I have seen how liberals and conservatives within the PC(USA) have treated each other poorly. Many churches left to form a new denomination. This division within the PC(SUA) has left scars. None of us who have participated in these Zoom calls want to relive that.

For those who are wondering about me, I am passionate about both church growth and acts of justice. I think of myself as a Sojourners evangelical or an evangelical liberal. Before I went to seminary, I was an organizer for the United Farm Workers. As a pastor I proudly support my friends who identify as LGBTQ+. We have had many people from the LGBTQ community serve on the Session and as Deacons at Chain of Lakes, the congregation I helped start. The first wedding we did at Chain of Lakes was a gay wedding. I graduated from Union seminary, one of the most liberal seminaries in the United States.

And I want to see our congregations grow in personal faith and to grow in numbers 

I want to see people develop a vibrant faith. I love Jesus and want others to love Jesus. I want to help people grow in Bible reading and prayer and to worship with passion. I want to help people share their faith in authentic and beautiful ways with others. 

I want to see the congregation I serve grow in numbers of people. I’ve served thirty-two years as a pastor in two congregations. In twenty-nine of those thirty-two years, the congregations I served grew in worship attendance. Neither of the congregations I have served have grown exponentially. I think the largest growth I ever experienced in worship attendance at Chain of Lakes was 2024 when we grew forty percent.

I don't think this makes me weird or different or strange. I know that I love Jesus and want to see the Kingdom Jesus came to embody lived out in the 21^st century.

After having monthly Zoom calls this group met in Chicago this past week. Kudos goes to Josh Erickson for hosting our group at Park Ridge Presbyterian church. Josh put a lot of work into this gathering. He and Paul Burns, a pastor from Texas, co-led our time together. 

Approximately fifteen of us gathered. Most of our work was done this past Tuesday. We spent time developing and wordsmithing a Presbyterian Church Growth Network charter. We chose Acts 16:4-5 as our guiding Scripture. We talked about the church growth metrics that are important to us. We spent a significant amount of time talking about the importance of inclusivity. We eventually agreed that any speaker at a future conference or gathering of the PCGN would need to be LGBTQ supportive. We talked about different church size dynamics and how these play a role in our work.

We concluded by talking about next steps. We’d love to have a PCGN cohort in every Presbytery and/or Synod. We want to work in collaboration with others within the PC(USA) who share our interests. We don’t intend to bash the PC(USA) or leave it. All of us who gathered are committed to the theology, polity and values of the PC(USA). We will not foster conversations that support divisiveness, schism or departure from our denomination.

We talked about getting together again in person this Fall. We are going to continue to have monthly Zoom calls. The calls are open to anyone who wants to participate. More information about the calls is on the PC(USA) Church Growth Network Facebook page. Our work is no longer private as many of us shared on our Facebook pages what we are doing. In the next month we are going to nominate a small board, a moderator and a secretary.

We know that we have a lot of work to do. We know we need to have more Ruling Elders involved. Almost everyone who was present this week is a Teaching Elder. We know we are disproportionately male and disproportionately White.  

For myself I’d like to gather a cohort within our Presbytery and even our Synod. The point of gathering is support. The PCGN doesn’t have any materials yet to share besides a charter, and we don’t see ourselves as consultants. What we do have is a love of God, a love of the Presbyterian church, a desire to see our congregations grow, an interest to support others with these interests, and a willingness to try things in our own congregations.

I am very excited about these small steps that our Presbyterian Growth Network has taken. I believe there is tremendous potential to help congregations grow in numbers of people.

A Presbyterian gives tribute to Pope Francis

With Easter being over, I’m looking forward to writing blogs again. Today I cannot help but write a tribute to Pope Francis. He was a hero of mine. I was so excited for the Catholic church when he as Cardinal Bergoglio  was elected by the Curate to be Pope in 2013. Then when he took the name of Francis, one of my heroes of the faith, I was immediately captivated about what he would do as the Pope.

Even though I am Presbyterian to the core, I have terrific respect for the Catholic church. My wife, Amy, is Catholic and currently serves as Administrator at St. Josephs By the Lakes Catholic church. We are a two-church family. I often go to Mass with Amy on Saturday evenings and about once every six weeks cantor at their Saturday evening Mass. Our daughter, Hannah, was baptized at a Presbyterian worship service by a Presbyterian pastor and Catholic priest. She was confirmed in both the Catholic and Presbyterian communities.

Both Amy and I have had rich relationships with priests who come from the social justice part of the church. We’re both concerned that the number of people who identify as social justice priests seems to have diminished. This great tradition of the Catholic church does not seem to be as important as before.

Is it possible to be a Social Justice Pope? Pope Francis did his best. I always admired the times that he would speak about the widening gap of wealth between the rich and the poor. It’s probably too much to expect that the divide between rich and poor would be diminished because of the work of the Pope. But I’m guessing that if Pope Francis could have snapped his fingers and reduce this gap, he would been known as the “snapping Pope.”

I’m still touched by his humility. The way he lived out his humility provides many lessons for all religious leaders. He frequently celebrated foot washings on Maundy Thursday in jails, hospitals, retirement homes and slums. He lived a simple lifestyle by living in a small apartment rather than the bishop’s residence, which was quite elegant. He cooked his own meals and used public transportation.

His support of the LGBTQ community was significant. His willingness to bless individuals who were in a same-sex relationship seemed like a step forward.  As was his willingness to have people who have transitioned baptized.

His televised statement on 2013 called, “Who am I to judge” was memorable. In 2013 he said, “if someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... "no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society". The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one.”

I still wish that Pope Francis would have been able to bring about the possibility of married priests and women priests. As a Presbyterian pastor I’ll always be committed to female pastors. The first preachers of the resurrection were women. It seems odd for me that any religious community would prevent women from being pastors. If God was willing to trust women to be the first to share the news of the resurrection, I believe that God would want women to be pastors and priests.  

Pope Francis was a man of firsts. He was the first pope to be a Jesuit, he was the first pope who was Latin American and the first from the Southern Hemisphere, and the first pope to be born and raised outside of Europe since the 8^th century.

Pope Francis set a standard for all future popes. His example of humility and desire to help the poorest of the poor will define his beautiful legacy. I hope that all religious leaders will continue to learn from his example. This Presbyterian will always have a place in my heart for this terrific religious leader.

 

Does the government have the authority to tell a person to transition?

Last month President Trump signed an executive order stating that the government will only recognize two sexes—male and female. The Executive Order also stated that “sex” will be used instead of “gender.” 

The Executive Order can be read here:

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

This seems to be an extension of a campaign that happened in the election to target people who identify as transgender. 

I have grave concerns about this Executive Order and this campaign to target people who have or will transition. 

I’m not sure what authority the government has to decide if people are going to transition. Many of my conservative friends have told me they want the government out of their lives. On many issues this makes sense to me. And on the issue of gender and sexuality this makes a lot of sense. 

I grew up in Worthington, Minnesota. I knew of no person who publicly transitioned between genders. If I had come across a person who transitioned or wanted to transition, I would have not understood the decision. So I have appreciation for people who don’t understand why a person would transition. 

However I’m not going to ignore the experience of 1.4 million people in the United States who, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality, identify as transgender.  Chain of Lakes has people who attend our congregation who have transitioned. I am so glad that they have found our congregation to be a welcoming and accepting place. 

What authority does the government have to define a person’s experience of gender? Who should have the final authority on this issue? 

I’ve been a pastor for 33 years, so often people will share with me that the Bible has authority on issues of human biology and sexuality. And the Bible does have a lot to say about the goodness of humans and our propensity to sin or fall short. 

Some would argue that Genesis 1:27 would make an argument that a person would not transition. “So God created humankind in [God’s] image, in the image of God [God] created them; male and female [God] created them." 

To me the writer of Genesis wasn’t making an eternal pronouncement that gender is not fluid or finalized at birth. I don’t think the writer of Genesis was trying to make a statement about the experience of people who wanted to transition in 2025 or that gender is static. What I do think the writer of Genesis was saying is that each of us is created in the image of God. 

If I want to learn more about gender I’m going to go to the best biologists and doctors in the world who study this issue. People like the Mayo Clinic who provide quality care for transgender people Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic in Minnesota - Overview - Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins who also provides quality care. Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health | Johns Hopkins Medicine

If someone close to me was transitioning, I don't think I would call up the City of Blaine or any other governmental agency to see what should be done.

What I’m also not going to do is fit a view on biology into a narrow reading of the Scriptures. To do this would be to make the same historical mistake that some in the church have done. Galileo was convicted in a trial in 1633 for his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. The church believed differently based on its literal reading of the Bible. The leaders of the church at that time wanted to pigeon-hole a belief about the stars into its reading of Genesis. 

That didn’t work then; it doesn’t work now.  

Ultimately my final authority is Jesus and the way he loved people. Jesus went out of his way to love the outcast—the Samaritan, the women at the well, prostitutes, and lepers. It hurts me to think that a person who has transitioned would be treated as an outcast in 2025, but the recent Executive Order by President Trump makes me wonder. If Jesus was alive today he would go out of his way to love a person who has transitioned. 

I’m proud that in 2018 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed a statement encouraging “congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to welcome transgender and gender non-binary people into the life of the church and to continue to grow in compassion and knowledge about the full expression of our individual and respective gender identities.” 

In commenting on that statement the Advisory Committee on Social Witness wrote, “our committee is very concerned about the mistreatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons by others who use religion to demean and discriminate. We hope that Presbyterians will not only repudiate the mistreatment of any persons but will affirm the God-given humanity of people of all gender identities. Transgender and gender non-binary persons have amazing gifts to offer the church, and their calls to membership and leadership deserve both affirmation and celebration.” PC-Biz                      

This statement is a much clearer expression of what Jesus would have us do than the recent Executive Order. 

Who does have the final authority to decide if a person will transition. I don’t think it’s the government.

The wisdom of Atticus

 

Two weeks ago I shared at the beginning of a sermon that “To Kill a Mockingbird” was in my canon, that is it reflects the values that are dearest to me. After the sermon a number of people came up to me and shared how much they love the book and they love Atticus. One person even said they named their son, “Atticus.” 

The experience made me realize that I needed to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” again. I read the book for the first time in college in a literature class where I learned how to write. I don't know how many times I've read it since, but the book has been close to me. Though the actual book I had was so worn out that I ordered another one. It didn’t take long to finish this time as I’ve challenged myself to read fifty pages of some book every day. And even though I do my reading at an ungodly early hour, I fell in love with Atticus again. 

I kept coming across quotes from him that captured my imagination. Quotes like: 

The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience. 

I put that one on my Facebook page and received many comments. 

Other meaningful quotes for me were:

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it. 

“Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win.” 

“The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box.” 

“It’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you.”

Atticus lived in a different time. I’ve been wondering since I read this book again how he would respond to the culture that we all find ourselves. It’s much easier to criticize publicly via Social Media those with whom we have disagreements. The thoughts that we shared behind closed doors are now frequently shared in public. 

I wonder how Atticus would have handled this. Would he have a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram account? 

His task was to try to understand the person in front of him—and to understand that person in a non-judgmental way. He would try to live in that person’s shoes for a while in order to come to the conclusions about why that person acted as he or she did. 

So thought he disagreed with Bob Ewell and the jury who unfairly sentenced Tom Robinson, he still wanted to understand both. 

I’ve tried to embrace this line of thinking in the past two weeks. I have as strong opinions about what is happening in our culture as most. I’ve avoided sharing my opinions via Social Media or even in my sermons. I’m still in the “understanding” phase. I’m doing my best to walk in the other person’s shoes and look at the world from that person’s perspective. 

And admittedly I can respond as a person of privilege, just as Atticus was. I don’t have to immediately take actions. I am personally not suffering from what is happening in the culture. Atticus thought he wouldn’t suffer by defending Tom Robinson. But he was wrong and was fortunate that Bob Ewell didn’t kill his children. 

Some have questioned whether Atticus did enough in the novel to earn the praise that he has.

The Contested Legacy of Atticus Finch | The New Yorker 

And some have wondered if Atticus fit into the mold of a “White Savior” that actually disempowers people of different races. Atticus Finch, Abraham Lincoln, and the Imagination of White Educators - National Council of Teachers of English

These questions are important. 

However right now we need more people to act like Atticus. To respond with integrity, to put themselves in another person’s shoes for an extended period of time and try to imagine how that person came to their conclusions, to fight for justice even when the result will be loss. 

I’ve made a commitment to myself to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” every year in the foreseeable future. And who knows maybe next year I’ll be captured by Scout or Jem or even Boo Radley. But for now I’m doing my best to look at the world through the eyes of Atticus. I believe we need his wisdom.

Is it political to share mercy?

I will/did share the following words with the people of Chain of Lakes in a weekly email that will be/was sent out on Thursday, January 23. 

This week it seemed that with the Inauguration of President Trump politics was in the air even more than usual. I shared a sermon series on politics on October 6, 13, & 20 last Fall called, “Talking about the dreaded word.” Check it out at vimeo.com/chainoflakes

Talking faithfully and respectfully about politics is very important for us as a community of faith. I get it—many don’t want to talk about politics and certainly don’t want politics to be discussed in a church. In my work as a preacher, I have been accosted many times after a sermon by someone who was upset that my sermon was “political.”

However when we don’t have conversations about something as important as politics, we’re diminishing ourselves as people.

Most of the time I think of conversations that many would describe as political as really being about our ethics and world view.

In the sermon series from this past Fall I wondered how Jesus would talk about politics if he was alive in our day. In the series I shared that I believed when talking about politics Jesus would

1) talk about the Kingdom of God;

2) give his followers tools to talk about this topic in a healthy way with others; 

3) talk about the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I get it—this is hard.

The way a person votes has no bearing on whether the person will be accepted at Chain of Lakes Church. To say that only a person who votes more left or more right makes that person a Christian or is accepted at Chain of Lakes would be a violation of our Core Values, particularly the Core Value of Acceptance.

A very challenging topic is what we do with our Social Media feeds.

In the past week I’ve read Social Media feeds of people who are very happy about the new Administration; and I’ve read feeds of people who are sad and very angry. Often the people who comment on a post or feed agree with the politics of the person who made the original post.

On Tuesday I shared a clip on my own Facebook feed of Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington sharing her thoughts with President Trump at a worship service at the National Cathedral. In the clip she pleaded with President Trump to treat people in the LGBTQ community and the people living in the United States who are not citizens with mercy.

I was very touched by her statement for many reasons. One reason is I can imagine how hard it would be for me to share the words she did in a worship service with President Trump and Vice-President Vance. No matter what your political views, can we agree that she was a role model of courage?

And I also get it that I highly doubt that Bishop Budde voted for President Trump in the last election.

What’s most important to me about her statement is one simple question.

Is it political to share mercy?

Set the timer on your phone for thirty seconds and reflect on this question.

After I did this, my answer to the question is, “no.” Mercy is an attitude and/or action rooted in morality.

At Chain of Lakes I want us to share mercy with everyone who participates in our community.  Share mercy in our thoughts and actions for the people who voted differently than us, with the people who voted the same, and go out of our way to share mercy with those who are quite vulnerable in our country—the people who I believe Jesus would go out of his way to extend mercy.