So I've been absent from here for a while... again. Lots happening IRL (in real life, I just learned that one recently :) ). Birthdays, ordination, Mother's and Father's Day, banquets, workshops, meetings, preaching, conferences, weddings, movies, and travel. That pretty much sums up my life since May 4.
More soon.. but now, it's time for lunch!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
United Methodist General Conference
Over the past week and a half, somewhere near 1,000 delegates plus hundreds of staff and volunteers from United Methodist Churches, boards, and agencies around the world gathered in Fort Worth, Texas for the quadrennial (every 4 years) legislative meeting known as General Conference. This is the only body that can officially speak for The United Methodist Church, and delegates spend 10 days in "holy conferencing": prayer, discussion, reflection, debate, worship, and witness regarding legislation affecting the denomination's social teachings, organizational structure, finances, policies and procedures, and other matters of church law.
There was much that was disappointing this year, as there has been for many years now, regarding the UMC's official stance on homosexuality. Many groups organized powerful acts of witness to the need for change, and the way in which our refusal to embrace God's love for all people is hurtful to God's children. Small signs of hope (a petition that would have acknowledged that as a denomination, we are in a place of division and disagreement, urging all to practice humility rather than judgment, passed in committee but was defeated on the floor) suggest to me that we are, perhaps, little by little, turning the church in the right direction. Institutions move at glacial speed, and meanwhile those of us among the loyal opposition will continue to work and fight and love and protest and pray.
There was some change in other areas I was interested in: the ordination process and the ministry of deacons. When I started "the process," as those who go through it call it, you had to be a "certified candidate" for two years and a "probationary member/commissioned minister" for three years - with at least one year of work before that, and three or more years of a master's degree in the midst, it typically took people 7-8 years total to be ordained from their first exploration of a call in a local church setting. In 2004, one year was cut from the "certified" stage, and last week, another year was cut from the "probationary" stage (during which we will now be known as "provisional members" of our orders). Provisions were also included for those who discern a call to a different order (deacon vs. elder) during the process, so that boards of ordained ministry can't force candidates to start over from the beginning.
And finally, the order of permanent ordained deacon was created in our denomination in 1996, and in the 12 years since then, deacons have struggled for recognition as equal clergy with elders at many levels. Understanding that we are called to specialized, non-itinerant ministries, sometimes in local churches but often in settings beyond the local church, we have sought authorization to administer the sacraments (baptism and Communion) when our ministry in the absence of an elder would naturally call for these means of grace. Although General Conference did not grant across-the-board recognition of deacons being called to ministries of Sacrament, a petition passed that allows the bishop, at the request of a pastor-in-charge or district superintendent, to grant an individual deacon sacramental authority in his or her primary appointment setting. This means that deacons serving as chaplains, campus ministers, social workers, nurses, counselors, and many other roles can - when appropriate - offer Communion to those with whom they are in ministry, without having to arrange for an elder to either be present or "bless the elements," a practice which is not really in keeping with our theology.
Anyway, this has been a very churchy post, but I just learned of these developments today and wanted to put them up before I forget. We will keep working to see the Body of Christ truly reach out to all with God's limitless love and desire for justice.
There was much that was disappointing this year, as there has been for many years now, regarding the UMC's official stance on homosexuality. Many groups organized powerful acts of witness to the need for change, and the way in which our refusal to embrace God's love for all people is hurtful to God's children. Small signs of hope (a petition that would have acknowledged that as a denomination, we are in a place of division and disagreement, urging all to practice humility rather than judgment, passed in committee but was defeated on the floor) suggest to me that we are, perhaps, little by little, turning the church in the right direction. Institutions move at glacial speed, and meanwhile those of us among the loyal opposition will continue to work and fight and love and protest and pray.
There was some change in other areas I was interested in: the ordination process and the ministry of deacons. When I started "the process," as those who go through it call it, you had to be a "certified candidate" for two years and a "probationary member/commissioned minister" for three years - with at least one year of work before that, and three or more years of a master's degree in the midst, it typically took people 7-8 years total to be ordained from their first exploration of a call in a local church setting. In 2004, one year was cut from the "certified" stage, and last week, another year was cut from the "probationary" stage (during which we will now be known as "provisional members" of our orders). Provisions were also included for those who discern a call to a different order (deacon vs. elder) during the process, so that boards of ordained ministry can't force candidates to start over from the beginning.
And finally, the order of permanent ordained deacon was created in our denomination in 1996, and in the 12 years since then, deacons have struggled for recognition as equal clergy with elders at many levels. Understanding that we are called to specialized, non-itinerant ministries, sometimes in local churches but often in settings beyond the local church, we have sought authorization to administer the sacraments (baptism and Communion) when our ministry in the absence of an elder would naturally call for these means of grace. Although General Conference did not grant across-the-board recognition of deacons being called to ministries of Sacrament, a petition passed that allows the bishop, at the request of a pastor-in-charge or district superintendent, to grant an individual deacon sacramental authority in his or her primary appointment setting. This means that deacons serving as chaplains, campus ministers, social workers, nurses, counselors, and many other roles can - when appropriate - offer Communion to those with whom they are in ministry, without having to arrange for an elder to either be present or "bless the elements," a practice which is not really in keeping with our theology.
Anyway, this has been a very churchy post, but I just learned of these developments today and wanted to put them up before I forget. We will keep working to see the Body of Christ truly reach out to all with God's limitless love and desire for justice.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Survey on Christianity & church opinions/preferences
Please take my survey and share it with others! (not spam, I am really posting this)
Click here to take survey
Click here to take survey
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Animal meat without the animal
Slate has an article on recent developments in the possibility of growing meat in-vitro from stem cells, much as organs are now being grown for transplant. A fascinating addition to the food-ethics debate as it relates to meat and animal welfare - and (surprisingly, to me) PETA has endorsed the efforts in the form of a contest!
Which begs the question, as in so many debates, which is more important: the ideological principle of not viewing animals as under the domain of humankind, for our use as we please; or the pragmatic principle of reducing actual harm to animals, given the reality of a world that is unlikely to go vegetarian?
Which begs the question, as in so many debates, which is more important: the ideological principle of not viewing animals as under the domain of humankind, for our use as we please; or the pragmatic principle of reducing actual harm to animals, given the reality of a world that is unlikely to go vegetarian?
Friday, March 07, 2008
More on food ethics (briefly)
Thanks, Amy & Zwieblein for your interest in continuing the conversation!
Based on my reading and learning over the past year, here are some of the factors to consider if one wants to eat more ethically:
1. Location/origin of food: Americans eat food that travels, on average, 1500 miles from point of origin to our dinner plates. That's halfway across the continental U.S. Which may actually not seem all that shocking to those of us now accustomed to a global, year-round market, but it used to be that you could only eat fresh fruits and vegetables when they were - wait for it - in season locally. Barbara Kingsolver's latest book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, chronicles her family's experience eating 95% of their food locally for a year. In addition to the environmental impact of so much transportation (consumption of fossil fuels, production of greenhouse gases), long-distance crops are grown to be sturdy to withstand shipping, rather than to have high levels of flavor and healthful vitamins.
2. Organically grown: It used to be that most foods in the U.S. were grown on small(ish) family farms that produced diverse crops, often kept animals as well as crops, and used minimal or no chemicals. Throughout the 20th century, food production became increasingly industrialized (check out Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, for a more thorough history), with the development of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, monoculture crops (especially corn and soy), and agribusiness. Supporters argue that returning to a more natural/organic model of farming is better for the land, better for the health of our bodies, and produces better-tasting food.
3. Animal welfare: Any vegans reading this can skip to the next point, but please wait until you're no longer in the company of omnivores to pat yourselves on the back. As a former "meatasaurus" trying to make ethical choices, I have given up most meat and know that I should probably give up eggs and dairy as well. Sadly, along with the industrialization of plant-based foods, we have come to treat animals as food-producing machines, to be grown to full size as quickly as possible, with as little exercise as possible, cramming more animals than is possible into a small space, pumping them full of antibiotics to keep down disease, and slaughtering and processing them without regard for animals' experience of pain or fear, all to maximize production and keep us supplied with cheap hamburgers, hot dogs, and chicken nuggets. Dairy cows and egg-laying chickens have longer lives than those destined immediately for the slaughterhouse, but they experience similarly cruel treatment and eventually become meat as well.
Now, all of the above refers to factory farming, the source of the vast majority of meat available from supermarkets and restaurants today. (In addition to being bad for animals, factory farms are terrible for the environment and bad for human health as well.) Depending on where you live, you may be able to find ethically raised meat and other animal products from smaller farms committed to humane and sustainable practices, either directly or through specialty grocery stores.
4. Labor practices: Part of the effect of being literally distanced from the origins of our food is that most Americans today (myself included) have little or no idea what is involved in harvesting crops or processing food. The recent attention to immigration concerns and general desire to "close" or "secure" American borders has an impact on many industries, as undocumented immigrants often do the work that citizens don't want to do; farm work is one of these. Because so many farm workers are undocumented, or in the U.S. legally but with lower levels of education and less access to resources, those who pick tomatoes or grapes or strawberries are often more vulnerable to abuse or exploitation by their employers. Of the four categories listed here, this is the one I find hardest to track. Occasionally a labor union or advocacy organization will single out a particular restaurant chain or crop industry in which worker injustice has gotten particularly bad, but unless you are buying your produce from local farms where you personally know how the workers are treated, it can be almost impossible to know what goes on between the soil and the supermarket. Shortcuts for the sake of profit often lead not only to injury and illness among those who work for agribusiness, but also to contamination of our food supply, as is explored in the (fictional) film Fast Food Nation, based on the non-fiction book by journalist Eric Schlosser.
Well, this post ended up being longer than I anticipated, and is clearly far from objective, but it still barely scratches the surface. Are there other considerations you think are important that I left off this list?
Based on my reading and learning over the past year, here are some of the factors to consider if one wants to eat more ethically:
1. Location/origin of food: Americans eat food that travels, on average, 1500 miles from point of origin to our dinner plates. That's halfway across the continental U.S. Which may actually not seem all that shocking to those of us now accustomed to a global, year-round market, but it used to be that you could only eat fresh fruits and vegetables when they were - wait for it - in season locally. Barbara Kingsolver's latest book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, chronicles her family's experience eating 95% of their food locally for a year. In addition to the environmental impact of so much transportation (consumption of fossil fuels, production of greenhouse gases), long-distance crops are grown to be sturdy to withstand shipping, rather than to have high levels of flavor and healthful vitamins.
2. Organically grown: It used to be that most foods in the U.S. were grown on small(ish) family farms that produced diverse crops, often kept animals as well as crops, and used minimal or no chemicals. Throughout the 20th century, food production became increasingly industrialized (check out Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, for a more thorough history), with the development of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, monoculture crops (especially corn and soy), and agribusiness. Supporters argue that returning to a more natural/organic model of farming is better for the land, better for the health of our bodies, and produces better-tasting food.
3. Animal welfare: Any vegans reading this can skip to the next point, but please wait until you're no longer in the company of omnivores to pat yourselves on the back. As a former "meatasaurus" trying to make ethical choices, I have given up most meat and know that I should probably give up eggs and dairy as well. Sadly, along with the industrialization of plant-based foods, we have come to treat animals as food-producing machines, to be grown to full size as quickly as possible, with as little exercise as possible, cramming more animals than is possible into a small space, pumping them full of antibiotics to keep down disease, and slaughtering and processing them without regard for animals' experience of pain or fear, all to maximize production and keep us supplied with cheap hamburgers, hot dogs, and chicken nuggets. Dairy cows and egg-laying chickens have longer lives than those destined immediately for the slaughterhouse, but they experience similarly cruel treatment and eventually become meat as well.
Now, all of the above refers to factory farming, the source of the vast majority of meat available from supermarkets and restaurants today. (In addition to being bad for animals, factory farms are terrible for the environment and bad for human health as well.) Depending on where you live, you may be able to find ethically raised meat and other animal products from smaller farms committed to humane and sustainable practices, either directly or through specialty grocery stores.
4. Labor practices: Part of the effect of being literally distanced from the origins of our food is that most Americans today (myself included) have little or no idea what is involved in harvesting crops or processing food. The recent attention to immigration concerns and general desire to "close" or "secure" American borders has an impact on many industries, as undocumented immigrants often do the work that citizens don't want to do; farm work is one of these. Because so many farm workers are undocumented, or in the U.S. legally but with lower levels of education and less access to resources, those who pick tomatoes or grapes or strawberries are often more vulnerable to abuse or exploitation by their employers. Of the four categories listed here, this is the one I find hardest to track. Occasionally a labor union or advocacy organization will single out a particular restaurant chain or crop industry in which worker injustice has gotten particularly bad, but unless you are buying your produce from local farms where you personally know how the workers are treated, it can be almost impossible to know what goes on between the soil and the supermarket. Shortcuts for the sake of profit often lead not only to injury and illness among those who work for agribusiness, but also to contamination of our food supply, as is explored in the (fictional) film Fast Food Nation, based on the non-fiction book by journalist Eric Schlosser.
Well, this post ended up being longer than I anticipated, and is clearly far from objective, but it still barely scratches the surface. Are there other considerations you think are important that I left off this list?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)