What? Lutheran pastor apologizes for participating in Newtown, CT worship service following the Sandy Hook tragedy?

There was a brouhaha in the media last week that involved the LCMS. Some have commented to me about it. Some have asked me how this could even be an issue.

Here is the situation: After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a community service of mourning was organized through the local interfaith clergy group. The local LCMS pastor, Rev. Morris, asked that a statement be read at the opening of the service indicating that the love and grief are shared but the clergy leading the service would like to be clear that this shared service is not an endorsement of each other's faith. Some very conservative elements within the LCMS believe that Rev. Morris violated his vows of ordination by participating in this community service. The president of our synod, Rev. Harrison, asked the conservative groups to back off. He also asked Rev. Morris to apologize to those he offended by his participation in the community service. Rev. Morris apologized that he offended people, but he did not apologize for participating in the service. It was Rev. Morris' apology that caught wind in the national media and was not presented quite accurately: "Pastor apologizes for participating in Newtown Community Memorial Service!" Rev. Harrison was trying to calm the waters in the synod by asking all parties to be conciliatory and inadvertently stirred up a storm in the national media. He has apologized and asked for grace with regard to his poor handling of this situation.

I am personally convinced that Rev. Morris did the right thing by participating in that community service and I would be embarrassed to be part of our synod if he had declined.

But today I am writing simply to explain why this is even an issue within the LCMS. For those of you who want to follow the whole sordid mess, I will post some links at the end of this blog entry. For those of you who want the short version of why this is even an issue, here it is:

Our synod's constitution includes this provision:

Article VI Conditions of Membership
Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following:
  1. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II.
  2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every
      description, such as:
           a. Serving congregations of mixed confession,
               as such, by ministers of the church;
           b. Taking part in the services and sacramental
               rites of heterodox congregations or
               of congregations of mixed confession;
            c. Participating in heterodox tract and
                missionary activities.

The issue in question revolves around "unionism" and "syncretism". The word "heterodox" means not conforming with accepted standards or beliefs. In the case of the LCMS, a heterodox congregation is any congregation that does not subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, most specifically the unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1580. "Unionism" refers more specifically to joining together in worship, choosing to be in union with each other and act as though fellowship exists when it does not because the two bodies do not share a common confession. (e.g. a Lutheran church and a Baptist church decide to hold a service together). "Syncretism" has more to do with the adopting of heterodox practices, often for the sake of peace. (A crass example would be kneeling toward Mecca during a Christian service so that Muslims feel comfortable and honored.) A major principle behind this forbidding of unionism and syncretism is that we do not want to give the false impression that we approve of the beliefs of whatever 'other' is involved in the unionism or syncretism and, thereby, give poor witness to Christ and even damage the faith of those who witness the unionism and syncretism.

There are those — I am not among them — who believe Rev. Morris engaged in unionism and syncretism by participating in this public service. Wrong as I think these folks are, they are acting (in their own eyes) out of concern for people's souls. I don't think anybody I know would look at two people sharing the dais at such an event and construe that as 'fellowship' in any way but the shared grief around which the event revolves. But my task in this entry is not to convince you one way or another about the rightness of Rev. Morris' position. It is simply to explain how this could possibly be an issue since on the face of things it seems like participation is undeniably the right thing to do.

Love all the way 'round is the answer. Even if those who opposed Rev. Morris's participation seem hateful to you, love is still the answer. People are not lifted out of hatred and judgment by hatred and judgment against their hateful and judgmental positions. Speak the truth in love, that's how we grow up into Christ. If you dig into it, you will see that it is primarily the conservatives who opposed Rev. Morris' participation and the media that have dramatized the issue. The letters and conversations among the actual parties involved have been fraternal and kind.
Here are some links for you, if you want them:

• Huffington Post — a very succinct and reasonable article on the whole mess
• Former LCMS President Rev. Dr. Gerald Keischnick's response
• LCMS Constitution
• Rev. Morris's apology letter
• Pres. Harrison's letter explaining why he asked for an apology
• Pastoral letters from Pres. Harrison and the President of the New England District of the LCMS on the essential unity we share.
• Pres. Harrison's video statement, posted February 10, and probably the last thing you will hear:

I will leave it to you to search for media coverage if you'd like. It won't be hard to find. For myself, I absolutely believe that Rev. Morris did the right thing.

God bless!

Pastor John

Values: Growing toward peace by clarifying values

Tomorrow is Transfiguration Sunday... a mountaintop experience! Unfortunately, we don't live on the mountaintop. And while mountaintop experiences can be motivating and initiate positive change in our lives, humans just are not built to change in a weekend without something truly extraordinary happening (like a near death experience). We have to come down off the mountain and grow moment by moment, day by day, bathed in grace, into the person God made each of us to be. The Bible calls this process "growing up into Christ," "being transformed by the renewing of our minds," and "working out our salvation," among other things.

Sometimes there is a great deal of tension between the way we are and the way we think we'd like to be. Here's a little concept I've come up with that's given me more shalom (peace) in my life. Perhaps it will give you some, too. It's a way of eliminating some unnecessary tension in the gap between who we are and who we want to be. We'll talk more about it tomorrow at church.

We all have several types of values. The first is "practiced values." These are the values we are actually living out right now. Then there are "aspirational values." These are the values we would like to see lived in our lives but we aren't there yet. The gap between these two areas is where we grow. It's that tender area where we must admit that we are not where we want to be.

But we can get this gap confused with the gap between our practiced values and two other types of values that we often seek to grow toward, but should really lay aside.

"Respected Values" are the values we see in others that we respect. We make a mistake when we think that we want to adopt a value just because we respect it. For instance, I really respect people who are very neat and completely organized, but that is not my value. I have spent too much time in self-judgment about not being super neat because I so respect people who are. But you know what? It's not really a value to me. I like eclectic and even a little cluttered. It is so peace-giving to simply acknowledge that while I like my office reasonably tidy and organized, it will never be neat as a pin because while I respect that, it's not really a value of mine.

"Image Values" are the values that we'd like others to see in us. The problem is immediately apparent. We never want to hand our peace over to anyone else. It is between us and the God who has demonstrated infinite love for us in Christ Jesus. When your values are image-based, you are trying to find your self-worth in what other people think about you. That's a bad road, fraught with danger and leading you directly away from shalom.

This values framework may help you grow in peace. Reflect on your values and goals, the things you would like to be, and see which of those things fit in which category. If they are "Respected Values," go on respecting them but don't judge yourself for not moving toward them. If they are "Image Values," drop them. You are God's workmanship and nobody else has any business judging you.

For your truly aspirational values, adopt little habits and disciplines that create an environment in your life where God's grace can transform you more and more.

Learning Christian Faith from the Buddha

This is a quote that really spoke to my spiritual journey. It's from a book called "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong, who considers herself a "freelance monotheist." It is a conversation between a Buddhist monk and the Buddha. There is truth in it, even though it doesn't come from the Bible. (It should not be surprising that people who openly observe people and the world come to true observations. It is all God's world, after all.)

One of his monks was a philosopher manqué and, instead of getting on with his yoga, constantly pestered the Buddha about metaphysical questions: Was there a god? Had the world been created in time or had it always existed? The Buddha told him that he was like a man who had been shot with a poisoned arrow and refused medical treatment until he had discovered the name of his assailant and what village he came from. He would die before he got this perfectly useless information. What difference would it make to discover that a god had created the world? Pain, hatred, grief, and sorrow would still...

I spend a lot of time engaged in the head questions of the Christian faith. Unknowns, at times, can drive me nuts. I have lately developed a small habit of seven minutes of quiet prayer time before I go to bed. I set the timer and enter into time with God. Sometimes I listen. Sometimes I feel myself breathing. Sometimes I feel led to pray for someone. It is a practice based not in answering questions, but in being a child of God. Sometimes I even start my time by saying something like, "Well, here I am again, your big screw-up. I'm so glad you love me anyway." I think my Father would prefer that I not refer to myself as the "big screw-up," but some days that's how I feel. Regardless of how the day has gone, I enter into that seven minutes.

Engaging in practices that are not knowledge-based has been a good thing for me. If you are consumed with the big questions of life, the universe and everything, you might try engaging in a spiritual practice that is not knowledge-based. Call it "meditation" or "prayer" or whatever. But sit with God. Let yourself feel his arm around you sitting next to him. No memorizing. No word-studies. Nobody else. Just you and God. Sit quietly. Talk if you want to, but don't talk just to fill the space.

Oh, and if you're like me, you'll want to set a timer. If I don't set a timer, I get distracted wondering how much time I've spent. Setting a timer frees me to be fully present in that moment.

Thoughts on Homosexual Marriage

The idea of expanding marriage to include homosexual relationships is on the forefront of society’s conversation about what it wants to be. As a Lutheran Christian pastor, I cannot simply ignore the public conversation. This is a seismic shift in society. I share my thoughts as a step in my ongoing contemplation of the integration of my personal faith and my role as a citizen in the United States of America.

AS A LUTHERAN PASTOR, I STAND BY THE TRADITIONAL BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MARRIAGE

Let me begin by saying that I remain convinced that God’s design for marriage is a life-long covenantal relationship between one man and one woman based in love and providing an earthly reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church. Were anyone to ask me what the Bible says about homosexual marriage, I would answer confidently that the scriptures indicate than God’s design for marriage is monogamous, heterosexual and deeply sacrificial toward one’s spouse. Jesus indicated this when he preached against divorce in Mark 10:1-10 saying that God’s design was one man married to one woman and no divorce. However, before I answered this question I would include the caveat that I am often shown how my own life does not live up to God’s designs when I read the Bible.

I find it very difficult to make a case from the Bible for anything but the traditional covenantal heterosexual view of marriage without taking a hatchet to the scriptures (some would disagree with me quite strongly). Because I am bound by my office as pastor to follow what I believe the scripture teaches, I could not officiate in good conscience a homosexual marriage ceremony. I do not say this without some pain because some of the people nearest to my heart are homosexual.

There. That’s out of the way. If someone wants to discuss with me the Christian theology of homosexuality, let’s talk some other time.

The question with which this essay is concerned is this: “How do the scriptures inform my attitudes and actions as Christian and a citizen of the United States of America, where we believe that all people are created with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

FIRST, LET’S DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PROMISCUITY

There are conflicting studies about promiscuity rates among homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. I can’t see how a discussion of promiscuity relates to a discussion of homosexual marriage. But if we consider promiscuity a factor, would the assumed high promiscuity rates among homosexuals be an argument for or against homosexual marriage?

PROCREATION-BASED ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ARE DIMINISHING

As recently as seventy-five years ago, procreation was a concern to be encouraged by the laws of the land because large segments of the population could be wiped out at any time through war or disease. Further, we needed more people to accomplish more work. While scientific advances haven’t completely eliminated these concerns, they have been drastically reduced from where they have been at any previous time in human history. As medical, farming and production technologies continue to improve, it is more and more difficult to reasonably argue that we need to encourage heterosexuality because we need a bunch more humans on the planet.

DISGUST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT

You might find the very idea of homosexual physical love so appalling, disgusting and unnatural that it ought to be banned from the face of the earth. However, I find cooked spinach appalling, disgusting and unnatural, so I think it ought to be banned from the face of the earth. Truly, I can’t stand the sight, smell, texture or taste of it and I cannot conceive of a normal, sensible person liking cooked spinach. Whose idea of disgusting is right? I think you take my point.

SLIPPERY SLOPE-BASED ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ARE GROUNDED IN THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN

What if? That’s a slogan used to sell lotto tickets too! What about three people in a committed union? What about a woman and her cat? Yes, what if? But what if we brought forth on this continent a new country conceived in liberty? Could people rule themselves without a king? I think the “what if” argument is the closet door open in your room at night. There just might be a monster in there so let’s not take any chances.

That being said, the slippery slope is a real phenomenon. For instance, the social security number was established simply to maintain records of those working in jobs covered under the social security program. Over the years, the SSN as a tracking number (though not technically as an ID) has become widespread and it is now difficult to live without a SSN. (For instance, since 1983 you must have a SSN to open an interest-bearing bank account.)

So slippery-slope arguments need to be acknowledged but not taken as a given future condition.

CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT ARGUE AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BASED ON THE BIBLE

The moment I argue society’s acceptance or rejection of homosexual marriage based on my faith, I am on dangerous ground. We do not want our government establishing a religion we want because, of course, they might later establish a religion we do not want. By seeking to impose on others a definition of marriage based on my faith, I am paving the way for someone else to impose legal restrictions on my behavior based on their faith. I certainly don’t want my wife to be forced to wear a burka because one day the majority of people in America believe that the burka is God’s highest design for women’s dress.

HOMOSEXUALITY (AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE) ARE NOT ETHICALLY EQUIVALENT TO OTHER THINGS THAT THE BIBLE DEFINES AS SINS

We do, indeed, make laws about what we as a society believe is right and wrong. However, the best and most solid laws have an ethical basis in the rights of each person involved in whatever situation is addressed by the law in question. Running a red light has ethical implications because it puts others at risk. Stealing is taking another’s property without legal authority or their consent. These can be argued from an ethical standpoint without relying on divine revelation regarding moral behavior. Homosexual relationships do not violate ethical principles that require respect of the other’s rights. Nobody is harmed or in other ways treated against their own will when two people of the same sex engage in a committed relationship of love and support that includes the sexual expression of that love.

A FAITH POINT: ENFORCED BEHAVIOR DOES NOT CHANGE THE HEART

Jesus reminded us that the restriction of outward behavior does not move the heart toward God. To paraphrase Jesus’ connection between adultery and lust in Matthew 5:27-28, “You’ve heard it said that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman, but I tell you that if one man looks at another with lustful intent, he has already committed homosexuality in his heart.” So, even if homosexual marriage remains illegal, that law written and enforced will not change one person’s heart. It may even be counterproductive with respect to our task of drawing people toward the redeeming love of God.

IS THERE A “STATE’S INTEREST” IN MAINTAINING HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE OTHER THAN PROCREATION?

As I already mentioned, I think it’s dubious at this point in history to claim the procreative purpose of marriage as a “state’s interest” in preserving heterosexual marriage. One could argue that the heterosexual marriage relationship ought to retain its primacy simply because of the biological morphology and clear interdependence of the male and female genitalia of the human species. (Arguments do sound better with big words, don’t they?) In this argument, the state has an interest in preserving community notions of reality. The division of the human species into two genders, “male” and “female,” is a biological reality. One could make a case that society in general has an interest in maintaining a legal system based on clearly observable physical – one might even say, “scientific” – reality and ought, therefore, to preserve the primacy of male/female relationships. However, a society conceived in liberty must make room for people who do not hold to the “standard” view of life.

SOME LAWS OUGHT TO CONCERN US BECAUSE OF ETHICS

The scriptures clearly speak for justice in the courts, care for the poor, fighting against the abuse of the powerless by the powerful. While these can be argued ethically without reference to divine revelation, there is alignment between the scriptures and widely acknowledged ethical principles. As those called by God’s grace into his kingdom, we have a double- duty to speak to and act on these issues as citizen-legislators in a free society and as Christians who operate out of love for our fellow people.

A CHRISTIAN MIGHT BE IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BECAUSE OF THE LAW OF LOVE

Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If I don’t want others seeking to enforce their morality on me (and I certainly don’t!), then by reciprocation, I ought not desire laws that enforce my morality on them.

A CHRISTIAN MIGHT BE IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE TO BE MORE LIKE GOD

God pays us the great honor of freedom. As Christ walked the earth, he spoke the truth in love. He wooed. He cajoled. He pleaded. But he never forced. If we are Christ’s ambassadors to the world, ought we spend any time or effort trying to enforce outward behavior that does not violate ethical principles, such as not harming others? We would be more like Christ if we displayed unconditional love for all, desiring the best for each person, proclaiming the God who loves us and has reconciled us to himself by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. Of course we call people to repentance. But we don’t try to force them (we can’t, really, anyway). Then as God touches their hearts (after all no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him [John 6:44]) let the Holy Spirit do its work through the means of grace.

WHAT, THEN, IS A CHRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES IN TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE TO DO AS A CITIZEN OF A COUNTRY FOUNDED ON LIBERTY, SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Politics is the art of compromise and civilization is the process of being civil with those you with whom you disagree — people of different backgrounds and beliefs living together peaceably. If we ought not encode our moral views in the laws of our land unless they can be argued ethically without recourse to divine revelation, what do we who love everyone and desire that all come to Christ do with the thorny societal issue of homosexual marriage?

What if we could trade homosexual marriage for a repeal of no-fault divorce laws? In my opinion, no-fault divorce laws have done more damage to the institution of marriage than legalizing homosexual marriage would. Divorce is a breach of contract. Yet in the unique instance of divorce, our courts choose not to consider who broke the contract or use the idea of fault in disposing of marital assets, deciding child custody, etc. The dissolution of a marriage has become a non-event. Would you trade the strengthening of the marriage institution for the broadening of the laws about who can marry whom?

Under current laws in most states, it is time-consuming and complicated to formulate a legal relationship with another person of the same sex that equates to marriage. Furthermore, homosexual couples who enter into this multileveled contractual arrangement that approximates marriage have to defend and substantiate their relationship while heterosexual couples claiming that relationship don’t. This affects things like access to a partner in emergency circumstances (think ICU), inheritance, etc. Can you imagine a homosexual couple at a time when one is in ICU, possibly at death’s door, and his or her partner of 20 years is not allowed visitation because he or she is not “family”? How can that be right, loving or compassionate?

You may not think homosexuality is right, but isn’t it better as a society to encourage people to live in committed relationships, even if you don’t agree with the morality of those relationships?

As I consider the subject of homosexual marriage, I come to the following thoughts and conclusions.

• Society does have a stake in promoting long-term stable relationships. People are more productive, peaceful, healthy, happy, etc. when they are in long-term committed relationships. The statistics on heterosexual marriage are clear and I assume that similar results would be found if and when long, committed homosexual relationships are studied.

• For a biblically conservative Christian, homosexual marriage will never be the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. But heterosexual marriages often don’t reflect the character of God’s love for us in Jesus Christ, either.

• Our job as Christians is not to create the kingdom of God on earth as we see it through the force of law. Our job is to share the good news that through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s sins against them and to urge people to repent — turn to God in the grace offered in Jesus Christ and seek to follow God’s ways through the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Laws do not change hearts.

• The love of a homosexual couple is every bit as real and compelling as the love of a heterosexual couple, even if conservative Christians see the homosexual aspect of that love as departing from God’s plan.

• While I think one man, one woman, monogamous marriage is God’s design, I don’t think homosexuality should be singled out as a special and unique form of ungodliness. I think it just feels more foreign to the average person than lust, greed or gluttony.

• The more homosexuals I know, the more it seems strange to call them that. In fact, it seems strange to define a person primarily by their sexual orientation over and above other attributes such as kind or generous (or not).

• Can’t I live in civil community with others who think differently I do without trying to enforce my values on them?

MY CONCLUSION AT THIS POINT IN MY JOURNEY…

My conclusion, at this moment, is that civil marriage and Christian marriage should become separate institutions. Even though I think homosexuality is a brokenness (acknowledging in the same breath that I, myself, am also full of brokenness), I fully support some sort of marriage relationship equivalent for homosexual couples. I think the best idea is to use the term “civil marriage,” because this reflects what we ought to be: civil toward each other. Let a justice of the peace or some other civil representative perform the ceremony of civil union/marriage/whatever and let pastors perform the ceremony of Christian marriage by which we seek to enter into that relationship that is, at its best, supposed to echo and reflect the love between Christ and the church.

That’s what I think at 3:56PM on December 11, 2012

Parade: epilogue

This morning I woke earlier than my early alarm was set for. That's pretty natural for me when a big event is happening. I was late leaving the house. I thought the YMCA (where some of our sound equipment is stored because that's where we meet for church) opened at 7 a.m., so when I arrived there at 7:40 (20 minutes behind schedule) and found the doors locked, I was "surprised." Turns out the Y opens at 8 a.m. on Saturday mornings! Yikes! But someone let us in to get our stuff. As I was rifling through our sound equipment, I could not find the extra microphones and cords I was looking for. That's when I remembered that we moved all the extra mics to our storage garage a few miles away in the opposite direction of the parade that I intended to be at by 8 a.m. (The parade route is at least 25 minutes from the Y.). So I drove to the storage garage to get the extra mics (getting further behind schedule). Earlier in the morning, I had remembered that the power supply and sustain pedal for the keyboard were in a cabinet that John B. was working on, so as I headed to to the storage garage, I called John B. to see if I could stop by to get the stuff that was in the cabinet he took. He told me... wait for it... he returned the cabinet to the YMCA! I just didn't see it there. So, after I got the mics out of the storage garage, I headed back to the YMCA to get the power supply and sustain pedal for the keyboard. Then I realized that I had forgotten to bring some folding chairs. So I called John B. back and he met me en route to the parade with a couple of folding chairs.

Meanwhile, I had told everyone that I would be there at 8 a.m. and they should show up at 8:30 a.m. because I didn't know how long the registration would take. My great team showed up anywhere from very early to on time. I didn't arrive until 8:50 a.m. (sorry, team!)

We set up a full band's worth of equipment on the trailer: keyboard, full drum set, mics, guitars, etc. Everything went pretty well until we discovered we didn't have a power cord for one of the speakers. Oh, well.

It all came together in the end. The music went well. We all dressed Hawaiian style (the theme of the parade was "Christmas Vacation.") We had banners on the side of our truck promoting our Christmas Eve Candlelight Service. We even improv'd some music along the way. And we all had a great time.

Public thanks in no particular order to Mathew, Melanie, Megan and Macy Trout, John, Zach and Zoe Gerbi, Todd and Jan Purcell, Tina Lovelace, Parker Lovelace, Anya and Lilia Rallison. And thanks to Merle Kroepllin for loaning us the trailer and Dale Nichols for loaning us the truck.

"I am nervous about the parade tomorrow"

"I am nervous about the parade tomorrow." I said this to myself, to my wife, and now I am saying to to you.

The Journey of Life worship band is going to be riding a flatbed trailer tomorrow morning in the St. Cloud Christmas parade. We will be singing the songs that we are going to be singing at our Christmas Eve candlelight service. I know it's going to be great fun, but I am nervous. I've never done anything like this before. Things are kinda coming together at the last minute. So I am nervous.

That is the point of this blog post. Not my nervousness, but my naming my nervousness and sharing it authentically with others (like you!).

There can be a temptation for a leader to hide his or her nervousness, to stand up and charge forward like the future can be predicted and everything is under control. Well, the future cannot be predicted with certainty — only probability — and not everything is even within my sphere of control. So I'm feeling rather vulnerable as we prepare for the parade tomorrow.

Having read and listened to some of  Brené Brown's work recently (her blog is ordinarycourage.com), I thought I'd try on admitting vulnerability and nervousness rather than simply hiding behind a stoic facade, just to see what it feels like. A little earlier today I said to myself, "Man, I sure feel nervous about tomorrow." When I arrived home this evening, my wife asked me how I was feeling and I said, "You know, I'm feeling quite nervous about tomorrow." Not that I'm running away or anything like that. But I decided to be courageous and openly admit what I was really feeling.

You know what? It feels pretty good. It feels right. It feels true. It feels like I'm letting people know me instead of presenting them an airbrushed cardboard cutout of some idea of who I think I ought to be and then worrying about what other people think while I try to maintain the false image I project.

Here's what I experienced:

Admitting my nervousness to myself somehow reduces its power over me. When I openly admitted to myself, "Man, I am nervous about tomorrow," instead of simply trying not to be nervous, somehow my nervousness changed character. It was like it moved from my heart out to my skin. I am still nervous, but the feelings of fight, freeze or flight that accompany anxiety in varying intensities moved away from me. It was definitely good to say intentionally, "Man, I am nervous," instead of saying subtly to myself, "Man, I've got to stop being so nervous."

Admitting my nervousness and feelings of vulnerability creates space to share another feeling I am feeling: confidence. I don't know exactly what tomorrow will hold, but I am confident that as the worship band works together, we will handle whatever happens in the morning with grace and good humor. Our worship band is full of great people! I am also confident that God causes all things to work together for those who love him and are called according to his purposes. So even if we totally crash and burn, that doesn't mean God's purposes won't prevail, which is the point anyway.

Sharing my nervousness with my wife also created the opportunity for her to show love to me, which she has done wonderfully from a glass of red wine, to dinner, to three Oreos in a bowl even as I write this. The courage of honest interaction made a place for our relationship to grow.

Having the courage to own, name and share my nervousness today lessened my own anxiety, allowed me to express confidence in my team and my God, and created a space for love to to be practiced in my marriage. My prideful spirit isn't too excited about being vulnerable by sharing my nervousness, but look at all the good that comes from it!

So, I am feeling nervous, vulnerable, excited and confident about the parade tomorrow. I sure hope the sound system works like it did when I tested it!

Thank you, OnBeing

I want to publicly thank Krista Tippett and OnBeing.org for posting the unedited interviews that Krista conducts with her guests. I have two reasons for this gratitude:

First, I really feel like I get to "know" the guest a little better. I hear the banter, off-the-cuff remarks and extra stories that don't make it into the produced one-hour radio version of the interview. It is a richer experience for me.

Second, they don't edit out the technical difficulties. This week's show with Brene Brown had a major technical issue right in the middle of it. As a pastor who leads a weekly worship service that all-too-often suffers some sort of glitch, it's liberating (and in a twisted way, even encouraging) to get to listen in while pros try to solve unanticipated malfunctions. Of course, the listener never hears the glitches on the produce show. That is part of the point of producing a finished show.

I recommend "OnBeing" to everyone. It's a thought-provoking and kind conversation about the big questions in life.