A liberal "taint" for local institutions?

Days numbered for First Luthean?

A friend who has more business savvy than I, had an interpretation for the business report in the current monthly publication of the church I attend. This is First Lutheran Church of Morris. More and more it seems we have become marginalized because of the affiliation with the ELCA. It is a church body with sympathy for gay rights. Given that stance, we might be considered "liberal" on the whole. 

I lose no sleep over this. I'm generally liberal with my current attitudes. It is always impossible to predict the future. We cannot rule out the so-called liberals making a broad comeback in this country. I mean, day-to-day headlines make the conservatives or Republicans look absurd and laughable so much. 

Look at the obvious corruption with the U.S. Supreme Court. But the corruption is revealed in connection to the so-called conservatives. I say "so-called." As I have stated regularly, I respect the basic conservative ideology, consider it essential at many junctures in our political life. 

If I write the name of Donald Trump, my extreme friends would say "there you go again." The point being what? These friends of mine continue to take Trump totally seriously, his baggage in tow. So I feel the legitimate need to engage them. They fail to listen seriously to anything. They just go on supporting him. 

The daily headlines about the outlandishness of today's Republicans have no effect - such fodder becomes "entertainment." 

So I scan the headlines and soak in the shock value. 

How would I feel if my First Lutheran Church actually met its end? Drastic speculation? I don't think so, not at all. I was talking with my friend who has business savvy yesterday at McDonald's. He too has a background with the once very stable, very mainstream First Lutheran Church of Morris. I asked him if our church ever considered seriously trying to leave its liberal-leaning synod. 

He said "the liberals and college professors" in the church would not have permitted it. 

Let's see, Good Shepherd is in this thing called the LCMC. What if we had jumped to the LCMC ourselves? That save us? Would it have prevented the establishment of a whole new church in a new (re-located) building out north of Morris? Could everyone out there have just coalesced at First Lutheran, to the extent we could continue having two services on Sunday? The in-town location would be convenient for lots of people. The courthouse parking is generous.

First Lutheran went into a slow fade, at first retreating to one Sunday service in the summer only. You all know of course that Morris slides into semi-hibernation in summer. People with their "lake places" elsewhere make themselves scarce. UMM is not in session for summer. Many of those people become scarce. 

When I worked for the Morris paper, I was expected to stick to my grind 365 days a year. I'd be at the office on Sunday morning when the rest of my family was in church at First Lutheran. 

My late parents would be aghast at what First Lutheran appears to be going through now. Such a far cry from the days of the Eidsvolds. 

When I was a kid, First Lutheran was the most mainstream institution you could find, a total pillar. Now we are "liberal." It appears the deterioration is rapid. We lost our choir director because UMM people can be so transitory these days. Our choir director was the UMM choir director. 

(photo by B.W.)

What the hell kind of future does UMM music have? Music performances that we used to take for granted have begun to disappear. Could UMM itself disappear? 

I say in a dispassionate way that UMM is certainly "woke." It's how Republican politicos would readily assess the situation here. The controversy with Steve Sviggum was dripping with this perception. We have become like an extension of the Dakotas here in Western Minnesota. Democrats "need not apply." 

A "liberal" church is dying. The conservative LCMC-affiliated Good Shepherd appears to be thriving. 

I asked my business-oriented friend what might become of the First Lutheran building. The building is so dated with all the steps and stairs all over the place. I don't feel it could be resuscitated. My fellow parishioners might say "there's an elevator." But the building is not welcoming for the handicapped and elderly. The elevator is way off on the side of the building. The main entrance in front is clearly for the able-bodied. The split-level design of the building means you have to confront steps immediately. 

So the non-able-bodied have to go elsewhere to be accommodated. Reminds me of when black people in the Jim Crow South could dine at restaurants but only by being sent back "by the kitchen." Yes, they could dine. 

The building's design might mean nothing, would be no impediment if First Lutheran were in the more conservative synod. Would I have a problem of conscience attending a more "conservative" church? Depends. I really think Good Shepherd has been softening just a little. As Chris Matthews of MSNBC once said: "Liberalism always wins in the end." 

Good Shepherd Church

Considering that, I think basic accommodations for gay people will become the norm. Good Shepherd would not allow a gay pastor. They'll stick to their guns on that. A member who I spoke with recently said "gays are welcome to attend our church." I'm not sure that would have been heard several years ago. 

 

Peeling away to truth

You can accuse me of having a stereotype about gay people but I've observed a lot in my life. They are inclined to be "exhibitionist" and I don't mean that in a sexual perversion sense. I mean they are extroverted and like to perform in front of others. I have noticed them being attracted to theater activities in school. Which is fine and wonderful. But. . . 

If true, I think this tendency would mean that gay people are attracted in disproportionate numbers to the ministry. So if true, I think this is what rankles many people in Christianity. Christians can easily get over having a few people who happen to be gay in their midst, to join in simple worship. Many do not feel comfortable seeing a disproportionate number of gays not only in ministry but behaving in an openly activist way about their LGBTQ status! I understand this perfectly. 

I know there are openly gay activists in the leadership structure of the ELCA. I have reservations mainly because your sexual orientation is not the foundation for your commitment to the faith. 

I can understand some of the negative reaction to the ELCA. But my goodness, for First Lutheran of Morris to just up and die? What about Faith Lutheran, also ELCA? The Faith building is 100 percent more accommodating for the handicapped and elderly. Anyone my age would probably appreciate it for that reason. 

It's crazy that Morris has tried to sustain two ELCA churches. What will happen to our community if UMM dies? Has UMM faded because of being too "liberal?" What will the ramifications be, of the Supreme Court ruling on race preferences at colleges? UMM would have to be way up on the list of race/ethnic consciousness. Certainly we carried the banner for gay rights. What really did that have to do with the liberal arts mission? I never understood that. 

Steve Sviggum

To be blunt, Sviggum was pissed. He became inartful with his words because he was simply pissed. This is a guy who has carried political clout, who has a powerful constituency and audience. 

Whither UMM now? My personal charitable giving has included First Lutheran Church and UMM. Is it folly now to contribute to either? And if neither, I would just be left with the Morris Area School Foundation. Hey, that would make certain people happy! 

A headline this morning, Saturday: "Stephen Miller sends threatening letter to 200 schools telling them he'll sue if they consider race in applications: 'You are hereby warned.' " 

UMM has a policy of free tuition for Native Americans. How could this not come under special scrutiny now? If the UMM policy is the result of an actual treaty, well, it is probably exempted from the Supreme Court. Did everyone smoke a "peace pipe?" Sorry. 

I'm not sure it's a treaty. If it's just a "policy," no matter how solid or well-established, I think it could draw a letter from the likes of Miller. After all, "policy" is what affirmative action was. The best-laid policies of mice and men, alas. We're in a whole new world with our Supreme Court given us by Donald Trump. Three Federalist Society appointees. Are you sure you're comfortable with this? 

Was Nancy Pelosi so bad after all? Or Collin Peterson?

Addendum: It's a lazy Saturday morning here in Morris. We're heading into Fourth of July, which entails time off on both Monday and Tuesday for lots of people. Anything to "get to the lake." Alas I am not a lake person. I seek retreat out along the biking/walking trail east of Morris. There I might meet up with Sharon Martin. Therapeutic to talk to her always. A relaxing effect. 

This morning I expanded further on the fodder you find in the blog post above. I did so in an email to a fellow UMM advocate in town. Maybe there is something additional that is edifying in the email. My long-time critics would turn thumbs-down. Who cares? I share the email below. Thanks for reading.

 

Hello (name withheld) - I'm not sure people are properly digesting the upshot of the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. The court has been up to some other funny stuff lately. All because we had a president from 2016 to 2020 who did not win the popular vote.

So, affirmative action is banned. Silly to think it's that simple. Legal people will now have to slice and dice like crazy to get to the bottom of what that all means. The law has to be applied consistently. Colleges know they can't have a system that per se allows students to be admitted based on race, but the whole matter hardly ends there. If UMM can continue with its policy on Native Americans, provided it's not an old treaty, that is going to be hard to rationalize. Because believe me, there are going to be conservative legal organizations that go nuts putting every college under scrutiny. Don't think they won't find out about our UMM campus and its "multi-ethnic building." 

UMM is totally "woke" on this stuff. All I am doing is trying to state reality in connection to all this. We'll have to respond to reality.

At its core, I think the whole matter is about the conservative portion of America trying to make life difficult for publicly-supported institutions. It's the same as with public libraries: conservatives show up at board meetings and scream about certain issues like LGBTQ publications, but that's not what it's all about. Those issues don't mean that much in the eyes of those people: they are just irritated by the existence of taxpayer-supported institutions that serve the public. So they'll harass and make life miserable. Is this coming for UMM?

I think music is in real trouble at UMM. As I have stated, I'm happy if our family fund ends up going to the Twin Cities campus, because my father invested a big portion of his life there. However, it really would be kind of sad, wouldn't it? 

I knew I'd get "excuses" on no band or choir for graduation. "The music kids aren't around." Well, what about all the years when we had a robust band and choir? Huh?

I wonder if UMM would consider simply closing the HFA building. (Name withheld) has described that building as an "albatross." Weird architecture from a time when that was faddish. Music and theater used to be presented at Edson. I frankly found it enjoyable there.

Stephen Miller's organization is already soliciting "tips" about campuses that might still be offering race-based preferences. Like I told you, it'll be hell to pay.

- BW

 

The image at right shows Stephen Miller. Rather humorless, would like to see him sit on a whoopee cushion. Miller is president of America First Legal. Watch your backs, academics.