I think the point is to counter hate with love. The question we have to ask is, "What is the best way I can love this person?" The person is not singular: we have to love the perpetrator and the victim of the hate.

I think the way that the ELCA dealt with the issue of homosexuality led to the split. I think that a democratic solution is not the best in a Christian context. If the count is close, then nearly half of the group will be disenfranchised. It seems to me that the Episcopalians ran into the same problem, and now the Anglicans and Episcopalians are split. Patience and reconciliation should be the issue from the beginning, not after the decision. A unanimous vote is the ideal; close to it is the next best thing. If 40%+ disagree with the decision, then more patience and love is necessary.

I read through the "Reflections" by Wengert. I have a problem with one of the suppositions by Luther on which Wengert depends: "It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God’s word, whether God has spoken it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us." This last part, "whether it fits us," is a very difficult one to decide. First, there are no criteria for this "fit"; they seem ad hoc. Second, who does "us" consist of? There are plenty of people who would say that the ruling made by the majority does not fit them. Another part that is not addressed in the article is how to love *all* others, namely, how about those with whom we disagree? The Lutherans took their vote; was that the best way to love all the participants at the convention? Do you love homosexuals at the expense of the social conservatives? How do you love everyone as we are commanded? Do you leave them in schism? Finally--and maybe this is a bit flippant--but what do they mean by "long-term, monogamous"? Will they no longer be able to serve if they divorce? I know that's not the case for heterosexuals. Is this an extra criterion for homosexuals, or is it only on a case-by-case basis? I have still not decided about the wisdom of making a ruling either way, as I see that a lot of important questions have not been addressed.

I have a few comments about this interesting topic: * I heard that the original crosses on graves was put at the *foot* of the grave, so that, come the resurrection, the person would immediately see the cross. * In New England (and all old US cemeteries), my kids get freaked out by the skull and wings symbol. I've heard various explanations, but they are clearly out of fashion. Now we have happy symbols like hands and doves--less freaky. * Putting symbols on graves seems like it might have a complex history. In the Mediterranean world where Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism began, graves were not as common as they are today. You had sarcophagi, which were full of symbols. Old monasteries did (and still do) it differently, though. You are buried in a small parcel of land for three years, dug up, and your bones are cleaned and put into a "necropolis," kind of a storage room for bones. The skulls are placed on shelves, and some have labels on them. Maybe lambs would be less freaky.

I agree that individualism can be pushed too far. In the fourth century, monasticism went to the fringe, and people were going off into the desert by themselves, without any community. St Basil the Great had to reform these monks into communities in order to live the Gospel. The main idea is that one cannot love in the abstract, or in order to love the God we cannot see we must love the neighbor we can see. By the same token, Paul had to get on the Corinthians' case because some ate because *they* felt hungry--without thinking about their brothers and sisters. I think that excessive individualism is a result of sin, not of being American.

I like that you bring out this point, Bill, as I agree that when we dismiss Hitler as "crazy" it lets us off the hook. As humans we often dismiss what we don't like as completely "other." I think it's important to delve into where that insanity may have come from, to see if we might share it, and to deal with it inside ourselves. For example, many may decry Pat Robertson as not "really" Christian. But what about Christianity allows people like that to latch on and flourish? Similarly, many decry Osama bin Laden as not "really" Muslim. Then why does he claim to be Muslim? What does he get out of Islam that allows him to do what he does? I had a professor of Old Testament, a Jew. He said that the book of Joshua and its depiction of genocide really bothered him. He struggled to reconcile a confession for belief in the Bible with a nasty characteristic of the Bible. For me, this is an honest way of dealing with this tension--living with the tension. The other option would be to dismiss Judaism and belief in the Bible or the horrible actions condoned in the Bible. I believe that that tension, confronting what intrudes on a nice view of ourselves and our beliefs, makes us better people.

Life and death in Christ are contradictory, paradoxical ideas. Death leads to life, as well as the other way around. In the Orthodox Christian tradition, we talk more about death at baptisms than at funerals. Baptism depicts our new life by putting on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Death reminds us of our hope in the resurrection.

The reason why kosher wine must be made by Orthodox Jews is to be sure that the wine was not dedicated to any pagan gods. Obviously, this rule came about a long time ago.

Regarding church music: in the early Greek church there was a dispute over whether one should have music. The question was whether the music enhances or takes away from concentration on the words. The words were thus the most important. Ever since Plato the Greeks (pre-Christian) knew that music had the ability to fire up the passions. One had to be sure, therefore, that music served the words of God. The Eastern Orthodox don't use any instruments during services. Almost all the service is sung/chanted. Coptic Christians, however, use symbols (which sound very cool).

I find these studies odd, too. Every person follows a story about how the world works and how we fit he or she fits in it. There are various religious stories and various scientific stories. I don't know what it proves if you use one story to verify the other. Does that further knowledge? Also, science has to isolate parts of a phenomenon in order to test it. So it has to take the kind of prayer that makes the most sense in its story: intercessory prayer. But what about the ideal prayer in Christianity, that God's will be done? How "effective" is that prayer? Can you measure it? How would you do so? The prayer is supposed to work on the heart of the believer, incrementally. Even less measurable are prayers for God's mercy on Judgment Day. So the most important prayers in Christianity, it seems to me, aren't able to be measured. It this area, then, science does not seem all that useful.