Nearing the End of a Long Journey, and the Start of a New One

Posted on March 27, 2026 by smaxreisert

Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 2:4-5

The story of the Granite Church of Hallowell, Maine began in the frigid, early morning hours of December 1, 1878. On a Sunday morning at 3:00am, the city night watchman, Mr. Henderson, opened the outer door of the meeting house and was engulfed in smoke. He seized the bell rope in the lower vestibule and sounded the alarm to the people that their beloved house of worship was in flames. Eventually, the entire structure became a mass of flames and burned to the ground. After the fire, a meeting was called to make plans for rebuilding the church. One decision was made immediately: it would be built of Hallowell granite. Not only did the people want a new church that would serve generations to come, they wanted the city of Hallowell to have a building made from the local granite that was prized around the world.

It took four long years to raise the money and to build the new church. And during that time, or at least part of it, there was no minister, no deacons, and no money. It was a time of despair and often those who worked the hardest for Old South must have felt forsaken by God and by their community.*

And now these many years later, after two and a half years with a “for sale” sign out front, countless viewings, and a couple of offers that went nowhere, Old South Church is very close to a sale, a transfer of its large granite building to another owner, who will not be using it for religious or spiritual purposes.

This past Sunday, the congregation of Old South took leave of the sanctuary building. We’ve been worshipping in the Parish House, across the street from the sanctuary building, since the Sunday after Christmas, so it was a little strange to be in the sanctuary space, especially after quite a few things had already been removed in anticipation of the closing just after Easter. In taking leave of the building, we took a moment to feel the weight of the feelings and experiences that are so caught up in the imposing building of stone.

Over the years, I’ve heard countless stories that have featured the sanctuary and the building in which it resides. Remember when you had to arrive more than an hour ahead of time just to get a seat for the Christmas Eve service? Remember when that former organist would make the organ really sing, for those in the church as well as those in the neighborhood? Remember those memorial services when we had people lined up along the back wall and even filling the vestry?

Remember when we started to realize that we simply couldn’t afford the building anymore— the maintenance too demanding (in terms of human and financial resources) and the utilities much too expensive?

As we engaged in the leave taking of the sanctuary, I’m sure it felt at least to a few that something critical was being cut off from our experience and our communal lives of faith. But, I also know that, for most of the people who gathered on Sunday, as the snow came down on the first Sunday of spring (typical Maine), grief was only a small part of what they were feeling. While the sanctuary has been a beautiful building in which to gather and worship, the congregation, as a whole, is much more aware that it is the congregation that is the church, and not the building in which we gather.

Our ancestors knew, as well, of this truth. After all, they called the building a “meeting house,” a place where the church met. The building was, and is, not the church.

In the midst of all of the emotions on display during Sunday’s worship— grief, confusion, relief, and dare I say, even excitement— there was a new awareness that the stones that form the walls and the tall steeple are not only not the church, they are not the witness. They do not speak for or help anyone understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we are grateful that the faithful were able to gather in that beautiful building for such a long period of time, with all of their hopes and dreams, the important life events that took place, for the faith that grew and developed, along with all of the challenges and struggles, what has made the emotions so strong is not the large blocks of granite. It is the love, comfort, assurance, and joy, the presence of Christ is our midst, in our gatherings large and small.

The remarkable and courageous act of faith that is now moving to fulfillment will allow the congregation to continue to be a church well into the future, unburdened by the heavy, and distracting, demands of that lovely structure of granite. The church now has an opportunity, in a new way, to reclaim themselves as living stones built into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, in order that we “may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

______

*Many thanks to Lois Ware Thurston’s historical pamphlet, “Hallowell’s Granite Church.”

Posted in Buildings, On the Hopeful Side, Small church, Worship | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Great Big Terrible Awful Slide

Posted on February 28, 2026 by smaxreisert

Olga Tocarczuk’s novel, The Empusium,”a health resort horror story,” is set in the early twentieth century, in Poland, at a “guesthouse for gentlemen” suffering from tuberculosis. On the surface, the novel possesses qualities of a thriller: mysterious deaths, tension, and a sinister vibe. There’s also a hallucinogenic liquor made with mushrooms that the men enjoy in the evenings. The real horror of the story, though, is the deep misogyny that is so casually bandied about as the men engage in all manner of conversation throughout the novel. In the midst of chatter about politics, money, social status, religion, etc, the deeply embedded assumption regarding the inferiority of females is slowly, consistently, revealed. The misogyny is always there, undergirded by theories and theologies, modern and ancient. A horror story indeed.

The horror of misogyny is now becoming more and more re-embedded in our own society, as we witness the erosion of the hard-won battles of women, to dispel the notion that males are the pinnacle of the created order and that women their subordinates. Misogyny is everywhere, especially throughout the federal government. Let’s just consider a few recent examples: the praise loaded onto the US men’s Olympic hockey team while the women, also gold medal winners, were left to praise themselves; the efforts of Pete Hegseth to remove women from combat roles in the military; Pete Hegseth’s removal of women from high-ranking military positions; new attention given to Christian nationalist and Reformed pastor Doug Wilson (including a recent invitation to lead a prayer service at the Pentagon), who thinks that women (especially married women) should not have the right to vote; and, of course, the myriad disrespectful and derogatory comments made by the current President toward women who do not bow down and tell him how great he is.

In all of this, Christianity plays an animating, reinforcing, and sometimes, a defining role— as it has been doing for a very long time. But, is Christianity— its scriptures, stories, theologies and history— a complete and unwavering playbook for the maintenance of women in a secondary role in society?

Christian leaders, over the centuries, have certainly done their best to twist scripture and story into a system that supports the notion that maleness captures God’s finest effort in the creation of human beings, casting femaleness in a lesser role, as dependent “helper.” Yet, there are all sorts of problems with the insistence that maleness is the epitome of God’s creation and that females ought to fall in line and recognize their inferiority. Since many Christian leaders like to go back to the very beginning to assert and frame God’s supposed order of things on earth, let’s consider a few issues from the beginning, from Genesis:

  • In the first (of two) creation stories in Genesis 1, the humans, male and female, are created at the same time, not one after the other: “So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, NRSV)
  • In the second creation story, the creation of the “help meet” for Adam (in Genesis 2) is, in Hebrew, the creation of a partner of equal status.
  • When considering the creation stories as a whole, there is a sense that God’s creation isn’t completely thought out ahead of time, that God perfects the creation in the creating process. In this way, the female is actually God’s crowning creation achievement.

Christian leaders and thinkers have, of course, moved beyond the Creation stories and have found many ways of asserting male dominance. There’s the issue that Jesus chose only males as his twelve disciples, although there’s little attention to the fact that Jesus chose only Jews to serve in this role. While Peter holds a place of significance as the “rock” upon which the Church will be built, Peter’s “confession” claiming that Jesus is Messiah is held up as a critical moment of clarity and purpose. Yet, in the Gospel According to John, the confession of Jesus as Messiah doesn’t belong to Peter. It belongs to Martha. And, then there’s the grievous horror in diminishing Mary of Magdala’s role. The risen Christ trusted her to share the good news of resurrection. Mary’s role is shared by all four canonical Gospels. Presumably, the risen Christ could have chosen anyone with whom to first share the amazing news. He could have appeared to that trusty Peter, who was locked away, fearing that he might be next in line for Roman crucifixion. Instead, the risen Christ trusted Mary of Magdala, one of his closest friends, a female.

That males in positions of power manage to warp and contort their own sense of themselves into a belief that they are at the top of the heap, that their gifts and skills are above all, that their form and attributes are the height of the created order is a horror. Males and females are different, but what gives males the right to claim dominance? For Christians who supposedly worship Christ and consider the Bible, and especially the New Testament, to be their guide in organizing themselves and understanding the relationship between males and females, we must name the treachery involved in misreading and misinterpreting the Holy Bible.

The long, slow, excruciating slog to begin to see some significant changes in the perceptions of and attitudes toward females in the holy book took shape in the latter half of the twentieth century. Ever so slowly, some Christian communities, denominations, and scholars began to wrestle with the history of the faith, the treatment of females, along with translation, interpretation and contextual issues. Progress was made— to live more faithfully in relationship with our holy scriptures and with our triune God. Critics often refer to “political correctness” in response to these changes, when much of what occurred was significantly appropriate. There were errors in translations and interpretations of texts that needed to be fixed.

Now, the awful slide back is in place, a slide that strives to cast females as “less than,” as subordinate. It may feel like it’s a return to a more “wholesome” time when gender roles were more neatly defined and the divide between the masculine and the feminine was clearer. But, the more neatly defined and the clearer were not nearly as aligned with Biblical teachings as its proponents would like to think. To ignore this dynamic and allow the normalizing of the misogyny is misguided and detrimental to all. It’s also unfaithful.

Posted in Bible, current-events | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mercy for Me, But Not for Thee

Posted on January 31, 2026 by smaxreisert

In our current state of affairs in the United States, it’s hard to know how to make sense of it all, in striving to appreciate various facets and layers of what makes it into the news, and in attempting to grasp a moment that sheds light on where we are and who we are as a country. There are just so many things going on all at once.

I have long been troubled by those who identify themselves as Christian, but somehow manage to espouse not much that is actually attached to any of the lessons contained in the New Testament. It’s also unsettling to recognize the continued support the current Administration receives from the evangelical Christian community, even as we witness the violence and cruelty directed at immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and just plain ordinary American citizens who happen to have dark skin or an accent— and their children. Jesus taught many challenging lessons about love, yet those lessons have been cast aside by many who claim an attachment to the Christian faith. While immigration is a significant problem in the eyes of many Americans, an issue in need of attention and action, the lack of empathy, kindness, and care in regard to the reality of the lives of our fellow human beings is simply unconscionable.

Last year, the notion of the “sin of empathy” gained remarkable, and disconcerting, traction among many conservatives, including conservative Christians. I remember listening to an episode of Albert Mohler’s podcast “Thinking in Public,” a program supposedly “dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues.” In this particular podcast, the guest of honor was Joe Rigney, the author of the book The Sin of Empathy. The discussion was long and multi-faceted, so I can’t really give a good summary here, but I remember two related topics that struck me, topics that I continue to think about these many months since that episode aired: empathy equated with feelings and feelings equated with women, especially feminists (side question here: do they know any feminists? Most of the feminists I know are not the kind of people I would describe as full of squishy feelings). Because empathy is, according to these men, primarily of the female realm, and there are females who are feminists then that must mean that empathy is a problem because women are not capable of discernment when it comes the proper judgment of the experiences of others, as in some suffering, I guess, is worthy of Christian empathy and other suffering is not. Or something like that.

And, now we see the next stage of the diminishment of empathy (which is not just about feelings, by the way, but rather the ability, the action, of understanding the experiences of others, as in stepping into other people’s shoes and learning), in which compassion and mercy may be shown in regard to the suffering of a friend or family member, but not toward the suffering of a stranger.

One example is J.D. Vance who declared last year that there is a hierarchy to love and mercy, that a Christian should love family first, then immediate neighbor, then community, then fellow citizens, and “then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” Um, the Parable of the Good Samaritan anyone? Good thing that poor guy who was beat up and left on the side of the road wasn’t relying on J.D. Vance for help.

Let’s take Megyn Kelly, as another example. While she’s not exactly a clear conservative Christian (she is a Roman Catholic, but has had something of a bumpy ride in her faith, as far as I can tell from a quick view through YouTube videos), she is certainly an influential conservative voice, with 2.3 million subscribers on YouTube. One can see videos of her openly expressing her deep feelings of sadness and grief after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, with whom she was friends. But, then there’s a much more recent video of her declaring, in a defiant, angry tone: “I know that I’m supposed to feel sorry for Alex Pretti, but I don’t. I don’t. Do you know why I wasn’t shot by border control this weekend? Because I kept my ass inside and out of their operations.”

Mercy for me, but not for thee.

As the appreciation of mercy as a critical component of one’s life of faith, personally and publicly, erodes, it feels very much like Christianity itself is being drained of its meaning and purpose. While it can be a legitimate test to figure out how much of one’s faith should be cast into the public square, it is also clear that the Christian faith is not intended to be practiced solely in private, nor is it meant to be carried around simply as a talisman around one’s neck. The Christian faith is to be lived out, influencing our behavior toward ourselves, those we know, and those we do not know, with an awareness that others— that strangers— are people, created in the image of God and therefore deserving of care and kindness, of dignity and respect, of compassion and love. And, that not even one person can be characterized as “garbage,” a label that the President has bestowed upon way too many people, without one peep from his evangelical fan base. If Christianity is turned into something that involves a “hierarchy of affections,” a faith tradition that turns a blind eye to (or worse, supports) violence and cruelty, the whole enterprise becomes untethered from its essential moorings, set adrift with no true purpose, other than to offer a clubhouse for the bigoted and hateful, bereft of the “Christ” part of its title.

Posted in current-events, Other Denominations/Christians | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lessons I Should Have Learned at Div School: Cheerleading?

Posted on January 10, 2026 by smaxreisert

Many years ago, when Old South was set to embark on a process to discern whether or not to pursue “open and affirming” status (public welcome of those in the LBGTQ+ community), I gave a sermon or two in support of the process that acknowledged that the congregation would likely experience some discomfort and challenge along the way, as the topics involved were not the usual fodder of church-like discussions. Given that Old South was located in what was (and continues to be) well-known as an open and welcoming town especially in regard to the LBGTQ+ community, I thought it was important that the church be clear about its status on full inclusion (or not).

At some point, one of the long-time members of the church came to visit me during office hours. He was unhappy with the whole Open and Affirming thing, the process, the subject matter, and the likely disagreements that church members would have, disagreements that seemed not worth the trouble, as far as this man was concerned. People, he told me, just want to feel good when they come to church, especially worship. They want to know that they are doing well and that God loves them. They don’t to feel uncomfortable or challenged. They don’t want to be put in a situation that makes them squirm.

Despite this objection (and a few others), the church community went on to have a productive year and a half process that resulted in a unanimous adoption of an Open and Affirming statement. A few church members decided to leave the church and a few others mostly kept the process at as much of a distance as they could, but those who participated found that it was a good experience, deepening their sense of their own faith and the kind of church they wanted Old South to be. The moments of tension were, for the most part, opportunities to put their faith into practice: listening and learning; expressing their own thoughts and feelings; and, working out how the Holy Spirit was present among each person and all of them together.

Over the years, I have encountered similar sentiments in a variety of circumstances to the man who came to tell me that church people just want church to feel good. Church ought to be solely about encouragement, nurture and comfort, as if weekly worship should be like wrapping ourselves in a warm security blanket. In a recent conversation, I was told, once again, that I should be all about reassurance and that I should refrain from messages that imply demands or correction, as if my role as pastor ought to be akin to a faith cheerleader. Where did I put those pom poms?

While I wouldn’t disagree that at least part of the church/faith experience should be focused on encouragement, leadership in a Christian faith community that is only about providing a constant pat on the back is not actually faithful. The life of faith requires a departure from the comfortable and safe, in ways that are decidedly squirmy and difficult. Lessons from Jesus, as told to us through the Gospel writers, tell us that Jesus often provoked, often pushed buttons, often irritated and knocked people off kilter.

There’s the wealthy young man who asked Jesus what he needed to do gain eternal life. When Jesus told him to keep the commandments and then sell all of his possessions and give to the poor, the young man walked away. In the Gospel of Luke (14:26), Jesus declares, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” And, how about all of that business about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies?

To be a Christian is to know God’s love and to be graced with the blessing of faith. But, to live truly as a Christian is to find oneself almost constantly confronted by the demanding lessons of Jesus. It’s likely the reason why Jesus was big on groups— gathering a group of friends to help him with his earthly ministry, sending out disciples two by two to spread the good news, etc. The life of the Christian faith is one best not taken on alone.

For the faithful to be able to live the faith, a lot more than encouragement is needed. While it may not be the most welcome aspect of community life, identification of growing edges and places that need prayerful attention are critical to the overall well-being of a community that claims to worship and endeavors to follow Jesus Christ. If all we are doing is the cheerleading part, it’s not worth doing at all.

Posted in My Life as Pastor | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Next Holiday on the Chopping Block: Christmas?

Posted on December 16, 2025 by smaxreisert

The Trump Administration recently announced that, through the National Park Service, two days on the United States calendar that enjoyed “free admission” status have been removed. The two days that are now no longer free admission holidays for the National Park Service: Martin Luther King, Jr Day and Juneteenth. Both holidays revolving around Black Americans. Although the President has bemoaned the, in his mind, too-long list of “non-working” holidays, his Administration has added quite a few days to the National Park list of free entrance days: Presidents Day (Washington’s Birthday); Memorial Day; Flag Day (which, surprise, surprise, happens to be Trump’s birthday); Independence Day; the birthday of the NPS; Constitution Day; and, Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday. Veterans’ Day was, and will remain, a free day.

Take away two Black-oriented days. Add White Man Days.

Is this just the beginning of a more serious effort to alter the list of federally recognized holidays?

If so, and if the Administration is really intent on removing anything that smacks of “diversity and inclusion,” it ought to set its focus on Christmas.

At Christmas, Christians celebrate the Incarnation, the birth of the Son of God, born to an ordinary young woman betrothed to an ordinary guy, in a no-name backwater of a place on the edge of nowhere. More importantly, though, is that the birth of the Son of God happened in what we now know as the Middle East— where brown people live. Yes, despite your granny’s favorite portrait of a fair-skinned, blue-eyed Jesus with lovely light-brown locks (at least, that was my grandmother’s favorite depiction of Jesus, hung on her wall at the top of the stairs, just outside her bedroom), Jesus didn’t look like that.

Jesus was brown (or maybe light brown, but not fair), with dark hair.

And, perhaps worse still, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus and his family had to escape at some point after the birth, to Egypt, to escape Herod who was so hell-bent on removing any threat to his power that he ordered the slaughter of all of boys under two years of age in the area (it’s important to note here that, though this is a story of significance to many Christians, there is no historical backing for the story, which many historians feel there would be, if there had been an order to slaughter young children for the stated purpose). Their escape made them refugees in need of a safe haven— asylum seekers, if you will.

Why is this Jesus guy given a federal holiday in the United States? He is so remarkably NOT American, and by way of his birth, not aligned with American principles that we Americans supposedly all hold dear. Why are we celebrating a non-white person with a federally recognized holiday, especially when that non-white person also lived part of his life, according to one chronicler, in a state of asylum seeking? And, then went on into adulthood teaching such terrible, unAmerican things like sharing possessions, denouncing the wealthy and powerful, loving neighbors (including enemies), looking out for the well-being of the poor, and eschewing violence?

Posted in current-events, Holy-Days | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lessons I Should Have Learned in Divinity School: Mind Reading?

Posted on December 6, 2025 by smaxreisert

As Old South prepared itself for a major decision-making point and a special meeting of the congregation, the governing board thought it would be a good idea to offer a pre-game gathering, a time for people to ask questions and share their thoughts and concerns, without the pressure of a vote at the same time. At this pre-game gathering, though, there was little in the way of questions, only a couple, and just a concern or two. The whole thing, including introductory comments from a couple of people from the governing board, lasted thirty minutes.

The following day, the moderator of the congregation received a lengthy email from one of those who attended the gathering. The email expressed complete and utter outrage that this person’s questions and concerns were not addressed— even though that person never said a word!

Another person at that gathering expressed grief and heartbreak regarding where the church finds itself, and then started to formulate a question, directed to me, in a not very direct way. When I asked for more information, so that I might be able to respond in a helpful way, the person was noticeably irked and had difficulty in finding the right words to articulate a concise question, yet also made it clear that at least part of the problem was me. Why was I having so much difficulty understanding what was in her head?

In another recent classic church episode, one church member (#1) spoke to another church member (#2) regarding an issue that she, #1, wanted me to address. So, person #2 contacted me about the issue and then I contacted #1 about a plan of action. In #1’s response, she declared that she was hoping that something would happen regarding the issue in question— even though she had had no intention of bringing it to me herself.

These are just a few examples of occasions when it’s been clear that there is, among some, a certain expectation that somehow the rite of ordination bestows the gift of mind reading upon the new pastor, a skill that s/he will employ meaningfully throughout their career. Time and time again, over these many years, I have found myself in awkward situations that revolve around my inability to see directly into a parishioner’s mind and to perceive clearly their question, concern, or worry.

When I was in divinity school many years ago, I’m quite sure there were no course offerings that included lessons on how to read the minds of others, including those who attend church worship on a regular basis and are actively involved beyond worship. Truth be told, there is something alluring about the prospect of being able to read the minds of the people who attend Old South regularly, and to know more fully what they might be thinking. Yet, I’m also quite sure that I probably don’t want to know.

To be fair to my congregation, and perhaps other congregations as well, I have had, over the years, several people who not only assume that I cannot read their minds, but have been all too willing to make sure they find ways of telling me directly exactly what they are thinking. I remember one gentleman, a man who died over a decade ago, who was offended by something I said or did about once or twice a year. When I arrived at the church for Tuesday office hours following one of those offensive events, there he would be, waiting for me. There was another gentleman who would come storming into the parish house, if he saw my vehicle in the parking lot, to let me know the latest thing I had said or done that had sent him into paroxysms of annoyance. And, then there was the woman who wasn’t a member of Old South very long, but came in for a visit shortly before she moved out of state, to inform me that I was “doing it all wrong.” In each and all of these, the conversations that ensued were not easy, but they were always beneficial— to both parties.

And, none of them demanded any mind reading at all.

Ministry, as a unique relationship between pastor and parishioner, is oftentimes a delicate and complex dance. When both pastor and parishioner are able to be open, honest and trusting, the fruits of good relationship unfold with blessing after blessing. When, on the other hand, a parishioner expects the pastor to magically discern what’s on their heart and mind, the result is frustration and a decidedly warped relationship that doesn’t feed the spirt or faith of either.

Even if a course in mind reading were available, it probably wouldn’t actually be all that useful. There’s something significant in the articulation of one’s thoughts to another, parishioner to pastor, and the reverse. As I have experienced with those who have been more than willing to share their anger and frustrations with me, the opportunity for a broader and deeper relationship, with mutual understanding, is powerfully meaningful.

I very much miss those Tuesday morning visits with that long-time parishioner and the random visits from the other, both usually starting from anger but always ending in understanding and growth. But, I doubt I’ll ever miss the angry email outlining unknown questions I mysteriously never answered, or the “hopes” of other parishioners who seem more comfortable in game-playing than in building pathways of good relationship. Ministry is hard enough. Best not to complicate it still more by demanding the skills of the psychic.

Posted in My Life as Pastor | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ridiculous, Stupid and Incredibly Scary

Posted on November 1, 2025 by smaxreisert

“We’re saving Christianity. We’re saving God. We’re saving the family unit. We’re saving the nation.” Eric Trump, on the podcast, “The Benny Show” (October 2025)

It was a shocking moment, to be sure, when Eric Trump declared that the Trump regime and the Trump family, especially the leader of the clan, are basically “saving” not just civilization, but even the deity that many Americans claim to worship, along with the associated religious institution. In addition to this stunning statement, Eric also asserted, without question or humility, that his father is certainly going to heaven, as if he’s the judge of such things. All the while, the host smiled and nodded his head in approval. The remarks did not go entirely unnoticed. Comments were offered by a variety of people, claiming that Eric Trump’s assertions were not only wrong, but betrayed an extraordinary lack of understanding of what it actually means to worship God and to practice the Christian faith. The backlash, though, was not as resounding as it should have been, especially among those who are close to the President and his family.

Given the daily avalanche of disquieting actions and messages, one ridiculous quote uttered by a ridiculous (and not especially bright) Trump son on a ridiculous podcast is probably not significant enough for more than a brief dollop of outrage. Still, the quote is one that lingers in my mind as it offers yet another underscoring note of the profoundly problematic worldview of the Trump family. Now that their views and their ways are as tentacles proliferating and invading every aspect of American life, I wonder about the state of American Christianity, and its prospects for the future.

When the then former President Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania in July of 2024, he suggested that he felt that the hand of God had intervened in that moment of shocking violence and that, perhaps, he was saved from death by God himself, for God’s purposes.

It seems that that equation has now been flipped. It’s not God doing the intervening and the saving. It’s Trump himself, with his family in supporting roles.

Eric Trump’s declaration, during an interview on The Benny Show podcast offers a dangerous and frightening step into the morphing of the MAGA movement into a religion itself. It may have the trappings of Christianity, it may share a similar language, but the content, the purpose, the identity is wholly different. And that’s a very scary thing.

While a significant number of MAGA enthusiasts claim that they are adherents of the Christian religion, many of the characteristics of MAGA are not in any way in line with the basic tenets of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus— loving God and neighbor, including those who hate you; the welcome of “outsiders”; kindness to the marginalized; care for widows and orphans; etc. With Trump now characterized as the “saver,” a word alarmingly close to “savior,” where is this movement going? In what ways will the essential elements of Christianity be overrun and cast aside by the demands of the MAGA movement? Will the idolization of Trump slide into deification?

It may seem stupid and ridiculous, but it’s also incredibly scary, and still more alarmingly, not at all outside the realm of possibility.

Posted in current-events | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Kind of “Christians” Are These?

Posted on October 15, 2025 by smaxreisert

There’s a certain pastor who’s having his big moment in the spotlight. I’m reluctant to spell out his name because I don’t want to add to that spotlight. But, what he is preaching and sharing is deeply disturbing and unsettling. He’s yet one more “Christian” pastor whose understanding of the Christian message is profoundly different from mine.

This pastor was recently interviewed by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, as part of his “Interesting Times” series. The pastor is a Christian nationalist who claims to be a “theocratic libertarian.” He believes that the entire United States must acknowledge “the authority of God,” and by that he means his “Christian” concept of God. He is the pastor of a supposedly growing network of churches (Pete Hegseth is a member of one of these churches) that endeavors to incorporate, as part of their mission, the re-creation of a strictly patriarchal society. Among the features of this society is the idea that voting in elections should be exercised by household units (rather than by individuals), and that the male of the household is the decider of how votes are cast. This pastor not so long ago declared, during an interview with CNN, that “women are the kind of people that people come out of,” as if the bearing of children provides the only worth of female human beings.

In one part of the interview with Mr. Douthat, the pastor makes a rather startling assertion, declaring that we, in the United States, “should stop making God angry.” When asked to elaborate, the pastor outlined “awful crimes” for which the American public needs to repent: “no more pride parades; no more drag queen story hours; no more abortion on demand; no more legalized same sex unions . . . .” Douthat asked for clarification on this point: “So you’re a libertarian on how people worship, but you’re not a libertarian on who they sleep with. Is that right?” The answer: “yes.”

How can it be that these our most egregious sins in God’s eyes?

What about issues like child poverty? According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in their 2023 State of America’s Children Report: among the 74 million children living in the U.S., 11 million lived in poverty; one in six of those children were under the age of five (the highest rate of any age group); almost half of those children lived in severe or extreme poverty; 9 million children faced food insecurity; and, 4 million children lived without health insurance. In the state where the pastor is based, the poverty rate of children under the age of five was 17.6% between 2016 and 2020.

In terms of what the pastor is most concerned with: in 2022, only 2.3% of all marriages in the state where he is based were same-sex marriages. As of mid-2025, only 1.2% of all married couple households are same-sex in the entire United States.

It’s appalling that the growing ranks of these so-called “Christians” are more concerned with sexual behaviors and gender identity— issues that are not central themes of the Bible— and less focused on those issues that are highlighted again and again in our holy scriptures, like poverty, welcoming strangers, compassion, and justice. This pastor, of a growing network of churches and followers, says that he is interested in having society “follow the Bible.” The Bible, though, seems to be solely summed up in the Ten Commandments which he believes should then become the law of the land.

Somehow, the Greatest Commandment is nowhere to be seen:

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40 (NRSV)

While I’m not exactly comfortable making a declaration about what I think makes God angry, or not, I am comfortable accepting that Jesus clearly laid out the priorities for people of faith. Jesus could have spent time preaching on the importance of posting the Ten Commandments all over the place, of instituting and maintaining a patriarchal society, of castigating those outside of white heterosexuality, but he didn’t.

The pastor’s “vision” of a Christian society is something that appears to align more closely with his personal hopes and dreams for the United States, rather than one that is shaped by holy scripture. To call himself a “Christian,” much less one who believes that he may speak for God, this pastor (as well as others like him), might be considered “interesting” for the times in which we live. And, that’s too bad. In these interesting times, we could really use a more faithful approach to how we live out the lessons and stories of the Christian faith.

Posted in current-events | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Wondrous Hate Is This

Posted on September 24, 2025 by smaxreisert

At the five-hour mashup of memorial service, evangelical Christian revival, and political rally for Charlie Kirk this past Sunday afternoon, President Trump articulated several incredibly troubling sentiments. The most important of these: his musings on hate. As part of his remarks, Mr. Trump declared, “I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.” He then offered a follow up to Kirk’s widow who had just talked about love and had forgiven the assassin who had killed her husband, “Sorry Erika.” The tone, though, didn’t feel like he was actually sorry at all. Instead, it was more sorry, not sorry.

And since then: only the silence of evangelical leaders and pastors of evangelical churches regarding Mr. Trump’s assertion of hate rather than love, vengeance rather than forgiveness. I’m sure those leaders weren’t exactly surprised that the President invoked hate during the service, since expressing hatred is one of the things that the President is good at. Still, the silence— yet again— of the evangelical community in response to decidedly unchristian things the President says is staggering and insulting to anyone who actually tries to walk in the ways of the Christian faith.

The most basic, most foundational, most elemental of Christian values is love. The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was very clear about love. One must love God with one’s whole being, and love one’s neighbor as oneself. It’s called the Greatest Commandment. In the Sermon on the Mount from, Matthew 5, Jesus taught:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Matthew 5:43-48, NRSV]

Love is a hard road to follow, and most of us aren’t very good at living the greatest commandment, but it is the road that is set before each and every Christian. There is no other.

Evangelical leaders who choose to ignore or dismiss the hatred in the words and actions of Mr. Trump because, after all, Trump is accomplishing so many of the things on their “to do” list, demonstrate the flimsiness and vacuity of their own faith. Many of those evangelical leaders will observe that the President is not the “Pastor in Chief” and that there are examples in the Bible of unworthy people who end up doing what is assumed to be God’s will. It’s not that Mr. Trump must share the faith, as long as he’s getting evangelical projects done. To declare his hatred, though, of the “opponent” with such clarity during a Christian memorial service ought to be considered a complete out-of-bounds moment, especially as it undermined and showered contempt upon the grieving widow who, even in her profound grief, was able to speak anguished words informed and framed by the challenging faith she endeavors to follow. The disrespect shown to Erika Kirk by the President deserves a clear and vehement response from evangelicals.

I won’t hold my breath. But, I will grieve the continued abuses directed at the Christian faith, inflicted and promoted by those who claim to be Christians themselves.

Posted in current-events | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fewer Buts Please

Posted on September 12, 2025 by smaxreisert

In recent weeks at Old South, as we contemplate yet another season without a viable offer for our real estate, there have been a number of discussions— large and small; formal and informal—about what to do next. Just keep on keepin’ on, wishing and hoping that a buyer will come around one of these days? Or, should be more proactive and begin the process of moving full-time into the parish house, mothballing the sanctuary building (find a new home for the organ or put it into storage, drain the pipes, turn off utilities, stop heating it, etc.)? In the midst of these discussions and wonderings, there’s something that feels a little strange. While most of the congregation has been willing, with a few even eager, to sell the sanctuary building, the suggestion that we decommission it has been met with resistance.

Throughout this stage of the process, there’s one word that has started to stand out to me, a word that feels like it is becoming an insurmountable obstacle to our ability to move forward in a meaningful and faithful way. What could that word be? It’s the word “but.”

“I know the best path forward is probably to mothball the sanctuary building, but I just can’t do it.” “I know it’s important that the sanctuary building not become our primary mission, but there’s just got to be another way.” “Mothballing the sanctuary building is probably the best way forward, but moving into the parish house only feels like the least bad of a lot of bad options.” “I would prefer to just keep doing what we are doing and wait for an offer, but that’s probably not reasonable.”

The “buts” are seriously getting in the way.

Here’s the situation: We have two buildings— a sanctuary building (sanctuary) and a parish house (offices, fellowship hall, kitchen). Both of the buildings require work. In maintenance, upkeep and renovation work, the sanctuary building far exceeds the needs of the parish house. When it comes to evaluating assets, the sanctuary doesn’t have much. It’s a good worship space and has a nice organ; not much else. Importantly, average worship attendance is now down to the low to mid 20s. With those numbers, the sanctuary makes the congregation feel even smaller (in the parish house, it’s the reverse). The sanctuary building was put on the market in January of 2024. The parish house was added earlier this year. While we have had several interested parties and a couple of offers (that were later withdrawn), we currently have no prospects of a new offer anytime soon. And winter is coming.

Our real estate agent assures us that there is a buyer out there somewhere, but will our wait for prince or princess charming become our undoing? For me, this process has peeled away the veneer that has shielded an important reality from us. For those of us who gather in the Old South sanctuary Sunday after Sunday, most find it to be a lovely and peaceful place, a space that conveys a sense of wonder and beauty, even if that beauty is faded and peeling. The reality, though, is that the building is a hugely demanding one that requires a great deal of energy and financial resources just to maintain. Renovating is a significant prospect for anyone who’s not incredibly wealthy. It’s also not a useful building for the kind of world we live in now and is not easily converted to other uses. The building is nestled into a hillside, with only two or three parking spots immediately adjacent to the building (all other parking is across the street, behind and beside the parish house). The sloping floor in the sanctuary itself, which is part of the structure of the building, is a sort of early version of stadium seating. Great for a great view. Not at all great if you have mobility issues or if want to transform it into anything other than performance space. And, those who have looked at it as potential performance space have eventually realized that it’s hard to have good performance space without good parking. And, then there’s the architecture and the roof. The soaring and distinctive clock tower, which seems to have been deliberately fashioned to be the tallest steeple in the town, is another troublesome element of the building, in terms of maintenance. The roof is slate, and, if the rumors are true, was installed by the company that offered the lowest bid and, let’s just say, cut a corner here and there, corners that are now showing themselves to be serious liabilities. Finally, the building—though not terribly large— is a complicated one with a complex design of ceiling and roof. This, of course, adds still more the costs of maintenance and improvement.

“I know we should probably decommission and mothball it, but I just can’t do it.”

But?? Why not? The longer this goes, the more eager I am to decommission and mothball the sanctuary building. It all feels like we are being led to notice and absorb that the sanctuary that we love is really a monument to hubris, a monument that was meant to signal prominence in a small town with too many churches, as if the building itself could take care of the call to be a witness to God’s love and care.

“I know it’s important that the sanctuary building not become our primary mission, but there’s just got to be another way.”

The “buts” are getting in the way of recognizing and appreciating some hard truths about the sanctuary building, that the building is eagerly and hungrily draining our resources, exhausting us all body, soul and endowment.

I’d rather put the “buts” aside and start working on some “ifs.” IF we mothball the sanctuary building, what might happen then? IF we were able to spend a lot less time fretting over such a complicated and costly physical structure, what new things might make themselves known? And, what might it be like to embrace that we are the witness to God’s love and not that building in which we gather?

Ifs could help us to see beyond the difficulties of the present and imagine a different and more meaningful tomorrow. Instead, we are caught under a whole lot of buts, that stifle our faith rather than feed it. Will we be able to find the courage and grace to heave the buts and embrace the ifs?

Posted in Buildings | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment