These days, when I use the word “saints” in conversation, I’m usually referring to the football team. I grew up in New Orleans, and the Saints will always be my home team. If they beat the Vikings, the Saints will be in the Superbowl for the first time ever.

“Saints” is not just the name of my favorite team, though; it is a word of great religious significance. While it can refer to anyone – we are all both saints and sinners – it is most often used to refer to people we admire for their strong faith, exceptional generosity, and willingness to give up a lot, sometimes even their lives, in order to do what God calls them to do.

I met a saint in church this morning. We had a guest speaker, The Rev. Bob Graetz, who spoke of his experience serving as a white pastor of a black church in Montgomery, Alabama, at the time of the bus boycott. Pastor Graetz lived across the street from Rosa Parks and knew her well. He encouraged his parishioners to participate in the boycott and told them to call him if they needed a ride.

That support led some whites to consider him a traitor to their race, and he received hundreds of threatening letters and phone calls. His house was bombed three times.

Of course, like most saints, Pastor Graetz is a humble man who credits God with giving him the courage to speak up publicly despite the risks. His message was that God has given all of us gifts meant to be used for the common good.

As he spoke, I found myself wondering what I would have done in his shoes. Today, it is easy for me to speak out against racism or the unjust treatment of any other group of people for any reason. I’ve been verbally attacked for my “liberal” views, both in person and in print, but never had to fear for my safety. If speaking out meant risking getting beat up or murdered, and also endangering my family and friends, would I still be so bold? I’d like to think so, but I’m not sure I would.

It’s easy for me to judge those pastors and other Christians from earlier generations who actively supported slavery or segregation, or at least chose to play it safe and not speak out against those practices. I also have a negative view of the Christians in Nazi Germany who either bought into the idea of Aryan superiority or stood by mutely as innocent people were killed by the thousands.

It’s not so easy to admit that there are times, even when all I have to fear is social disapproval or a heated argument, that I choose to keep silent in the face of injustice.

I thank God for people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Bob Graetz, and the many others through the years who have fought for what is right, even when they had to risk their lives to do so, and pray that God will give me the courage to do the same.

Recently, I came across an article in U.S. News and World Report which listed being a member of the clergy as one of the top 50 careers for 2010. You can read it for yourself here.

Given the rather dismal statistics about clergy health I have read elsewhere, and the number of pastors who get burned out and leave parish ministry, I was surprised by this. It also made me wonder if, given the fact that my company focuses on helping stressed out pastors find healthier ways of coping with the demands of the job, I have become too focused on the negative aspects of this profession. After all, there is great satisfaction (at least there has been for me) in doing things like comforting a dying person and their grieving family, preaching a sermon that is praised as thought-provoking and inspirational, or counseling someone during a time of crisis.

I wonder what percentage of clergy truly love their work, at least most of the time, and would gladly choose the same career if they had it all to do over again. Obviously those who choose to comment on this blog post do not constitute a statistically valid representative sample, but I’d still like to know, if you are a member of the clergy, whether or not you would make the same career choice if you had it to do over again, knowing what you know now, and why or why not. Please take a moment to share your answer by leaving a comment.

Ask any pastor, and he or she will confirm that toxic parishes exist. He or she may well have served one at some point. To be fair, there are certainly toxic pastors out there as well, though it tends to be easier to address that problem than it is to deal with toxic parishes.

What is a toxic parish? I define it as a parish that is so embroiled in conflict and unwilling to make the changes necessary to move toward health that it actively sabotages or passively resists all attempts to engage in meaningful ministry.

Of course, there are varying degrees of toxicity, and in some situations the right pastor can transform a conflicted, dying congregation into a vibrant community of faith. Is there a point, though, at which denominations should simply refuse to send another pastor to a parish with a long history of chewing up and spitting out its pastors? Does the denomination have any responsibility to forewarn pastors about a parish’s history of conflict, or to provide financial or emotional support to pastors who are forced to leave dysfunctional congregations?

One vicar in England thinks it does, and he is suing his diocese for not exercising its “duty of care.” You can read more about it by clicking here.

What do you think? Please add your comments below.

Perhaps you’ve seen a bumper sticker or a read a post which has the statement “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8″ on it. It’s become a popular rallying cry for Christians who do not like President Obama’s policies.

Naturally, President Obama and all of the world’s leaders need our prayers; they must make difficult decisions which affect many lives. It is equally clear that Christians are called to pray for those with whom we disagree, and in fact Jesus specifically commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. (Matthew 5:44)

However, I don’t think this is the kind of prayer Jesus had in mind. Psalm 109:8 reads, “May his days be few; may another seize his position.” The following verse is even more ominous: “May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.” That certainly doesn’t sound very loving, does it?

Remember the song with the refrain, “and they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love?” Sadly, it seems to me that Christians are at least as hate-filled as anyone else out there, and when we disagree on social or political issues we do things like shout each other down at town halls or church meetings, demonize those who don’t see things exactly like we do, withhold or threaten to withhold our offerings if we don’t get our way, and start a new church so we don’t have to associate with anyone who doesn’t share our views. Do we really believe that we are being faithful Christians and glorifying God by acting that way?

What if we genuinely prayed for those with whom we disagree instead? I don’t mean prayers that God will zap them, remove them from power, or make them see the error of their ways and acknowledge that we are right; I mean sincerely asking God to bless and guide them. What if we talked WITH them instead of AT them or ABOUT them, with the goal of understanding why they feel the way they do? What if we made it clear that we do not agree with their position, but still recognized that they, too, are trying to be faithful and believe that God is calling them to pursue a particular course of action that we find offensive?

Who knows what could happen? Maybe if Christians could learn to live together in peace, we could help the rest of the world do the same.

You’ve probably heard of – and perhaps led or participated in – church services that include a blessing of animals. Many congregations offer them on the Feast Day of St. Francis, who was well known for his love of animals.

What about a regularly scheduled worship service for dogs, complete with doggie treats passed out during the offering? No, I’m not making this up; you can read all about it by clicking here.

I admit, my first response was to laugh, especially when I read these lines: “The service started amid a riot of tail-sniffing, barking, whining and playful roughhousing. But as Eggebeen stepped to the front and the piano struck up the hymn ‘GoD and DoG,’ one by one the pooches lay down, chins on paws, and listened.”

I also remembered a home-bound member of a previous congregation I served. Each time I communed her, she broke off half of the wafer and fed it to her poodle. I cringed inwardly, but it was clearly important to her to share this meal with her beloved companion, and I decided not to risk alienating her by challenging the practice.

Clearly, animals play an important role in the lives of many people. I have fond memories of my own childhood pets (which included, at various times, dogs, a cat, a rabbit, a turtle, gerbils, and a parakeet) and the cats with whom I have shared my home as an adult. They provide unconditional love and have greatly enriched my life. I consider them members of my family, and grieve deeply whenever one dies.

I still don’t think I’d bring my cats with me to church on a regular basis, but I can understand why some people might want to bring their animals with them, especially people who live alone except for their animal companions. The worship service mentioned in the article seems to be meeting a real need, and is reaching people who otherwise might not attend church at all.

What do you think? Have you brought your animals to church, or would you if you had the option? Would you feel comfortable praying for animals by name? What about giving them treats during worship? Please leave a comment to share your thoughts.