The Religious Left Blog

Living with Kryptonite

2009-07-11T22:55:00.004-04:00

Way back in another lifetime, when my son was 2 1/2 and my daughter was around six months old, I took a job teaching part time. This was not my first time teaching--I had taught several sections of introductory paychology as a teaching associate while I was in grad school. This time around, I was teaching a section of Development Across the Lifespan.

One of the first things I noticed when I cracked open that textbook was the way life was divided into stages. I was pleased to see that, being in my early 30s, I was still officially a "young adult", and that I would not cross the threshold into midlife until I turned 40. So as I read in more detail about that stage, it was a bit like reading about a distant land that I would likely visit one day, but that was a long way off and it was way to early to start making plans.

One of the things I remember from that text is the discussion of the "midlife crisis"? What was it--and was there even necessarily a crisis at midlife? One view was that it was really a "midlife transition" which, to be sure, was full of changes. But they were changes you could see coming, and could prepare for. That made a certain amount of sense when I first read it. Now, I think it's a crock.

I mean, sure, you can (and should) plan for the future as you make life decisions. You know that you're supposed to save up for tuition and retirement--even if you don't always manage to sock away as much as you should. And if you're considering a new home or a new job, you will ask yourself not just "what is the best choice for right now?", but also "how will this decision affect my life down the road?"

So, there are some concrete things you can plan for. But can you really anticipate what it's like to be in a different life stage? In my mind, there is a big difference between knowing something is coming and actually being "ready" for it.

Ayway, within the past several months, some of what I read in that textbook has started to come back to me. One thing in particular stands out…a finding that, in long term marriages, marital satisfaction hits a low point in midlife. There was speculation about possible reasons for this, but I got the impression it was no coincidence that marital bliss hit rock bottom right around the time the couple was likely to be raising teenagers.

You don’t say...

So what I was experiencing was...normal? I find that vaguely reassuring. The unhappiness I was feeling DID seem to center around the challenges of raising teens, particularly the way my husband just didn’t seem to “get” what our daughter was doing to me.

Seriously, how could he not see that? It was happening right in front of him. Our daughter would rip my heart right out of my chest, show it to me, and then step on it.

You think I’m being melodramatic, don’t you?

I'm not saying she took sadistic pleasure in it, or did it maliciously, but she was definitely doing it.

I'll even grant you that she wasn’t throwing it down and stepping on it intentionally. Let's say she dropped it because she wasn’t really paying attention. No doubt she found it "boring", so it would slip out of her hand while she was absorbed in something else. By the time she accidentally stepped on it, she'd most likely forgetten that she was ever holding it.

Early in 2009 I received a call asking if I would be interested in working on a test scoring project out of state. I was told that the project would start in late April and would last a little more than a month. I can't remember anything specific about the morning I got that call, but I am certain that, for one reason or another, my heart had a fresh set of scuff marks on it.

The practical, okay-to-say-out-loud facts were as follows: it would be good money, and there would be an extended period of time that we didn't have to worry about needing to press the crappier of our two cars into service. But there was another thought. I had just been offered a socially sanctioned way of running away from home. And just moments earlier, whether I knew it or not, that's exactly what I had been wishing for.

Well, as it turns out, a lot went wrong for me on that trip. I didn't get the down time I'd hoped for. All in all, it was pretty disappointing--but maybe that’s for the best. Had things gone well, I might have enjoyed the experience a little too much. So, to paraphrase a song, you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you really need. Maybe Someone was looking out for me on that count. All I know is that one day I texted Demetrius that I had learned two important lessons during my time away. The first was that I missed him more than I thought I would. It's not that I didn't think I would miss my husband. It's just that I already missed my sweetie when we were coexisting in the same house. I thought maybe missing him when we were actually separated by hundreds of miles might suck slightly less. (It didn’t.)

The second realization, I texted, was that “working for other people sucks”. I was very much looking forward to coming home, living together under the same roof again, and working together on our online stores.

So it's good to be home, and I know that this is where I belong. This is a rough stage we're in right now, and we're going to have to try extra hard to find the beauty and laughter wherever we can. I hear it gets better--in these long term marriages--after the kids are out of their teens.

I know that we will be okay as a couple. I don't have the same level of confidence about my relationship with my daughter. I can hope, of course. And watch for opportunities to make connections--without "trying too hard", of course. Ugh.

We're talking about the only person I can say I genuinely fell in love with at first sight--the very moment when, after difficult and exhausting hours of labor, my baby daughter was placed in my arms. There was a time when I could count on her being up for a spontaneous fun outing when I needed a pick-me-up. Just little things like petting the kittens at the shelter, or going to the park, or stopping at the bread store that gives free slices of fresh-from-the-oven baked goods.

But it's even more the loss of companionship and diversion. Our times together and the conversations we would have often gave me insights. They inspired me to think about some aspect of life in a new way, and this in turn would inspire me to write something.

I've had a hard time writing much of anything for a long time now. I haven't delved too deeply into why that might be, but if pressed I would probably have said that I was just too busy to get in the right frame of mind and really devote time to writing something. Or maybe I would say that things were going kind of crappy, and writing about that was not exactly a good "pick-me-up".

But this week, a new answer came to me. There's this young lady living in my home. Her name and face are familiar, but I don't really know her. I want to get to know her, but my efforts have been rebuffed time and again. I don't want to give up, but being rejected again and again takes its toll.

So I've had a new insight into why I've been experiencing this killer writer's block. My daughter used to be a big part of my inspiration for writing. In recent years, she didn't just stop being an inspiration in terms of my writing. I think she's actually become my "Kryptonite".

That really was an "aha" moment for me. I've definitely figured something out. But what to do with this insight?

Don't know yet. One thing at a time...

On sinners and tax collectors

2008-06-08T14:46:00.003-04:00

In today's gospel reading, the high ranking religious muckety-mucks of Jesus' day wonder aloud how much cred Jesus can have as a holy man, given that he is seen eating with "sinners and tax-collectors".

That always makes me smile...not for any deep theological reasons, but because of the childhood memory it evokes.

The very first definition I "fast mapped" for tax collector was "one who mooches a bite of your dessert". I learned this because those were the words my father routinely uttered while engaging in that practice. "Tax collector!"

Mind you, I had no idea what taxes actually were back then. I hadn't yet heard the expression about "death and taxes" being inevitable. I did know that "Tax collector!" was inevitable. And mostly harmless, as far as I could tell.

That is, until I learned that tax collectors were singled out as unsavories in the bible. "Sure, it's a little annoying," I (probably) thought, "but it can't be that bad!"

The actual details of this story are lost to time and no doubt distorted through retelling, so I can't say with certainty how this misunderstanding was actually resolved. My sense is that I realized that there must be other kinds of tax collectors, and I made a mental note to ask my father about it at the next available opportunity.

In any event, now you know why today, when I heard, "And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples," I mused to myself, "I hope someone thought to make extra dessert!"

Overheard at the gym

2008-02-08T09:40:00.001-05:00

First, a disclaimer...I would very much prefer not to overhear other people's conversations at the gym. I try to go at least twice a week, three times if I'm lucky, and what I want to do is get in the pool and move. I'm not much of a swimmer, but I used to take water aerobics classes, and now I just go to the pool when I have the opportunity and do "freestyle water aerobics for one". I don't ask for much--I just want my own little spot near a wall where I can just do my thing and tune everybody else out. If conditions are right, that's where I can do some of my best creative thinking. But if people within earshot are having a conversation, then conditions are most definitely not right, and I can't seem tune them out no matter how hard I try.

I was actually in the shower, not the pool, so I couldn't see who was talking, but I had passed some older women on the way to the shower. Several of them--I'm guessing at least three--were having a conversation that I kept catching bits and pieces of...

"I stayed up way too late last night watching the returns."
"So, what do you think?"
"I don't knooow!"
"Well, our governor has endorsed Clinton."
"Boo!"
"I'm not ready for a woman president."
"Me neither."

At this point, I *really* wanted to be able to tune out, because I was afraid I might hear something that would annoy me enough that I'd feel compelled to butt into their discussion. But the water wasn't loud enough to drown them out, so as I finished up my shower, I heard the conversation turn to the subject of women priests, and how one of the women had a friend who is one, but, "something about that is just not right." Also, apparently the women's movement is to blame for "the mess we're in today". Whatever that is.

But I wouldn't be sharing this story with you now, if it didn't have a positive twist. Here it comes. One of the women said (paraphrased)

"I used to think like that. Then my husband left me when I was 40, and I was totally unprepared to support myself. I vowed that I would never again let myself end up in that situation. ... Sometimes your situation changes, and then you change."

I didn't hear what the other women said in response, but inside I was saying "Right on, sister!" Because every day, in small ways we have opportunities to speak up and give the other side of the story. And an alternative perspective, when shared by "someone like you" has a better chance of taking root and possibly, as time goes on, softening (or even changing) some of the judgments people make.

In which I owe my dog an apology

2008-01-13T00:22:00.000-05:00

Originally posted at Street Prophets

Here are my buddies, Stevie (cat) and Brady (collie) sacked out just a couple feet from my desk.

I wrote about Brady and our trips to the dog park a little over a month ago. I haven't been able to take him there as often as I'd like, but when we do go, he always enjoys himself. Today was the first day in a while that I've thought the weather was nice enough to head out with him, and he was *more* than ready. And, of course seeing him that happy and excited is very satisfying for me. He's such a sweet boy, albeit a bit clueless. At least, that's how he seemed to me when he was running with the other dogs. I remarked once that Brady is "not the sharpest knife in the drawer", to which my husband responded, "I think he might be a spoon!" Today at the dog park, I realized that maybe *I* had been the clueless one.

As we pulled into the parking lot near our local "Bark Park", I could tell that Brady was overjoyed to be there. He trotted energetically at my side as we walked up the pathway leading to the park. Once we were inside and he was off leash, he got down to business--leaning on all the receptive humans and greeting all the dogs. And then, invariably, one of the humans throws a ball, other dogs chase the ball, and Brady happily runs alongside them. That's the part that always seemed clueless to me. Like Brady was saying, "I don't know what were doing, but we're having fun!"

This time, while Brady was doing his running adjacent to the action routine,

What my dog taught me

2007-12-01T16:37:00.001-05:00

This started as a comment in response to Dogs, Doorwalls and Dianisms at My Left Wing. Somewhere along the way, the comment got long enough to actually be a post. That doesn't seem to happen to often lately, so I decided to go with it...

One of the things that has been on my mind this fall is the sacredness of my connection to one of my dogs. It hasn't been easy to put into words, but I took a shot when my brother and I took Brady and Winnie to the dog park over the Thanksgiving weekend.

In part this has been prompted by my realization that Brady, the collie, must be around 10 years old at this point. I hadn't really given his age much thought--while the changes in my kids have been hard to miss, Brady always seems the same to me. It was only once he started to show some stiffness upon getting up that I really gave his age much thought.

Then there was last month's retreat. Its theme of Celtic spirituality (emphasizing nature and animals) served to reinforce the notion that I had some spiritual "work" to do centering around my relationship with Brady. There's just this amazing connection between us--sometimes it seems like he can read my thoughts.

Yet he always seems to be "underfoot", and our son in particular doesn't like the dogs around him. Winnie can go lie down somewhere when she's not wanted around, but Brady picks up on people's moods, and if anyone is emitting any "upset" vibes, he just *has* to be right there. (Winnie has that same sense of compulsion if she detects the presence of food.)

Anyway, the easiest way to restore some sense of calm or order is usually to just put Brady out in the yard. Over the years, he's spent a lot of time in the yard.

When I first got Brady, I took him to obedience classes once a week. We went through the beginner's class, and then intermediate. He earned his "Canine Good Citizen" certificate. The goal had been to eventually get involved with animal assisted therapy as a volunteer activity we could do together.

But then I got into animal rescue. Then I got out of animal rescue, but not without acquiring a second dog. Once I had two dogs, I was less inclined to take Brady "out" anywhere, and felt less compelled to do so, since the two dogs had each other.

Late this summer, I found out that there is a free (meaning no charge--you can just show up rather than paying for a membership) off-leash dog park in a suburb of Columbus. The first time I took Brady there, I was just blown away by the utter joy I could see in him. It had been ages since I'd seen him genuinely happy. His most characteristic mood for some time before that, had been "worried". Worried about the "pack", the family. I decided that I needed to make an effort to take him out more often. Like I should have been doing all along, but I'd stopped at some point. And dogs are so darn forgiving and accomodating, aren't they?

Earlier this fall, when I was working on a temp project and teaching three classes, I was sometimes too tired to get up for church by the time Sunday rolled around. On one such Sunday, when I had failed to get myself to church or the gym, I decided that taking Brady to the dog park could take the place of both that day. I was starting to think of time with Brady as a form of spiritual practice.

Boy, if that doesn't sound like some sort of namby-pamby watered-down progressive version of religion, I don't know what does.

But this is bigger than just "doing right by the collie", I've come to realize. It's about living more deliberately, acting rather than just reacting. Actually stopping to make choices rather than just allowing myself to be pushed along by life's currents. And that applies to my personal life as well as any involvement I choose to have in the "public square", whether that ends up being political or quasi-political or--whatever. But, as I mentioned here, all I know is that I'm committed to doing something to help make the world a better place.

Yet it's too easy for me to allow "the prevailing mood", whether it be on blogs, or in the media--or just my kids sniping at each other--to distract me from focusing on that goal. And now, with the artificial "frenzy" of the holiday season added into the mix, I could really use some help with this. I'm sure I can't be the only one dealing with this. So, I'm thinking that this would be a good time for those who are kindred spirits in feeling this way to come together and support each other. And help each other find strength, patience, humor, and perspective for the journey.

Zimbardo on "nurturing the heroic imagination"

2007-11-12T23:20:00.001-05:00

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo (photo courtesy of The Lucifer Effect web site) came to speak at a community college here in Columbus last month. I recorded the whole talk, which was an hour long. The whole thing was fascinating, but I set myself the modest goal of transcribing only the last eight minutes. Those last minutes of the lecture were the uplifting, hopeful part, and, I don't know about you, but I sure could use more of that in my daily life.

"The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being", says Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. ... "It's a decision that you have to make every day in various ways."

So what I want to do, is I want to end on a positive note, because I know I've depressed you. When I was writing this book I was so depressed, going through all this horrible stuff, and being immersed in this "evil shit", if you will. (Laughter) But the positive note is, heroism as an antidote to evil, by promoting what I call "the heroic imagination" in every man, woman, and child in our nation.

What I mean by that is, here's Joe Darby. He's the guy who exposed the Abu Ghraib abuses. His friend gave him a CD with those pictures and more--he looked at them and said, "This is terrible! We're supposed to bring democracy to these people, and we're humiliating them!" He took that CD and brought it to the senior investigating officer. He was a private in the Army Reserves. That's a thing you never do. And he knew that his buddies were going to get in trouble. But he said "I had to do the right thing." They had to put him into protective custody along with his mother and his wife, because everybody wanted to kill them. ...He is the most ordinary person, G.I. Joe, and he did the right thing.

And there's also the guy in China, in Tiananmen Square, where students were having a peaceful demonstration to promote more freedom, and here was a line of tanks trying to crush them. He jumped in front and said, "We are all Chinese, we all want freedom! We want the same things--please don't do this!" And he turned around. And so here's a powerful physical hero. Darby was a whistleblowing hero. So I want to refocus away from evil to understanding heroes.

Hannah Arendt, in her analysis of the banality of evil said, you know what, evil monsters like Adolf Eichmann, who orchestrated the deaths of millions of Jews, before he went to Auschwitz, was normal. When we see him in this trial, he's normal. You put him in a situation, and give him power, and permission to kill, you know what? He does his job very well. And she said, the problem with evil is that the perpetrators of evil look like your next door neighbor. They don't look like the comic book monsters that we're led to be afraid of as kids. That's the danger--that they're terrifyingly normal.

So I extend her concept to the "banality of heroism". There are two kinds of heroes: there's Nelson Mandela, there's Gandhi, there's Mother Teresa--but these are the exceptional heroes. They built their whole lives around heroic deeds. They had a call, a mission, to serve humanity. They are the exception. Most heroes are like Joe Darby--ordinary guys, who only once in their lives do a heroic deed. And never again--almost every hero is a one-time hero. And so I'm going to argue that everyday heroes are ordinary people who do extraordinary deeds. There's nothing special about them. And I want to argue that the same exact situation that inflames the hostile imagination in some people, and makes them do bad things, that same situation inspires the heroic imagination in other people.

And for most other people, it renders them passive. I call that "the evil of inaction". Most people do what your mother said, "Mind your own business and don't get in trouble!" You have to say, "Mama, in this case, you're wrong, because humanity is my business."

And so, with the psychology of heroism, we want to encourage children, families, everyone, to develop the heroic imagination. To think about yourself as a "hero in waiting". And that, to be a hero, you don't have to be more religious, you don't have to be more compassionate. All you have to do is be ready to act when others are not, or when some people are doing bad things, and you have to be ready to act on behalf of other people. Being sociocentric...you have to stop thinking about yourself and what will it cost you or what will you gain. To be a hero you've got to act, and you've got to act on behalf of other people--that's all you need.

And so what we want to do is have curriculum--I'm working with people to develop curriculum, starting in the fifth grade, getting kids to think about what it means to be a hero, who are the heroes in your life, what have you done that's heroic. What skills do you need--because some kinds of things you really have to know something, like first aid skills. So when the time comes--and I tell you, it's only going to come once in your life!

So I want to end with this wonderful story that some of you know about. A guy named Wesley Autrey, who's the New York subway hero. He was in a train station with 75 other people. A white guy falls on the tracks. The train is coming, and it's going to cut him in half. He's (Wesley) got a reason not to get involved--he's got two little girls. He's got no personal connection. Instead, he jumps on the track to try to save the guy. The train was coming, it could wipe him out. So I'd like you to actually see this in action.

(He showed this video)

So one day, you will be in a new situation, and there's going to be three paths before you. Path 1: you join in and become a perpetrator of evil. Not Abu Ghraib evil, but teasing, bullying, spreading rumors, spreading gossip. Path 2 is you become guilty of passive inaction. You're home at Christmas, and Uncle Charlie starts telling a racist or sexist joke, and you don't say, "Uncle Charlie, please don't." Or you're in a cab in New York, where they do it all the time, and you say, "I find that insulting. Please stop." If you don't do that, you allow this person to think "Everybody likes it. Everybody thinks it's funny." You have to take action.

Path 3 is to go straight ahead and do the heroic thing. You challenge authority, you challenge the system. And so I hope we are all ready to take that path and celebrate being ordinary heroes--heroes in waiting. Waiting for the right situation to put our heroic imagination into action. We have to think it--by thinking it, it increases the probability of doing it. We know from psychology that if I convince you that everything we know about you means that you're really more generous than most people. Next week there's a blood drive--you know what? You're going to give more blood than him. Next week there's a charity drive--you know what--you're going to give more money than somebody else.

I think that promoting a heroic imagination in our schools--just thinking about it--because it's only going to happen once! Wesley Autrey never did it again, he never will--he's not going to be in that particular situation. Joe Darby, never did it before, and he's not going to be in that situation again. So the point is, you always want people to be primed--ready for the situation where things are going to happen, you're prepared, and you're going to be the one to take the action.

Bless all creatures here below

2007-10-07T22:07:00.001-04:00

Daughter sang with the children's choir today, and, since this is the Sunday closest to the Feast of St. Francis, the hymns centered around that. The opening hymn was one I'd never heard before, and it was *adorable*.

Today we celebrate a feast,
A holiday for man and beast.
We think of every friend who speaks,
barks and purrs and roars and squeaks.
As we sing we keep in mind
beings of a different kind.

Bless all creatures here below,
Lord, from whom all blessings flow.

We think of squirrels in the park
at play from morning light 'til dark,
and birds that sing on leafy boughs
in green fields with the sheep and cows
Dear that in the forest leap,
whales that swim the ocean deep.

Bless all creatures here below,
Lord, from whom all blessings flow.

Together with our pets we meet
friends with whiskers, tails that greet.
Muzzles wet beside our cheek
show us love they cannot speak.
Hold them tight so they will know
where we are they too will go.

Bless all creatures here below,
Lord, from whom all blessings flow.

There were three more verses. The last line, though, is what made me well up:

When at last we come to you, let our creatures be there too

Our creatures have just got to be there. If they're not, how could it be heaven?

October 24 is International Talk Like a Quaker Day

2007-10-02T07:45:00.000-04:00

Via jeanne_d_arc's Livejournal

In the same vein as International Talk Like a Pirate Day and National Quaker Week in the UK, I have decided to declare October (Tenth Month) 24 (which just so happens to be United Nations Day and William Penn's birthday) as International Talk Like a Quaker Day.

Participants can use such sentences as:
"Mind the Light!"
"Friend, I'm afraid I must elder thee for what thee said on First Day."
"Today is the 24th day of Tenth Month, 2007."
"Walk cheerfully all over the Earth."
"George, thy foreign policy is not in keeping with the Peace Testimony."

If you are thinking that most modern-day Quakers don't talk like that, just keep in mind that most modern-day pirates don't talk the way a celebrant of International Talk Like a Pirate Day would. Indeed, most pirates today sail the waters near Indonesia (and may not even speak English) or create bootleg software and illegal copies of movies (and therefore use techno jargon).

Please spread the word! If someone feels Led to create a website for the day, so much the better.

Okay, the blog isn't much to look at so far, but I can purty it up later. :)

Or maybe simplicity is what I should be going for...

Drowning in "sleep debt"

2007-09-30T14:46:00.000-04:00

Well, this is a timely subject for me to be covering with my introductory psychology students.

Each of us has a specific daily sleep requirement. The average sleep requirement for college students is well over eight hours, and the majority of students would fall within the range of this value plus or minus one hour. If this amount is not obtained, a sleep debt is created. All lost sleep accumulates progressively as a larger and larger sleep indebtedness. Furthermore, your sleep debt does not go away or spontaneously decrease. The only way to reduce your individual sleep debt is by obtaining extra sleep over and above your daily requirement.

So, here I am, up to my eyeballs in sleep debt. How am I supposed to get out of debt? By sleeping, one would presume. Except that I get into this ironic-sounding but very real state of "overtired" and I can't. But now, at least I have something new to worry about during those sleepless hours.

Like, if I can't get sleep on my own, and I have to pay off this sleep debt, what options do I have? Go to the sleep bank to take out a loan? Maybe my credit isn't good, and I'd be forced to go to a sleep loan shark. What do they do if you can't pay on time. Instead of breaking your legs, maybe they burn your mattress...

Sleep researcher William Dement--who wrote the article I excerpted above--has said that a large sleep debt "makes you stupid". At very least, as evidenced above, it is making my jokes stupid.

Jokes aside, though, this has been on my mind a lot lately. I think we hear these things about how much sleep we need, and how unhealthy it is to rack up a huge sleep debt, many of us are inclined to nod seriously, but then file that away with all the other "shoulds" that most of us ignore. And I wonder if there's something in the Western, "rugged individualist" mindset that tells us we're supposed to be able to "conquer the natural world", even when it comes to our own biological needs. I can't say exactly where, but I picked up an idea like that somewhere along the line. The idea that I should be able to "overcome" tiredness by sheer force of will. Or the idea that, if my schedule is packed and I can't fit everything in, sleep is an area where I can cut some corners.

I'm coming to realize that I can't, and that I need to listen to what my body is telling me.

A dog party! A big dog party!

2007-09-24T00:49:00.000-04:00

Just a little something fun that I thought I'd share...

It's not often that I find myself with the time, or the inclination to write about anything these days. I've got a busy work schedule--which is about to get busier for the next couple weeks. We've got an IEP to sort out, with a "resource" teacher who is in desperate need of education on Asperger's Syndrome. (Probably also in need of an attitude adjustment.) We've got a daughter who, on her twelfth birthday (earlier this month) announced that she was becoming a vegetarian, without having dropped any hints that she might be inclined to do such a thing. This is a girl who, when she first began combining words, memorably said "More beef!" So that has been yet another new complication in a life that is already plenty complicated, thank you very much! And politics? Pffft! Don't get me started...

So, where was I? Oh yeah...

The "Doggie Paddle" (a fundraiser for a local dog park) was actually supposed to take place two weeks ago, but was cancelled due to rain early in the afternoon. Once the rain had cleared, Daughter and I put Winnie in the car and headed up to the pool. When we arrived, there had only been a few cars there--belonging to other disappointed dog owners who were discovering that the event had been cancelled.

The next week, I was pleased to learn that the event had been rescheduled, and as we pulled up to the pool yesterday, we were met with a decidedly full parking lot. And a quick look inside the park revealed lots of dogs having a good time. I couldn't help thinking of the scene at the end of Go, Dog, Go by P.D. Eastman (who Daughter in Ohio, as a toddler, called A. B. Beastman).

A dog party!
A big dog party!
Big dogs, little dogs,
red dogs, blue dogs,
yellow dogs, green dogs,
black dogs, and white dogs
are all at a dog party!
What a dog party!

Of course, the dogs at the pool were just the ordinary dog colors, and they weren't partying at the top of a tree, but it was definitely a dog party. And a good, wet, time was had by all.

I didn't know ahead of time that people would be getting in the water with their dogs, or I would have had Daughter bring her swimsuit. So I just decided we wouldn't worry about her clothes getting wet. After all, this isn't something she gets to do very often.

Remember Dances With Wolves? When I saw this picture, it occurred to me that Daughter's name could be Swims With Rottweilers. ;)

That's Winnie on the left. She wasn't into the whole water thing, but had a great time meeting new dogs. And in the last half hour of our three hours there, she did finally venture into the shallow water.

Bishops in New Orleans

2007-09-23T16:29:00.001-04:00

Found this message from my bishops in my inbox. It was a welcome change from the articles I've been reading about looming schism. -Renee

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

For much of the House of Bishops, today was a break from the business of the House and an opportunity to engage in service.

Bishops and spouses traveled to locations throughout New Orleans and Mississippi to engage in mission work. Another group took a civil rights tour throughout the region and met with social justice advocates.

Bishop Ken and Mariann spent the morning at St. Paul's Home Coming Center preparing gift baskets to give to residents when they return to their homes. They also planted vegetables, butterfly bushes and flowers in a community garden. In the area near the garden, people had returned to a few of the homes. Others remained boarded up, still bearing the "bathtub rings" of water scum and debris across the windows and doors -- a reminder of the 6 feet of water that flooded the entire neighborhood and stood stagnant for six weeks. Organizers of the rebuilding project said that residents returned to plant gardens even before they started gutting their homes. For many, the signs of new life springing from devastation was a symbol of God's promise and the resurrection.

Bishop Ken and Mariann also joined hundreds in celebrating the opening of a new church, All Souls in the Lower Ninth Ward, an area hard hit by the flooding. The church is meeting in an abandoned Walgreens drugstore and held a neighborhood barbeque and party to celebrate.

Meanwhile Bishop Tom and a small group of other bishops worked throughout the day to craft a message from the House of Bishops. They are preparing a first draft to reflect the thinking of the House. They will then present this first draft on Monday morning, and it will become the springboard for discussion and serve as the foundation of the bishops' public response. The bishops expect to release this message on Tuesday.

On Sunday morning, Bishop Tom will be preaching at All Saints, River Ridge in New Orleans, where a former student, the Rev. Susan Davidson now serves. He also will join two other bishops in leading an adult forum about the House of Bishops meeting. Bishop Ken will be at Christ Church Cathedral, where Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is preaching (and where former Southern Ohio priest David DuPlantier is dean).

The House of Bishops will return to session on Monday morning. We will resume our posts on Monday evening. Despite reports of threatening weather and rain, the skies were bright and sunny in New Orleans today. Thanks be to God.

Sincerely,

Bishops Thomas Breidenthal and Kenneth L. Price, Jr.
Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio

International Day of Peace

2007-09-21T00:23:00.001-04:00

Today is the International Day of Peace

More on B.R.E.A.D., Payday Lending, and Ohio Representatives

2007-09-10T18:16:00.000-04:00

This is a follow-up to yesterday's post about Doing Justice in Ohio. The following excerpt comes from my church's September newsletter:

At that Nehemiah Action Assembly, Senator Ray Miller pledged to introduce legislation in the state house to curb PayDay Lending. You may have seen recent articles in the Columbus Dispatch and elsewhere in which this issue and its abuses have been well documented. Though B.R.E.A.D. is mentioned, it is rarely given the credit for having moved this issue to the forefront.

Behind the scenes B.R.E.A.D. has been working with Senator Miller, a Democrat, and Representative Bill Batchelder, a Republican, to sponsor the same legislation in the House and in the Senate. This kind of strong bi-partisan cooperation will benecessary to pass a bill. At the August 24 meeting, B.R.E.A.D. was reminded that it will take phone calls, e-mails, and letter to state lawmakers to get this bill passed. PayDay Lenders have a well funded lobby and have doubled their spending in the legislature since 2006. Be prepared for some requests from your B.R.E.A.D. team to write, call, e-mail those who represent you in the statehouse!

About that bipartisan support--that is apparently the reason Ohio House Minority Leader Joyce Beatty has been hesitant to support the legislation. From the Other Paper article I linked yesterday...

Several state lawmakers of both parties have agreed to take on the cause. While others surely have their reservations, Beatty is one of the only legislators to openly criticize the effort, brushing off the proposed reforms as shortsighted and politically motivated.

Using her influence as the minority leader, Beatty has discouraged Democrats from working with Republican state Rep. Bill Batchelder of Medina, whom advocates have asked to sponsor the legislation in the House.

Known as an arch conservative, Batchelder has been against high-interest loan centers dating back to the 1990s, when he opposed legislation that led to the proliferation of payday lending shops. However, Beatty has repeatedly suggested Batchelder is using the issue to advance his aspirations to be speaker of the House next session.

“I will not support any legislative agenda that I feel is solely for someone’s political gain,” Beatty wrote in an op-ed column published last month in the Akron Beacon Journal.

That’s a problem because legislation will require bipartisan support, and Beatty is known for her ability to keep her caucus in line.

“It’s already damaged the prospects for getting the bill passed,” said Miller.

“I think we’ve laid out a good strategy, we’re fortunate to have bipartisan leadership on this with Rep. Batchelder and myself,” he added. “At the present time, our biggest challenge is the opposition from Rep. Beatty and her work to encourage members of her caucus to be neutral or opposed.”

I have a hard time understanding how a powerful Democrat in the Ohio House would want to delay implementing measures to protect our most vulnerable citizens from predatory lending practices for basically political reasons. Still, she did say I will not support any legislative agenda that I feel is solely for someone’s political gain, and has said that she is willing to hear from her constituents on this matter. Maybe even polite letters from people who are not her constituents, but are able to clearly express why this is not solely for someone's political gain.

The bill (I've been searching for a bill number and an official link, and will update if/when I find that) only proposes the same safeguards against predatory lending that military personnel are now granted via the Nelson Talent Amendment.

The proposed bill would cap interest rates on short-term loans at 36 percent. Currently, the rate on these loans can reach nearly 400 percent when calculated over a year. The bill also would call for financial incentives and tax credits for traditional lenders to encourage them to offer short-term, low-interest loans.

So we're talking about reasonable limits on the interest rates that can be charged, not shutting these places down, as Rep. Beatty seems to suggest here:

House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty, who represents some of the same citizens as Miller, said she has talked to people in line waiting to get payday loans.

"People said to me, ‘Rep. Beatty, these folks will at least cash my check.’ One lady told me she couldn’t get her check cashed in any bank in the city," Beatty said.

"I have not had anybody call me and say, ‘I go to a payday lending establishment, and I think you should close them down.’ "

That quote is from an article that was published on July 23. Hopefully by this point, people have clarified to Representative Beatty that no one associated with this proposed bill is suggesting that payday lending establishments should be shut down Still, since she is in a position to either help or hurt the passage of a bill that could offer even some minimal protection to Ohio's most vulnerable citizens, I think it couldn't hurt to politely help see to it that she does understand what this is really about.

Update: In addition to Rep. Beatty, B.R.E.A.D. also has meetings scheduled with the following representatives.

Rep. Jim McGregor, District 20

Rep. Larry Wolpert, District 23

Rep. Tracy Herad, District 26

If you live in one of their districts, please consider writing to encourage their support of this bill.

Doing justice in Ohio

2007-09-09T13:04:00.000-04:00

I just found out about this at church. Tiny bit of background: the pastor of my church is currently one of the co-presidents of B.R.E.A.D. (which stands for Building Responsibility Equality and Dignity, and works with lawmakers to advance achievable goals in the area of social justice.) The goal B.R.E.A.D. is currently working towards is getting legislation passed to put some reasonable restraints on the payday lending industry. You can read here about the action meeting that took place in May.

Anyway, George announced that B.R.E.A.D. has a meeting scheduled with Representative Joyce Beatty this coming Wednesday. He noted that Rep. Beatty has opposed the legislation in the past, but has said that she is interested in hearing from her constituents. He directed our attention to an article that appears in the current edition of The Other Paper. In a nutshell, Rep. Beatty is the Ohio House Minority Leader, and is in a position, not only to oppose the bill herself, but to sway other Democrats to oppose the legislation or remain neutral. And her reasons for opposing the legislation appear to be...you know, I'm not even going to try to come up with the right words to describe what I think of it. Please read the article and come to your own conclusions. I'll try to write more about this a little later.

Letter from Bishop Spong to the Archbishop of Canterbury

2007-09-07T12:59:00.000-04:00

I just received this via e-mail from a retired priest from my church. --Renee

John Shelby Spong A Public Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams 5 September, 2007

Dear Rowan,

I am delighted that you have agreed to meet with the House of Bishops of the American Episcopal Church in September, even if you appear to be unwilling to come alone. It has seemed strange that you, who have had so much to say about the American Church, have not been willing to do so before now. Your office is still honored by Episcopalians in this country, so our bishops will welcome you warmly and politely. We have some amazingly competent men and women in that body, many of whom have not yet met you.

There is clearly an estrangement between that body and you in your role as the Archbishop of Canterbury. I want to share with you my understanding of the sources of that estrangement. First, I believe that most of our senior bishops, including me, were elated, at your appointment by Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Most Americans are not aware that yours is an appointed, not an elected position. Those of us who knew you were keenly aware of your intellectual gifts, your openness on all of the great social debates of our generation and indeed of your personal warmth. We also believed that the Lambeth Conference of 1998, presided over by your predecessor, George Carey, had been a disaster that would haunt the Communion for at least a quarter of a century. An assembly of bishops hissing at and treating fellow bishops with whom they disagreed quite rudely, was anything but an example of Christian community. The unwillingness of that hostile majority to listen to the voices of invited gay Christians, their use of the Bible in debate as a weapon to justify prejudice, the almost totalitarian attempt made to manage the press and to prevent access to the wider audience and the dishonest denial of the obvious and blatant homophobia among the bishops made that Lambeth Conference the most disillusioning ecclesiastical gathering I have ever attended. The Church desperately needed new leadership and so many of us greeted your appointment with hope. Your detractors in the evangelical camp both in England and in the third world actively lobbied against your appointment. The hopes of those of us who welcomed your appointment were, however, short lived because in one decision after another you seemed incapable of functioning as the leader the Church wanted and needed.

It began at the moment of your appointment when you wrote a public letter to the other primates assuring them that you would not continue in your enlightened and open engagement with the moral issue of defining and welcoming those Christians who are gay and lesbian. We all knew where you stood. Your ministry had not been secret. We knew you had been one of the voices that sought to temper the homophobia of your predecessor's rhetoric! We knew of your personal friendship with gay clergy and that you had even knowingly ordained a gay man to the priesthood. You, however, seemed to leap immediately to the conclusion that unity was more important than truth. Perhaps you did not realize that your appointment as the archbishop was because you had different values from those of your predecessor and that your values were exactly what the Church wanted and needed in its new archbishop.

In that letter, in a way that was to me a breathtaking display of ineptitude and moral weakness, you effectively abdicated your leadership role. The message you communicated was that in the service of unity you would surrender to whoever had the loudest public voice. A leader gets only one chance to make a good first impression and you totally failed that chance. Unity is surely a virtue, but it must be weighed against truth, the Church's primary virtue.

Next came the bizarre episode of the appointment of the Rev. Dr. Jeffrey John, a known gay priest, to be the area bishop for Reading in the Diocese of Oxford. He was proposed by the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries. The nomination was approved by all of the necessary authorities, including you, the Prime Minister and the Queen. The fundamentalists and the evangelicals were predictably severe and anything but charitable or Christian. They and their allies in the press assassinated Jeffrey John's character and made his life miserable. Once again you collapsed in the face of this pressure and, in a four-hour conversation, you forced your friend and mine, Jeffery John, who is not only a brilliant New Testament scholar, but also one who gave you his word that he was living a celibate life, to resign his appointment to that Episcopal off ice. The message went out for all to hear that if people are angry enough, the Archbishop will always back down. Your leadership, as well as our trust in your integrity, all but disappeared.

Shortly thereafter, you concurred in a "guilt" appointment by naming Jeffrey Dean of St. Alban's Cathedral. It is a strange church and a strange hierarchy that proclaims that a gay man cannot be a bishop but can be a dean. Your credibility suffered once again.

When Gene Robinson in the United States was elected the Bishop of New Hampshire and, more particularly, when his election was confirmed by a concurrent majority of the bishops, priests and lay deputies at the General Convention (read General Synod), you appeared to panic. You called an urgent meeting of the primates of the entire Anglican Communion and allowed them to express enormous hostility. No one seemed to challenge either their use of scripture, which revealed an amazing ignorance of the last 250 years of biblical scholarship, or their understanding of homosexuality. By acting as if homosexuality is a choice made by evil people they violated everything that medical science has discovered about sexual orientation in the last century. Just as the Church was historically wrong in its treatment of women, so now as a result of your leadership, we are espousing a position about homosexuality that is dated, uninformed, inhumane and frankly embarrassing. No learned person stands there today.

Then you appointed the group, under Robin Eames' chairmanship, that produced the Windsor Report. That report confirmed every mistake you had already made. It asked the American Church to apologize to other parts of the Anglican Communion for its "insensitivity." Can one apologize for trying to end prejudice and oppression? If the issue were slavery, would you ask for an apology to the slave holders? That report got the response it deserved. Our leaders were indeed sorry that others felt hurt, but they were not prepared to apologize for taking a giant step in removing one more killing prejudice from both the Church and the world. Those angry elements of the church were not satisfied by the Windsor report, inept as it was. They never will be until they have bent you and this communion into a pre-modern, hate filled, Bible quoting group of people incapable of embracing the world in which we live.

Next came threats issued by the primates of the excommunication of the American Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, as if they actually had that power. Ultimatums and deadlines for us to conform to their homophobia were treated by you as if that were appropriate behavior. When the American Church elected Katharine Jefferts-Schori to be its Presiding Bishop and thus the Primate of our Province, your response to that major achievement was pathetic. You did not rejoice that equality had finally been achieved in our struggle against sexism; your concern was about how much more difficult her election would make the life of the Anglican Communion. Once again, institutional peace was made primary to the rising consciousness that challenges what the Church has done to women for so long. When Katharine took her place among the other primates, she underwent with dignity, the refusal of some of those bishops to receive communion with her. Is that the mentality required to build unity?

Later you issued a statement saying that if homosexuals want to be received in the life of the Church, they will have to change their behavior. I found that statement incredible. If you mean they have to change from being homosexual then you are obviously not informed about homosexuality. It is not a choice or a sin, anymore than being left handed, or male or female, or black or even transgender is a choice or a sin. All of us simply awaken to these aspects of our identity. That truth is so elementary and so well documented that only prejudiced eyes can fail to recognize it. No one in intellectual circles today still gives that point of view credibility.

Next you declined to invite Gene Robinson to the Lambeth Conference of 2008. All of the closeted homosexual bishops are invited, the honest one is not invited. I can name the gay bishops who have, during my active career. served in both the Episcopal Church and in the Church of England? I bet you can too. Are you suggesting that dishonesty is a virtue?

You continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate "tradition" over change. The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215, to oppose Galileo in the 17th century, to oppose Darwin in the 19th century, to support slavery and apartheid in the 19th and 20th centuries, to keep women from being educated, voting and being ordained in the 20th and 21st century. Today it is quoted to continue the oppression and rejection of homosexual people. The Bible has lost each of those battles. It will lose the present battle and you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of truth. It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellect! ually-g ifted Ar chbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.

You were appointed to lead, Rowan, not to capitulate to the hysterical anger of those who are locked in the past. For the sake of God and this Church, the time has come for you to do so. I hope you still have that capability.

John Shelby Spong, 8th Bishop of Newark, Retired

Those wascawwy wabbits!

2007-09-04T13:33:00.000-04:00

A book called The Glory Field was part of Son in Ohio's summer reading. He's had a hard time getting through the book for a number of reasons--not the least of which being that he objects to the whole idea of summer homework in the first place. Anyway, at some point, Son asked me if I would read some of it aloud to him, and I agreed. It turned out to be a decent way of helping keep him engaged in the story.

Ultimately, I finished the whole book myself while he was at school--he hasn't finished it himself yet, but is in the home stretch. The book follows five generations of one African-American family from Africa to a South Carolina plantation through the Civil War, the end of segregation and beyond, to a moving finale, when a young drug-addicted cousin is brought home to the glory field for a day of reunion and renewal.

Most recently, I was helping him get through the 1964 section, which deals with the end of segregation. One of the White characters misquotes Martin Luther King as saying that he wants to see "little White girls and little Black boys playing together." It is, of course, telling, that he would remember the quote that way, because, apparently that is the most threatening form of "race mixing" to many people.

And, reading this section, I was reminded that some people were so bent out of shape at the very idea of race mixing that they could project a diabolical pro-miscegenation agenda onto a pair of rabbits in a children's book. From a Time Magazine article printed in 1959...

It seems incredible that any sober adult could scent in this fuzzy cottontale for children the overtones of Karl Marx or even of Martin Luther King. But last week in Florida, Columnist Henry Balch thundered in the Orlando Sentinel (circ. 100,000): "As soon as you pick up the book, you realize these rabbits are integrated. One of the techniques of brainwashing is conditioning minds to accept what the brainwashers want accepted." In Alabama, State Senator E. O. Eddins agreed: "This book should be taken off the shelves and burned."

Wow. And people think Bugs Bunny is "wascawwy". He's got nothing on these two!

Rethinking Assumptions

2007-08-15T23:48:00.000-04:00

Today is the Feast of the Assumption, a holy day of obligation in the Roman Catholic church. I recall a priest once trying to convince us that they were really holy days of *opportunity*. That "re-framing" didn't really work for me.

But since then, I've learned that there were stories of holy men in the bible being "assumed" into heaven without dying first.

So no, I didn't actually go to church today. But, before the day is over, I wanted to be sure to celebrate the Assumption as I now understand it.

Girl power! W00t!

Action alert: Postal rate hike would harm smaller publishers

2007-08-15T12:12:00.001-04:00

Hat tip to it's simple if you ignore the complexity at My Left Wing, I want to draw your attention to an important action alert from Free Press.

Postal regulators have accepted a proposal from media giant Time Warner that would stifle small and independent publishers in America. The plan unfairly burdens smaller publishers with higher postage rates while locking in special privileges for bigger media companies.

In establishing the U.S. postal system, the nation's founders wanted to ensure that a diversity of viewpoints were available to "the whole mass of the people." Time Warner's rate increase reverses this egalitarian ideal and threatens the marketplace of ideas on which our democracy depends.

It's time stand up for independent media. Demand that Congress step in to stop the unfair rate hikes.

Click here for more.

THIS is what I hate about politics...

2007-08-11T09:57:00.001-04:00

Apparently (according to a front page post on Booman Tribune) Harold Ford is going to face off against Markos "The Great and Powerful Kos" Moulitsas on Meet the Press this Sunday. I'm guessing the idear for this match-up came about as a result of this statement made by Harold Ford on Fox News.

I would have gone to Daily Kos and told them, I think they’re wrong the way you go about practicing your politics. If you’re serious about winning the war and bringing the country together, get another message and another set of tactics…

Which tactics would those be, Harold? The ones where you cozy up to and make kissy faces with the people who will never be on your side no matter how "moderate" and reasonable you try to come across? The tactics where you buy, hook, line, and sinker, Bill O'Reilly's "spin" that Daily Kos is/are the "bad Democrats", because you think you can play that to your advantage? And that perceived advantage is so valuable to you that you can't possibly do the minimal, cursory research it would take to learn that "Daily Kos" is not as monolithic as you suggest.

Harold, do you seriously think that the way to "bring the country together" is to paint a Snidely Whiplash mustache on a segment of the Democratic party, and then celebrate that you and the Republicans now have a common foe? That's just freakin' sad.

I won't be rooting for Markos either. As far as I've been able to discern, his only core value is winning. Period. That, and I think he's an arrogant ass.

This is, of course, not the only thing I hate about politics, but it's a pretty good example of the petty pointlessness of it. And all this energy and air time is being directed toward something other than making things better for people. (Pssst! Millennium Development Goals, people!)

So I won't be watching Meet the Press. I'll be in church listening to my daughter sing with the choir. And I should probably spend some time in quiet contemplation, because I really don't know what's next. Part of me would like to tune out all of politics as Somebody Else's Problem. But I don't know that I could ever do that. A few years ago, I promised Someone that I would work to help "heal the world", and I meant it. I guess I need to connect with some other people who feel the same way, and start working together on one little part of the world that needs fixing.

Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958)

2007-07-25T10:41:00.000-04:00

I did an open thread again today at My Left Wing. Since the tradition is to show a picture of someone who was born on the day (or occasionally someone who died on the day), this give me the opportunity to learn about people I didn't know about before. Today it's Rosalind Franklin.

Rosalind Franklin, born July 25, 1920

From the Rosalind Franklin Papers:

...a British chemist and crystallographer who is best known for her role in the discovery of the structure of DNA. It was her x-ray diffraction photos of DNA and her analysis of that data--provided to Francis Crick and James Watson without her knowledge--that gave them clues crucial to building their correct theoretical model of the molecule in 1953. While best known for this work, Franklin also did important research into the micro-structure and properties of coals and other carbons, and spent the last five years of her career elucidating the structure of plant viruses, notably tobacco mosaic virus.

Bishop Gene Robinson preaching about the Good Samaritan

2007-07-19T21:40:00.000-04:00

This morning, just before the post scrolled off their front page, I discovered via An Inch at a Time that Bishop Gene Robinson preached at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena this past Sunday. Click here for the video of the sermon. Lots of good stuff there, so I transcribed most of it

It's important to remember that, though this is called The Good Samaritan, no word like "good" appears in this parable. It's our tendency to rush to judgement about something. It reminds me of the cartoon where the dog is lying on his therapist's couch, and the dog is saying, "It's always 'good dog' or 'bad dog'! Why can't it just be judgement free?"

So I think we rush to label things good and bad. And part--maybe even most--of what this story is about is that this is actually about three good people. The priest and the Levite, who come off looking pretty awful, are actually *very* good people. They are religious people, they are upstanding, they take their religion seriously, they know all the right answers to things, they can recite the creeds--they do all of that exactly right. They "get it" intellectually and theoretically. Even, perhaps, theologically. And it seems that Jesus tells this story in order to show us that it is not 'right belief", it is not "right thinking" that gets us to the heart of God, but actually doing the will of God. That's what actually gets us to know the heart of God.

The priest and the Levite actually had very good reasons not to take care of this fellow on the side of the road. First of all, this road, which still exists--it's the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is at about 2500 feet above sea level, and Jericho is at 800 feet below sea level, near the Dead Sea. And it was a very crooked road, it was a very dangerous place. There were robbers all along it, and to slow down for anything was thought to be terribly dangerous. And indeed, this could well have been a trap. It was not unknown that people would fake being hurt, and the unsuspecting traveler would stop and try to do something, and in doing so would be robbed and mugged, and perhaps killed.

Not only that, but the priest would have been expected to go to Jerusalem as every priest did, and serve for two weeks in the temple. And he know, being a student of the law, that if he touched a dead body, he would be ritually unclean, and it would take quite a lot of purification rites to make him capable of performing the service that he was due to give. And so, why would he risk touching this comatose traveler, only to discover that he was dead, and in doing so, defile himself, and delay his service in the temple? These were good people. These were good people.

And then, of course, along comes the Samaritan. And Luke, as you know, is the outsider writing a Gospel for people on the outside. And Luke understands that this Gospel of Jesus Christ turned the whole world on its ear. Turned the world upside-down. And so, sure enough, as in so many of Luke's stories, it's the Samaritan who actually does the will of God. It's the priest and the Levite who know the will of God, but seem unable to do it.

It's almost as if, when the lawyer asks the question "What must we do to gain eternal life?", and then he gives the right answer. His head knows the right answer--it's to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And Jesus says, "A+, very good!" And then he pushes the point and asks about the neighbor, and Jesus tells this story, I think, to show what love of God looks like detached from love of neighbor. They got the "love of God" part. They understand that. But the priest and the Levite didn't connect that to the love of neighbor, which is really the heart of the Gospel.

You know, more and more, I am convinced that the Christian life is not about life after death--it's about life before death. What God does for us after death, God will take care of. But what we do with life before death is up to you and me. That's the real reward of Christianity, isn't it? Not so much life after death, but life before death. It's not an accident that in our confession now, and in the absolution which follows, we don't say "and may God *bring* you to everlasting life", but keep you in everlasting life. It gets to start now...if we are awake. If we understand that in the doing of God's will, we already participate in everlasting life.

So, it is right action, not right belief, not right thinking, that gets us to the heart of God.

A little while ago, in the only time that the Archbishop of Canterbury ever deigned to see me, we were having a little "chat", and at one point in our conversation, he was explaining to me that, actually what the Episcopal church should have done prior to electing and consecrating me, was that we should have figured all this out theologically and intellectually... We should have come to a common mind, and then passed canons and and then done this thing. And I said to him with as much respect as I could, "Your Grace, it seems to me that all of the great steps that has taken, have been as a result of our doing the right thing, and only then, "thinking" our way to what we did. It's not the other way around. I mean, if we had waited for instance in this country for everyone to have been on the same page about civil rights, there would still be separate drinking fountains, wouldn't there? And if we had waited until women were valued as equal and full members of society and the human race for goodness sakes, all of that discrimination would still exist.

And, does anyone think that if those 11 women hadn't been "irregularly" ordained in Philadelphia, that we would be ordaining women yet? I'm not sure we would! And it seems that all the great steps forward we have made have been a result of our doing the right thing, and then thinking our way theologically to how that was the right thing.

He didn't have a really good response. (Laughter)

So, this lawyer (no lawyer jokes!) this lawyer then pushes the point and says, "So then, what must I do?" And Jesus' answer in this story seems to be "love that costs". Love that actually costs us something--costs us time, costs us money, costs us focus, costs us convenience, love that actually costs us something.

There was a young seminarian who one summer worked with an old priest at a homeless shelter, and they had a feeding program at noontime. A lot of people, and on this particular day, there just seemed to be an unusual amount of people who came. And they were *just* exhausted, and it was nearly 3:00 before the last person left. The old priest asked the seminarian to go and close up the front door and shut down for the day, and just as this young seminarian got to the front door, thinking that this long and difficult day was about to be over, saw yet one more homeless man making his way up the front walk. And in his exhausted state, and thinking he had nothing left to give, he said, "Jesus Christ!" And the old priest said, "It just might be."

Love that costs, even when we think we're depleted, I'm always reminded--you know how when you throw away an old tube of toothpaste that's done, and then you go to the closet, and you've forgotten to buy another one? And so you reach into the trash can and you haul out the thing? Every time you can make one more toothbrush full of toothpaste--yeah? But isn't that the way God is--just when we think there's nothing left to give, if we make but the simplest effort, God provides. God provides manna in the desert--and maybe just enough for that day--but it's enough. God gives us what we need to respond in the way the Good Samaritan responded. That's the real miracle of life in God.

And this is really important: we must do the work of ministry--not just give a nod to it. Louie Crew, who I think was here not to long ago, was the one, I believe, who discovered this mistake in our prayer book. It's in the catechism--it's the only real mistake that I know of in the prayer book, and it's in the section on the Hebrew covenant. And it says "What must we do to please God?" And the answer, in the prayer book, which means to be a quote from Micah, the prophet. It sayw that we must love justice, do mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

Well, that would all be very nice, except that's not what Micah said. Micah said we must do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. And it strikes me, maybe you're like me, we just looove to love justice, don't we? And even an astounding witness to justice, like All Saints Pasadena can so love to love justice, and sit around, and form committees, and talk about it all day, that we forget that what Micah said is that we must do justice and walk humbly with our God. I think that what Jesus is teaching in this story about the Good Samaritan is that it's not enough to be good. It's not enough to know the creeds and say you believe all the things that you're supposed to believe.

Remember that our baptismal covenant, which is as close to a purpose statement as we have in the Episcopal church, are all action verbs. Right? They're all action verbs. It's not about which doctrines you ascribe to, but will you love and serve one another, will you respect the dignity of every human being, if you make mistakes, will you repent and come back to God? It's all about doing. It's not about ascribing to the right tenets and the right doctrines. That stuff is dry. It's important, but it's not the most important. Because what we see in the story of the Good Samaritan, is the danger of loving God separate from doing the work of loving our neighbor.

So it seems to me, that the real question, the challenge, really, of this story for you and me, is whether or not we want to be admirers of Jesus, or disciples. It's easy to admire Jesus--to think he was a nifty guy with really wonderful ideas. Following Jesus is a whole lot harder. Doing the work of ministry and doing justice--getting into some "Gospel trouble" is what we are meant to do.

You know, this Lent, I realized for the first time that this symbol, this cross, is such a political symbol. Now, let's be clear: the Jews did not kill Jesus. That's a bunch of anti-semitic stuff that runs throughout some of the Gospels, especially John, and it is not true. The Romans killed Jesus.

Now, the Romans killed lots of people, but they saved crucifixion for a very specific kind of criminal. And it was the one who challenged the Powers That Be. Who took on the government, who threatened the Pax Romana with their notions of turning the world upside-down like Jesus did. And they didn't put them all high and lifted up like Cecil B. DeMille--I realize that criticizing Cecil B. DeMille in Los Angeles is...(laughter). But, crosses were actually quite low to the ground, so that as people died and began to rot away, the dogs could eat their flesh, and there would be almost nothing left to bury. They wanted to make a real example of anyone who challenged the Powers That Be. And it is an indictment of you and me that we can wear this symbol around, and it doesn't threaten anybody.

When we wear a cross, it ought to scare people to death! And the more powerful they are, the more it ought to scare them. We should be being followed around by the F.B.I.--I know you're being followed by the I.R.S. (laughter). You've got a good start on this one! But really, really--shame on us that this doesn't threaten anybody! When we put this on, when we put on the cross of Christ, we are saying that it's not just religion that we are about. We are about changing the world, as Jesus changed it. We are about loving the people that Jesus loved--those in the margins. And it doesn't mean sitting in a committee room somewhere talking about loving those people, but actually loving them, and doing the hard work of justice.

Are you and I going to be admirers of Jesus only, or are we going to be disciples?

You know how an innoculation works, right? You don't want to get chicken pox, so you go to the doctor, and they give you just enough chicken pox to make your body form antibodies to it, so you never get a full-blown case of chicken pox. God help us if we come here on Sunday mornings just to get enough religion to keep us from having a full-blown case. It is so easy, isn't it, to come here, isn't it? It feels so good, and you see people you know, and the music's great, and the preaching is good. It just all works! But if we leave here, and it causes us to not do anything any differently, then this is nothing but a religious theme park. Really! We have to be out there doing the work that God has given us to do, or else it is all ultimately just self-serving.

And it'll be hard work! When Jesus says "Take up your cross and follow me", he means it's going to be tough. It's going to be very hard--it means taking risks, it means loving that costs. But the miracle, the miracle is that when we do that, and we face that trouble, we come to know the very God who is at the center of all that is. It's the only way we get to know him--we don't get to know him by memorizing the creed. We get to know him by doing the work that he did.

So, you and I can do that--especially if we do it with him, that he can work in and through us, to do the work that he has given us to do. So the question for you and me today is, do we just come here for an innoculation? Or do we come here for a full blown infection of God's love? Because it's only when you are fully infected yourself with the love that simply know no bounds, can you go out there and love the world, and God's children, in God's name. And this God promises to be with you and me from now on! There is no better news than that, on this, or any Sunday. Amen.

Calling the Pope a primate is "hateful"?

2007-07-18T10:05:00.000-04:00

Somehow I missed this one. Apparently Bill O'Reilly used the fact that some commenter on Daily Kos called the Pope a "primate" as evidence that Big Orange is a hateful site. He used that and other random statements by DK commenters to make his "case" about how hateful the site is. But this was all set up for going after Jet Blue for being one of the sponsors of Yearly Kos.

As with anything that issues forth from Mr. O'Reilly, there are many layers of wrongness that could be addressed. He's like an onion in that way. A big stinky onion. To take an obvious example, it is possible to cherry pick comments from a blog to make whatever case one wishes.

But as Booman points out, there is nothing hateful or offensive about using the word "primate" to refer to the Pope or any other human, lemur, gibbon, orangutan, etc. And he further notes that there is another usage of the word:

pri·mate -noun
1. Ecclesiastical. an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country.

In fact, Bill, it's even in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. And you were an altar boy, too. I'm so disappointed in you...

Now, I'll be honest with you. When I first started to work on this post earlier today, I was planning to go for the cheap laugh, speculating that, from a taxonomic perspective, Bill doesn't quite make the cut as a primate. And then I was going to try to figure out the funniest creature with which I could compare him.

Except...

Last night we started a weekly discussion series at my church on the concept of "grace". Our rector started the meeting by sharing this prayer, which he had also shared during the service earlier in the day:

Thanksgiving for the Social Order
7. For the Diversity of Races and Cultures

O God, who created all peoples in your image, we thank you for the wonderful diversity of races and cultures in this world. Enrich our lives by ever-widening circles of fellowship, and show us your presence in those who differ most from us, until our knowledge of your love is made perfect in our love for all your children; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

"Show us your presence in those who differ most from us", huh? Guess that would imply a willingness to see that presence in those who differ most from me. Even those who come off like real jerks.

Tricky.

Guess that's one of the reasons I need grace...

Proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy

2007-07-09T23:13:00.000-04:00

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

That quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. I don't know if he actually said it or not. If he did, he was probably being at least a little bit tongue in cheek. But even if the saying is meant to be humorous, I think it's safe to say that the person who uttered those words thought of beer as one of the Good Things this life has to offer.

What strikes me about that quote at the moment is people can have very different ideas about what the Good Things are. For me, beer is waaaay down on the list.

Here's what started this train of thought. Yesterday in church I noticed that On Eagles Wings is one of the songs included in our summer order of worship. That's one of my favorite hymns, and I've often wished that we sang it more often at my church. Anyway, upon seeing the words and music, I also remembered that it was one of the songs sung at our wedding twenty years ago.

Our anniversary is still a few weeks away. But it occurred to me that I should ask to have it included in the Prayers of the People on the Sunday closest to August 1. "In thanksgiving for 20 years of marriage..." I don't know yet how we are going to "celebrate" per se. Depending on what else is going on in our lives, sometimes it can be hard to get into celebrating birthdays, holidays, etc. And I don't believe in forcing celebration, or feeling guilty about postponing it to a time that works better for us.

But I won't postpone the prayers of thanksgiving, whether they be formal or informal, in the form of words, thoughts, or actions. Because, when I think about where in the world I can see the signature of a loving Creator who wants me to be happy, it's not beer that I think of. I think of the marvelous divine gift that we celebrated almost twenty years ago, and for which (when I remember) I continue to be thankful.

Net Neutrality Action Item

2007-07-09T13:35:00.001-04:00

This arrived in my inbox from Free the Internet, and I thought it was worth sharing--Renee

Dear Media Reformer,

Watch and Rate Our New Video

We have only five days left to defend a free and open Internet at the FCC. The agency needs to hear from you about Net Neutrality -- the principle that stops AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from controlling where you can go online.

Thousands of people have already told their stories (see below) urging the FCC to protect Net Neutrality. Now it's your turn:

Tell the FCC to Save the Internet

You need to act now before the FCC closes its comment period. If we flood them with comments in support of Net Neutrality, the FCC will be pressed to stand up to the giant phone and cable companies that seek to undermine free choice on the Web.

At SavetheInternet.com, you can read stories from others, view photographs, and join the fight to make the Internet affordable, open and accessible to everyone. You can even create your own personal comment page to share with others. Go there now to see our new video:

Watch Our New Video and Save the Internet

This may be the best chance we have this year to demonstrate to Washington that protecting the free and open Internet is an issue that matters to millions of Americans. The FCC needs to know why Net Neutrality is important to you. Tell them how an open Internet impacts your daily life, your business and your ability to connect with others.

To save the Internet, we need to flood the FCC with stories from people around the country. Can you ask five friends to send their stories to the FCC?

Tell Your Friends to Take Action

With your help, we can send a message to the FCC that they can't ignore.

Onward,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
www.savetheinternet.com

P.S. Here's what others are saying:

"The greatest hope that this country has is the reconnection of American voices with our political system. The Internet is the first medium that is truly interactive, in which one person's voice can reach millions. This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it." Read Jennifer's full story.

"In rural America, the Internet is very important in staying informed. We read several national newspapers every day to get the news our local paper does not thoroughly cover." Read Charles & Carol's full story.

"Currently the media is not diverse at all, and the only option I have found to escape from it has been the Internet. ... If the Internet is controlled by powerful people with money, will it ever be what it has been? Will we be able to enjoy diversity?" Read Norie's full story.

To read thousands of other stories visit: www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory/gallery

Take action on this campaign at: www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory

Tell others about this campaign at: www.savetheinternet.com/tellafriend.php

If you received this message from a friend, you can click here to become a Free Press activist.

Happy Independence Day!

2007-07-04T13:03:00.001-04:00

We made this flyer several years ago, when Bush's approval rating (and the approval rating for his war) was a lot higher. It's important to remind people of what the real patriots had to say. They could be downright revolutionary at times.

News from the home front

2007-06-19T20:28:00.000-04:00

Here's the video my husband Demetrius did for the The PopSci Podcast/Jonathan Coulton "I Feel Fantastic" Video Contest. (You can see some of the other videos here.)

This project ate up almost every waking moment of the past week for him--and many moments that should have been sleeping moments--so I thought I'd share.

Update: The winners have been announced.

Rev. Susan Russell on State of Belief

2007-05-28T22:04:00.000-04:00

From the May 26-27 edition of State of Belief

Welton Gaddy: Our long time listeners know that we've been following with great interest the conflict within the U.S. Episcopal church. The disagreement about gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex marriages has reached critical mass in recent months, with a handful of congregations leaving the U.S. church to join the Anglican Church of Nigeria. So it caught our attention last week when invitations were sent out for a once-in-a-decade gathering of bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.

Now curiously, among those invitations, there were two significant omissions: Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop from New Hampshire, who was elected in 2003, and Bishop Martin Minns, the man who led the group *out* of the Episcopal church, were not invited to the Lambeth Conference, which is scheduled for next year. This decision by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the worldwide Anglican leader, has prompted a string of protests from both liberal and conservative members alike. Adding its voice to the chorus of complaints that shows a church on the brink of a permenant split is a group called Integrity, a coalition of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Episcopalians. We're joined right now by the President of Integrity, the Rev. Susan Russell. She's speaking with us by phone from Pasadena, California--Susan, thanks for being with us on State of Belief.

Susan Russell: Thanks so much for giving me the opportunity.

Welton Gaddy: I have read Archbishop Rowan Williams through the years, and, unless I am completely off-base, he has expressed some very liberal views on homosexuality. Writing that condemnation of homosexuality is ambiguous, problematic, nonscriptural. Why wouldn't he invite Bishop Robinson to the conference?

Susan Russell: I think at this point, the Archbishop of Canterbury is frankly in a very unenviable position of believing he has to choose between his own theological position and deeply held belief and the unity of the communion. I personally think that's a false dichotomy--one that's being represented by those that are determined to continue the conflict brewing, and to, in many ways, blackmail the Archbishop into bigotry as the price for unity. I don't believe it's a price that we should pay, or, in the end, that we have to pay.

Welton Gaddy: Archbishop Williams openly criticized Martin Minns for splitting from the Episcopal church, and being installed, in fact as a bishop by the Archbishop of Nigeria. Since Bishop Minns and Bishop Robinson are the two ministers *not* invited, is Archbishop Williams equating the two as troublemakers for the worldwide communion?

Susan Russell: You know, I'm afraid that's exactly how that's being interpreted, whether that was the Archbishop's intent or not, that's certainly the impact. And again, Martin Minns, who actually is a delightful chap, and one I've known for many years, has chosen to put himself outside the bounds of Anglican authority, by being consecrated as a bishop and then deployed back by Nigeria, into the United States, across diocesan and provincial boundaries, with the stated goal of evangelizing the "apostate, heretic Episcopal church". His standing is discretely different from the duly elected, consecrated, sitting, serving Bishop of New Hampshire, who even the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes is appropriately representive of his diocese.

And so in many ways, we've said it in our press releases and will continue to say it in the days and weeks ahead. This isn't just a snub of the Bishop of New Hampshire, or of gay and lesbian people. It really is an affront to the *whole* Episcopal Church, and I'm looking for the leadership of the whole church to come up around this, and to stand in solidarity with Gene and with the LBGT faithful in the Episcopal Church.

Welton Gaddy: Susan, I'm not sure this is a fair question, but it's difficult for me sometimes to tell the difference between appeasement and reconciliation and sheer politics when it comes to a church. Can you make a distinction between those?

Susan Russell: I think that's a crucial question. I don't think it's an unfair one--I think it's a hard one. And I think that's exactly the hard work we're engaged in right now as the leadership of this Episcopal church. What I've asked, what Integrity has asked--we have not called for a boycott of Lambeth, which some of our constituency would like to hear at this point. Instead, what we've called for is for our bishops to think long and hard about whether their prescence there is in fact complicity with discrimination. Is there a way for us to have our voices at the table in a way that moves the conversation forward and doesn't allow Gene Robinson and the LGBT faithful to be scapegoated. I'm not convinced there isn't a way--I don't know what it is yet. But we do have 14 months until Lambeth 2008, so we'll see what the days and weeks hold.

Welton Gaddy: Has Integrity ruled out a boycott of the Lambeth conference completely, or is it a "wait and see".

Susan Russell: I'd be very clear at this point all of the options are on the table. I haven't ruled out the Archbishop of Canterbury coming to his senses and inviting the Bishop of New Hampshire. But I think at this point, the faithful choice is to have all of the options on the table, and to get to work together with a broad constituency, committed to, not just unity, but unity within the Body of Christ, which, when I look at my scriptures, when asked What does the Lord require?, "to do justice" is very very high on the list, and I think that's something we need not to forget in these conversations.

Welton Gaddy: Susan, will Integrity be at the table talking as a vital part of this conversation, or will you also be ignored and others have to talk for you?

Susan Russell: That's another important question, and it's been an ongoing challenge in the Anglican Communion. Since 1978, the communion has committed *officially* to a process of listening to the voices of gay and lesbian people. Until very recently, absolutely nothing has been done to do anything other than talk *about* us rather than *to* us. We'll certainly be present at Lambeth next June, and we'll certainly be vocal. As to where we'll be included officially, again, I think that's still subject to some negotiation.

Welton Gaddy: Susan, you're a good spokesperson. Reverend Susan Russell is the president of Integrity, a grassroots organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians. Thank you for being with us today and helping us better understand the situation here on State of Belief.

Susan Russell: Thanks again so much for giving me the opportunity.

Some thoughts on courage

2007-05-23T08:18:00.000-04:00

Originally posted last night at the Independent Bloggers' Alliance

At the end of the work day, I do a brief scan of blog headlines to try to get up to speed on what's happening out there in the wide, wide world (channeling the Poky Little Puppy). This evening, a predominant theme is that the Democrats "caved" on Iraq. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what I think about that. The thing is--I just don't have the time or interest to follow this story (and others like it) closely enough to have a genuinely informed opinion on what constitutes necessary political courage versus wisely playing the cards you've been dealt. So, guess I'm not cut out to be a political pundit.

But I've been thinking a lot about courage in the past 24 hours, after hearing this man speak at a forum at my church

His name is Davis Mac-Iyalla, and he is the founder of Changing Attitude-Nigeria, a support group for Gay and Lesbian Anglicans, and he is visiting the United States to call attention to the persecution of LGBTs in his country. Even attending a GLBT-affirmative event--something I didn't have to think twice about here in central Ohio would subject me to tremendous risk if I lived in Nigeria. If a draconian "Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act" were to pass, the penalty for being openly "straight but not narrow" would be a five year prison term.

From time to time, I have wondered, if Demetrius and I were born at a different time...if we had met in 1964 rather than 1984...would I have had the courage to follow my heart and marry outside my "race". It's not an easy question to answer. Mind you, part of the difficulty is my tendency to ask pesky, practical questions, such as, "Where would we have met?" and "How likely is it that we could have spent those long, casual hour together with our mutual friends?" But the basic question I ask myself is, "Would I have the courage to be that kind of pioneer? Could I really be that brave?"

Last night, I was faced with a new question: "Would I have the courage to risk my personal safety--possibly my life--in order to make hostile religious and political authorities acknowledge that I exist?

That's an easy one, and I can answer it right now.

Nope.
No. Freaking. Way.

So I couldn't help but be awed, humbled, and impressed to hear Davis tell his story. From a statement on the first anniversary of Changing Attitudes-Nigeria,

In the first year, we have many achievements to be proud of, including our impact on the life of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, which had previously denied that lesbian and gay people are members of the church. The Church was so disturbed by our visible presence that it attempted to discredit the organisation, at the same time falsely claiming to be open to gays.

At last night's meeting, Davis Mac-Iyalla described being arrested after one of the early meetings of his organization. He and his fellow members were beaten, and were held for three days without food or water (and without charges), before finally being able to get the bribe money so that his jailers would release him. And not long after that experience, he led the first national meeting of CAN, which was attended by over 1000 GLBT Anglican Nigerians.

I encourage you to read more about Davis Mac-Iyalla and Changing Attitudes-Nigeria. This is not an Anglican issue, or a GLBT issue, or a Nigerian issue--it is, quite plainly, a human rights issue.

The Daily Office (Sponsor of Davis Mac-Iyalla's U.S. tour)
Changing Attitude UK (The director of this organization was instrumental in helping Davis get Changing Attitude Nigeria up and running)

Also posted at My Left Wing, Street Prophets, Booman Tribune, and ePluribus Media

Update with regard to funding:

The people who wish to silence Davis and others like him are very well funded.

Changing Attitudes Nigeria is not. Josh Thomas, who arranged Davis Mac-Iyalla's U.S. tour, and who operates the Daily Office web site, is helping him raise the money needed to continue his work in educating the rest of the world about the plight of GLBT people in Nigeria. Donations are being accepted here.

Interfaith New Sanctuary Movement to Launch

2007-05-08T22:49:00.000-04:00

Some 20 Cities Give Refuge to Immigrant Families Facing Deportation

Religious leaders, confronting the unjust treatment of immigrant families, announced the launching of the New Sanctuary Movement. Supported by congregations from across the country, it is a multi-racial and multi-ethnic coalition that spans the political spectrum and pledges to open their doors, hearts and collective actions to the “moral imperative” of immigrant rights.

At a moment when large scale immigration with its attending social and economic consequences demand reform, the faith community has united to call for policies that are both effective and humane. They are embracing sanctuary seekers threatened by imminent deportations, detentions and the severing of family ties. In most cases the undocumented immigrants have American citizen spouses and children. The movement considers the sanctuary seekers the human face of a cause committed to arousing the voice of people of faith and awakening the moral imagination of the nation.

The New Sanctuary Movement will be inaugurated on May 9th with events organized by interdenominational congregations representing a rainbow of racial, ethnic and faith communities. Activities are scheduled in Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, San Diego and Seattle. A number of other cities will hold prayer vigils in solidarity. The movement began as an echo of the 1980’s sanctuary campaign, but has gained momentum as stepped up raids, detentions and deportations spotlight what religious leaders call a “cruel and broken system.”

The sanctuary seekers include Joe Liang, 26, and his wife Mei Xing, 25. They have two American children ages 2 and 15 months. The couple fears being forced to return to their native China. They applied for asylum in New York but are both facing pending deportation orders. “There is nothing more important than giving my children a world where the possibilities are not simply a dream,” confides Chen. The family is being given sanctuary at New York’s Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul the Apostle, at 405 W. 59th Street (Columbus Avenue), Manhattan.

Three immigrants have sought sanctuary in Los Angeles including Juan Humberto. Juan sought refuge in the United States after his father was kidnapped during the conflict in Guatemala. He runs a successful gardening business and is the father of two citizen children. His mother, who also arrived as a refugee, is a U.S. citizen. However, because he lacked effective legal support at a crucial moment, he faces an order of deportation. Juan will receive physical sanctuary in St. Paul’s Lutheran church and will receive legal advocacy and pastoral support through a cluster of congregations which includes Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, Echo Park United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Cathedral Center, All Saints Episcopal Church and a Mennonite House Church.

The inaugural New Sanctuary Movement events will be followed by a rolling series of launches in other cities across the country. Congregations will collect signatures for the New Sanctuary Pledge and have committed to material, spiritual and physical support in their sanctuaries and among congregants.

The New Sanctuary Movement pledge outlines three goals including taking a public, moral stand on behalf of immigrant families and workers; opening the American people’s eyes to the suffering of immigrant workers and families under current policies; and protecting immigrants against hate, workplace discrimination and unjust deportation. They aim to enlist millions of people of faith through signing of the News Sanctuary Movement pledge and other moral and material support.

“A sanctuary is more than a physical place for the faithful to worship. It is a sacred space that guarantees compassion, protection and the love of God,” said Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, a leader of the New Sanctuary Movement and director of CLUE-CA. Rev. Salvatierra underscored the importance of family values as a cornerstone of American beliefs. “We are responding to a broken system that is increasingly creating broken families, and broken lives.”

Coordinated by networks in California, New York and Chicago, participating congregations will provide the sanctuary seekers with a range of support services including expert immigration lawyers, transportation to the work place, shelter, and financial assistance. Sanctuary will be offered to families where at least one parent has a deportation order that would separate them from their children and homes.

Steering committee member Kim Bobo, executive director of Interfaith Worker Justice, notes that the New Sanctuary Movement is an outgrowth of a longstanding commitment to immigrant rights. “Immigrants are an integral part of the faith community. Few Biblical messages are as clear as Leviticus which says, ‘the alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.’”

Rabbi Laurie Coskey, also a member of the steering committee, agrees. “Churches, mosques and synagogues across the country have always opened their doors and embraced those who are new to our country. In turn, immigrants have given their time, energy and resources to grow communities of faith. Now we are called to shed light on those long hidden by shadows. God calls us to use our prophetic voice to denounce unjust laws that separate rather than unite people of faith.”

It is estimated that more than 222,000 immigrants have been subjected to deportation over the past year in the stepped up campaign by Immigration Customs and Enforcement. According to recent data, nearly one in 10 American families is of mixed immigration status in which at least one parent is a non-citizen, and one child a citizen. An estimated 3.1 million US citizen children have at least one parent who is undocumented.

In the early 1980’s, thousands of Central Americans sought refuge in this country’s churches after fleeing human rights violations at the hands of US backed governments and death squads. Twenty-five years later the urgency and demands have given life to a new movement.

Today, the immigrant populations are not confined to individuals fleeing political repression. They are workers who pay taxes, law abiding citizens and families seeking refuge from intolerable economic and social conditions. They have been in this country for many years, have citizen children and contribute to the society.

The leaders of the New Sanctuary Movement acknowledge the challenges. “The large-scale immigration of workers and their families is complex,” offers Rev. Reginald Swilley, a member of the Steering Committee and former board member of the San Jose, Ca NAACP. “The current immigration crisis is rooted in historical, global and economic causes that cannot be answered with simplistic or purely reactive public policy solutions.”

By lifting the veil of silence, telling the stories and providing a sanctuary, the faith leaders say they aim to contribute to national immigration reform. “Silence is complicit,” maintains New York City coordinator Father Juan Carlos Ruiz. “Through our actions we are calling for policies that are effective and humane.”

Standing up (and sitting down) for justice

2007-05-06T14:26:00.001-04:00

I got a letter from my church this week, in advance of B.R.E.A.D.'s upcoming annual assembly, reminding me of what an appropriate choice it was to call this the Nehemiah Action Assembly. At last year's assembly, in his opening reflections, Rabbi Howard Apothaker provided an excellent (and, at times, humorous) retelling of the story of Nehemiah calling an assembly, including what, for me, was the most memorable line:

G-d does not just want us to do justice. G-d is *waiting* for us to do justice. G-d is *expecting* us to do justice. G-d is saying, "Get off your tuckus and do justice!"

Since one of the main issues being addressed at this Monday's assembly is predatory payday lending, the Nehemiah reference is quite fitting. From the letter my rector sent:

The fifth chapter of Nehemiah tells the story of how the governor of Jerusalem, Nehemiah, calls a great assembly to deal with a situation that is jeopardizing the rebuilding of the community. The situation has to do with the charging of interest to those resettling Jerusalem at such rates that people are sliding into poverty and slavery. Nehemiah, though governor, does not have enough power to make the nobles and officials of Jerusalem stop this blatant practice of usury. This is why he calls the great assembly. Confronted by the people, the moneylenders and the governing leaders, who allowed this debilitating practice, change their minds.

The parallels to predatory payday lending are so many that I can only list a few here. Interest rates that can exceed 390%. Fees tacked onto fees tacked onto fees until a $500 loan can only be retired by a payment of $3000. There are few regulatory statutes over payday lending in the State of Ohio. What B.R.E.A.D. is asking is not the end of payday lending but a just interest rate that cannot exceed 36% and the passage of regulations that would bring payday lending institutions into line with accepted banking and lending rules. The Nelson-Talent Amendment, passed by the United States Congress, that exempts military families from the worst excesses of payday lending is what we are seeking.

This is a statewide issue and B.R.E.A.D. has already begun meeting with state representatives and others who may be helpful in passing some new statutes. Payday lenders, though, are well financed and well represented by lobbyists in the legislature. We will need a great assembly on May 7 if we are going to use our people-power to combat the injustice of predatory payday lending. That is where you come in.

And the letter goes on to say that the only offering that is being asked of us is our time. With the kind of hours I've been working for the past few weeks, my time is a rather precious commodity. Yet I am mindful of the fact that powerful people are only able to get away with this sort of usury because ordinary people don't stand up. Heck, often we don't even *know* these things are going on, because we're so busy trying to keep our *own* heads above water.

But things like this are important, so I'm gearing up for a drive to the other side of town after work on Monday, to once again be "packed like sardines for justice". Because, well, I gotta. In a recent essay, BrimStone was explaining why the God of Fred Phelps and Randall Terry sucks. And I was thinking, mine doesn't suck, but s/he sure can be a bit of a nag sometimes. Always calling us, again and again to, "Get off your tuckus and do justice!"

Please click here for the information about tomorrow's meeting, and pass it along to anyone you know in central Ohio who might be interested.

Predatory Payday Lending

2007-05-05T08:55:00.001-04:00

That's the issue that B.R.E.A.D. (our local church based social justice group) is taking on at next week's meeting. According to George, our rector, this is the first issue the group has taken on where there are actually lobbyists working against us.

Unfortunately, because I'm working these 10-hour days this week, I don't have time to research and put together a good post about the issue. Hopefully George will find the time to e-mail me the sermon he gave about this issue a couple weeks ago, because that was a good summary of what we're dealing with, and why it's important.

In the meantime, the Wikipedia page on payday loans has a good overview of some of the controversy around these businesses. There is also an overview on the Center for Responsible Lending web site and more information at Policy Matters Ohio.

It's May!

2007-05-01T07:47:00.000-04:00

Click here for Alexandra Lynch's diary about Beltane.

Every time this month rolls around, without fail, I get this song in my head:

It's May! It's May!
The lusty month of May!...
Those dreary vows that ev'ryone takes,
Ev'ryone breaks.
Ev'ryone makes divine mistakes!
The lusty month of May!

Couldn't find it on YouTube though. Phooey.

Still want some tunes, so I'm going with What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong.

The sermon at the ordination

2007-04-29T16:17:00.000-04:00

I've been trying to do the "day of rest" thing to some degree today, so I haven't tried to write too much about the ordination and consecration of Bishop Thomas E. Breidenthal--or the event for the youth of the diocese which took place the night before. But this whole notion of unity being in tension with justice is one that I see coming up in other areas today. So I've decided that the first piece I'm going to share is the text of the sermon given yesterday by the Rev. C. Christopher Epting, who serves as Deputy for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations for the Episcopal Church in the United States.
.......
I've been a bishop for nearly 20 years now, and I cannot tell you how many times I have prayed again with the ordination vows, which Tom will take in just a few moments. Every time my mind is driven back to the ordination vows, to engage them once again prayerfully, and think about what they mean in a particular situation, two of those vows always leap out at me. The first is, "will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the church?" The second is, "Will you be merciful to all, show compassion to the poor, and strangers, and defend those who have no helper?" The expected answers to those questions are, respectively, "I will, for the love of God" and "I will for the sake of Christ Jesus".

It will not surprise Tom or many of you that sometimes those two vows come into conflict, or, at least stand in some kind of dramatic tension.

The first vow, about guarding the faith, unity, and discipline of the church is what St. John was up to in our epistle today. He writes, "This is a message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness we lie and do not do what is true. But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." John is talking about faith, about unity, about discipline. He is talking about walking together, in fellowship, in koinonia.

The second vow is what the prophet Isaiah was up to in our first lesson today, "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has annointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, release to the prisoners, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." This is a favorite text of our new Presiding Bishop, and she has referred to it on more than one occasion, particularly as it is cited by Jesus in his inaugural sermon at the synagogue in Nazareth according to the fourth chapter of Luke. It reminds us, this text, whether from Isaiah or Luke, of God's "preferential option for the poor", God's offer of healing for this broken world, and the liberty that God's love makes possible for the faithful. It is a challenging, risky text. But Isaiah I believe is talking about what that vow is talking about: being merciful to all. Showing compassion for the poor and the stranger, and defending those who have no helper. He is talking about justice.

Sometimes, not least in the context of the tensions we face today in the Anglican Communion, those perspectives of unity and justice are hard to hold together. We often hear said, "You're sacrificing justice for unity!" And the rejoinder from some, "But how can we know what true justice is without unity?" It's a problem for bishops! (Laughter)

Of course, bishops are not the only Christians who have to balance those kinds of tensions and potential conflicts. The vows by which you are bound in baptism, also ask two questions, among others. "Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayer?" But also, "Will *you* strive for justice and peace among *all* people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"

What if the heritage of the apostles, the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith" you profess, is perceived by some as standing in the way of justice? Disrupting peace among people, and disrespecting the dignity of at least some human beings? What if unity and justice appear to be in conflict? What then?

Well, it can be...anxiety producing. (Laughter). It can be *excruciatingly* anxiety-producing. But then Jesus has something to say about anxiety in today's gospel, doesn't he? He says to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. If God so clothed the grass of the field, which is alive today, and thrown into the over, how much more will he clothe you? You of little faith! For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows you need them. Instead, strive for God's Kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

One of the great gifts I have found over my years as a bishop, and it did not always feel like a gift--but one of the great gifts that I have discovered in these years, in trying to face squarely into the contradictions, or at least the tensions within our faith, is that eventually, it throws one back upon the sheer mercy and love and grace of God. Because sometimes, that's the only place you have to go. It throws one back upon that primary relationship between ourselves and our God. We *cannot* always figure it out. Our structures are not always up to the task. And doing things the way we've always done them will not always be sufficient in this post-modern age in which we are called to minister.

The good news is, we don't have to figure it out. Jesus has given us the Holy Spirit to lead us, guide us, prod us into all truth--it just may not be on our timetable. Believe it or not, the Christian church is not *all* about structures. (Laughter). The Christian church is, dare I say it, is not even all about instruments of unity. (Laughter.) The Christian church is about *being* the body of Christ.

The church has never had it all figured out. The body into which you and I were baptized has been growing and adapting and evolving from New Testament times until today, and it always will be, until that last, great day.

The important thing to remember, my dear brother Tom, and my dear sisters and brothers, is to try to keep the main thing the main thing. Try to keep the main thing the main thing in the midst of all our busyness and our confusion and even sometimes our near-despair, nothing must get in the way of our basic spiritual disciplines as Christian people: Daily prayer. Bible study. Weekly Eucharist. An annual retreat. And focussed attention on God's mission of reconciliation.

No matter what else you may do as a bishop, Tom--and you'll do many things--do *those* things. Daily prayer. Bible study. Weekly Eucharist. An annual retreat. And focussed attention on God's mission--we *know* you do those things now. Continue them. ... In order to keep the main thing the main thing.

And what is that main thing? According to Isaiah, it is to work for justice, in order to prepare the way for the kingdom of God. According to St. John, it is to keep the faith, and work for its unity and its discipline, in order to prepare the way for the kingdom of God. According to Jesus, it is actually to begin to live in that kingdom, under that reign and sovereignty of God *right now*--not to wait until we have it all together. Not to wait until we have it all figured out. But to throw ourselves now, today, afresh, upon the love, and the mercy, and the grace of God. To strive for God's kingdom, and to have confidence that all the rest will be given to us as well.

Take Back the Blog

2007-04-28T09:50:00.001-04:00

The Take Back the Blog blogswarm is today.

Clicking the logo will take you to the host page, but I'm including some of the basics below.

NEW: WHAT, EXACTLY, IS A BLOGSWARM? I cannot top this definition:
A "blogswarm" is when a bunch of people blog about the same crap ON PURPOSE! It is a premeditated thing, as opposed to the usual randomness that tends to rule the Internet. Order from chaos. Entropy. Call it whatever you want.
The goal is both to provide a convenient compilation of (undoubtedly excellent) content for readers' benefit and to make a show of strength and of organization within the blogosphere from bloggers with different perspectives towards common concerns.

If the term "blogswarm" does not appeal to you, that's ok! You can call it a "virtual march" or, if you contribute, anything you like!

NEW: HOW TO SUBMIT POSTS to the Take Back the Blog! Blogswarm. I have set up a new email address at:

TBTB2007@crablaw.com

solely to receive links for TBTB. If you don't have a blog, but want to contribute, email me and we will work something out. The "cut-off" time will be 7 PM on Saturday, April 28.

I'm off to the consecration now. Just me, and 2500 of my closest friends. Sigh...I *really* don't feel up to this, but I don't want to miss it either.

The church as a "public" institution

2007-04-24T00:14:00.001-04:00

As I mentioned yesterday, the Diocese of Southern Ohio has a new bishop, and his consecration will be this Saturday. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will come to Columbus to take part in the ceremony. So, ever since I knew this event was coming, it has been my intention to attend if at all possible. On Friday, I heard from my rector that there was indeed a ticket being held in my name. So, yay!

Well, maybe "yay" isn't quite the right word. I'm pleased that I will be able to attend, and I'm sure I'll be glad I did. But this is going to involve a number of things I *don't* particularly relish--crowds, trying to park at Ohio State, standing for extended periods of time...

Probably some incense, now that I think of it. (Wrinkles nose in anticipation)

Anyway, knowing that I had this event coming up, I knew couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear the bishop-elect speak at my church last night. And then, actually *having* something a little unique to blog about, I couldn't pass that up either, could I?

Tonight I'll share the first part of his talk, in which he addressed what it means for the church to be a public institution.

Rev. Breidenthal started by telling us that his most recent position was Dean of Religious Life at Princeton, which he said was a "fancy term for University Chaplain". Most of his work has been as a teacher in one way or another, with students of different ages and situations, and alongside other teachers. Speaking at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church and Univerisity Center, he said that it was a relief to be in a setting where he could say that proudly "without it being assumed that therefore I am unworldly". He noted that the university setting is, in fact, the intersection between many, many communities, where it is impossible to isolate oneself from the "real world".

About being "in communion": Communion is not a product of agreement, but has to do with staying at the table, respecting each other's arguments, and having reverence for the basic commitments that bring us together around the altar in the first place.

Breidenthal said that it was important for the church to be "public". When the Roman Christians emerged out of the catacombs, the first thing they did was build churches, and they built basilicas. He said these were the Roman version of today's mall--an enclosed forum with room for businesses, shops and vendors all around the edges, and a lot of space in the middle where public disputation could happen.

So it is significant that they, once they started to build churches, chose the basilica model, which was basically the agora, or public forum. Where God and God's people were interacting publicly and opening themselves to a world where there was really no reason you couldn't be part of that community as long as you were willing to be baptized. And to be baptized wasn't to enter a community, it was to be expelled from any community that was exclusive.

We tend to think of baptism as inclusion, but in fact, the primary metaphor of baptism is birth, and birth is about expulsion into something large and scary...and public. And so, the early Christians at their best--they were able to be as crabby and exclusive as we are--but at their *best*, they understood the Gospel to be utterly practical to the world. And they understood the church, not primarily as a refuge, as a place of withdrawal from the world and safety from the world, but they viewed the church as a people in exodus--in exodus out of all of their exclusive and closed communities. This is what it meant to define ourselves as a people who included all people, without exception. That every possible non-universal identity was transcended by membership in the church.

So, one reason why I think that campus ministry, and churches that have strong and intentional campus ministries, why that's so important, is because the university recalls the church through its initial public witness. And parishes like St. Stephen's help remind other parishes that may be in danger of becoming *just* extended families, that however small or suburban they may be, they are, each of them, a gateway into the whole world. I like to think of going to church as not going inside, but actually going through the doors into something outside.

More to come, as I find the time, on topics such as ecumenism and interfaith relations--the hard, but necessary work of coming together, respectfully, in our diversity.

Blogging while female

2007-04-14T15:03:00.001-04:00

I first learned about the crass, insensitive remarks of Markos Moulitsas in this post by skippy, and later found a post by Steven D at Booman Tribune. In a later diary, Steven included what Markos actually said:

Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial shit, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats". [...]

But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.

Since last night, I saw that skippy had updated his post with the following:

addendum: feminazi, commenting over at echidne's blog, asks this question:

i sent a email to http://www.mothertalkers.com/contactus asking them why they support misogynists through advertising. why don't you do the same?

good idea!

Except, I don't know how much choice they have, given that you see *this* at the bottom of the home page on that blog:

© 2005, Kos Media, LLC

I may be only a C-rate blogger (on a good day), but what do we *usually* do when we want to hold a public figure accountable for something they've said? Isn't it usually *their* advertisers that we write to? Or how about writing to some of the politicians and public figures who post diaries at Daily Kos. This Wikipedia article has a list.

I wouldn't recommend this if Markos' remarks were a one time thing, but as shirlstars' comment here indicates, this is part of a pattern of behavior.

See also:
How not to be an asshole: a guide for men
Why the lack of concern for Kathy Sierra ?
Take Back the Blog! March, a My Left Wing essay by Bruce Godfrey of Crablaw's Maryland Weekly.

Finally, as I noted here, I really haven't had it in me to do much blogging lately, and I'm still not feeling all that verbose at this point. But I do consider this to be an important issue, and, even if I don't manage to blog more about it, I'm going to make a point of adding relevant entries to my page of Google shared items, which you can find here.

Blog Against Theocracy, April 6-8

2007-04-06T18:33:00.000-04:00

Read about this weekend's blogswarm here.

"Radical welcome"

2007-03-27T19:44:00.000-04:00

Last night I started to write up some of what Tanya Erzen said at the presentation she gave at my church the other night, which was about the two years she spent studying the "ex-gay" movement and how it fits into the agenda of the "Christian right". But, man, was some of that stuff depressing and anger-inducing. So I decided to share some other things first, which fit in with the notion of churches (and individuals) practicing "radical welcome".

Radical welcome kicks welcome to the next level. It asks, Who would never even come to the door, because they are so sure we will not receive them, and because, historically, we have not?

Click here to read Now *that's what I call "good news"!

Episcopal bishops reject ultimatum

2007-03-21T23:09:00.000-04:00

Episcopal bishops reject ultimatum from Anglican leaders

Episcopal bishops risked losing their place in the global Anglican family Wednesday by affirming their support for gays and rejecting a key demand that they give up some authority to theological conservatives outside the U.S. church.

In strong and direct language, the Episcopal House of Bishops said it views the Gospel as teaching that "all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants" in the church. The bishops also said they would not agree to an Anglican plan for leaders outside the U.S. denomination to oversee the small number of conservative American dioceses that disagree.

Read the rest here.

Wish I had time to write something about this, but I only just learned the news when Demetrius read me the headline on Yahoo, and I have to get to sleep soon. But I've pulled together a few links...

An Important Letter from The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson

Presiding Bishop's homily at House of Bishops' closing Eucharist

From Father Jake: House of Bishops to Primates: "NO!"

Integrity Applauds Bishops' Strong Stand Against Primates

Site update

2007-03-18T14:54:00.000-04:00

FYI, to anyone who might be reading, I have just upgraded the template for this blog, and some things were lost in the move. I will be adding them back as soon as I can.

Living together in different worlds

2007-03-18T09:48:00.001-04:00

Also at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing, ePluribus Media and Street Prophets

It was just this week that I discovered the 60 Minutes segment on Daniel Tammet. I guess it came to the forefront due to Pi Day, which was on the 14th. Via Yahoo, 60 Minutes segment on Daniel Tammet

Meet Daniel Tammet, a 27 year-old math and memory wizard. He can do things with numbers that will truly amaze you. He is a savant. . . with a difference. Unlike most savants, he shows no obvious mental disability, and most importantly, he can describe his own thought process. Join correspondent Morley Safer as he explores the extraordinary life and mind of Daniel Tammet.

He, like our son, has Asperger's Syndrome. Demetrius and I watched one of the video segments together yesterday morning. In the evening, one of the mothers at Son in Ohio's social skills group had a copy of Daniel Tammet's book, Born on a Blue Day: Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant. I'm very interested in reading the book, but in the meantime I'd like to share a bit of what I've found captivating about Daniel's story. And it's not the "gnarly number powers" that many people focus on, but rather how he experiences the world differently. His anxiety:

That anxiety keeps him close to home. He can’t drive, rarely goes shopping, and finds the beach a difficult place because of his compulsion to count the grains of sand. And it manifests itself in other ways, like making a very precise measurement of his cereal each morning: it must be exactly 45 grams of porridge, no more, no less.

When Son in Ohio was 4, he was obsessed with the number 4, having 4 of anything, etc. It was imperative that we park on level 4 of the parking garage at the library, or he would have a "meltdown". Crying, absolutely beside himself. I have to admit, I found it hard to be sympathetic. He had a little sister who was two, and with kids that age, any outing can be a challenge. So, once we'd finally arrived at our destination, to have the level we park on become a life or death issue?

But as time went on, and we learned that his difficulties were due to Asperger's Syndrome, we had a better understanding of the importance of order and control. In a world that seemed chaotic, unpredictable, and alien, it helped to have a handle on something that was reliable, orderly, and unchanging. I had to smile when I heard Daniel Tammet say that "numbers are his friends", because Son in Ohio's imaginary friend was named "Mr. Alphabet". The alphabet was his longest running special interest, spanning the course of several years, but others included states and capitals, planets, and rainbows.

Rainbows? That one threw us initially. But rainbows were always the same, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. Well, they are *supposed* to always be the same. But there are plenty of people out there who have no idea how vile an offense they are committing when they omit Indigo. You do *not* want to leave colors out, or there will be hell to pay! Oh, and if you're doing an alphabet book, don't even *think* of cheating on the letter X--saying it is for eXtraordinary or some nonsense like that. If our son found a new alphabet book at the library, the first thing he did was flip to X to see if they used a real X word. But I digress--the point is that all of his special interests were orderly systems of one kind or another, and that seemed to provide a measure of comfort.

Here's the other segment from the interview that really caught my attention:

But at the end of the day—genius or not—that brain does work a little differently.

"One hour after we leave today, and I will not remember what you look like. And I will find it difficult to recognize you, if I see you again. I will remember your handkerchief. And I will remember you have four buttons on your sleeve. And I'll remember the type of tie you're wearing. It's the details that I remember," Tammet tells Safer.

This brought to mind the time when our son attended summer "day camp" in the same classroom where he'd gone to preschool that year. Exact same classroom, but different teachers. When I arrived to pick him up at the end of that first day, he remarked to me, "Sarah is calling herself 'Donna' now." Now, "Sarah" and "Donna" did indeed have some similar features, such as hair color and length, and the fact that they both wore glasses. But I imagine most kids would said, "My new teacher looks a lot like the teacher I had before" or something like that. The fact that he went straight for the conclusion, "Apparently my teacher changed her name" was one of our first big clues that the world did indeed *look* different to our son, because he naturally focussed on different things.

Our son lives with us in our home, but in a way we live in different worlds. Of course, we could say that for any two people, but we don't think of that most of the time. I think most of the time we assume we are operating on the basis of some shared reality. But we learned over time that our son did *not* experience the world in the same way we did. Looking back, I feel a little bad about not being more patient in dealing with some of those early fixations and sensitivities. But then again, I was navigating in uncharted territory myself.

One of the memories that stands out from right before our son's diagnosis is another mother suddenly running up to me and screaming that my son had knocked her child down. I was completely blindsided and never did figure out what happened. My attention at that moment had been on my daughter, who was in a toddler gymnastics class, and I'd been helping her walk across a balance beam. The other woman was in full "protective mother mode" and that's understandable as her child was smaller than my son. But at that moment I felt utterly confused, helpless, and clueless about how to respond. No doubt the world of parenting I experienced was very different from hers.

Wrap this thing up with some sort of conclusion? I wish. For now, all I've got is that we really need to work on being gentle to each other, because we have no idea what kind of world our neighbor might be inhabiting.
----
More links about Daniel Tammet:

Transcript of the 60 Minutes Segment here.
Audio on NPR's Talk of the Nation: A Look at an Autistic Savant's Brilliant Mind
Daniel Tammet's website and blog
From the Science Channel (includes more video) Brainman.

War protest at National Cathedral

2007-03-14T13:31:00.001-04:00

This action alert is from Faith in Public Life

3,500 Christian Leaders from 48 States to Protest War at National Cathedral, Mass Arrests Expected at White House

(Washington, DC) – Christian Peace Witness for Iraq will begin with a worship service on Friday, March 16 at Washington National Cathedral to be attended by more than 3,500 people of faith from 48 states, followed by a candlelight procession through the center of our nation’s capital, where thousands will surround the White House bearing the light of peace, and 700 will risk arrest by remaining in prayer in front of the White House. The service begins at 7 p.m., and the White House vigil will begin at 10:30 p.m. It will be the largest Christian peace demonstration, as well as the largest single civil disobedience action at the White House, since the beginning of the Iraq war four years ago.

More than 190 Christian and interfaith peace vigils and actions will also be held around the country in conjunction with Christian Peace Witness for Iraq-- including large-scale acts of moral civil disobedience organized by Christian Peace Witness coalition member group the Declaration of Peace .

WHAT: Christian Peace Witness National Cathedral Worship Service, Procession and Action at White House

WHEN: March 16, 2007 at 7pm

WHERE: The National Cathedral
Massachusetts and Wisconsin Avenues, NW
Washington, D.C. 20016-5098

WHO: Features speakers include:

Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and author of God’s Politics

Taylor Branch, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of America in the King Years and a Presbyterian Elder

Rev. Raphael Warnock, Pastor, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Ga.

Dr. Bernice Powell Jackson, President of the North American Conference of the World Council of Churches.

Rick Ufford Chase, convener of Christian Peace Witness for Iraq’s steering committee and former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.

Celeste Zappala, a United Methodist and founding member of Gold Start Families Speak Out, whose son was killed in Iraq in April 2004

SPONSOR ORGANIZATIONS: Adventist Peace Fellowship, American Friends Service Committee, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Brethren Witness, Catholic Peace Fellowship, Christian Alliance for Progress, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Declaration of Peace, Disciples Justice Action Network, Disciples Peace Fellowship, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, Every Church a Peace Church, Faith in Public Life; Kairos: A Time to Speak, A Time to Act; Kirkridge Retreat and Study Center, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Peace and Justice Support Network of Mennonite Church USA, National Council of Churches, No2Torture, On Earth Peace, Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service, Pax Christi USA, Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship, Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, Protestants for the Common Good, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

The meaning of a "Black Value System"

2007-03-05T17:51:00.001-05:00

This is related to my post about A Black Theology of Liberation from the other day. In addition to the overview link I posted, I had also looked at a PDF that went into detail about what is meant by a Black Value System. This part stood out to me, and I think I heard it echoed when listening to Barack Obama speaking at an event in Selma commemorating the voting rights march that took place there 42 years ago.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor's control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us".

So, while it is permissible to chase "middle-incomeness" with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method-the psychological entrapment of Black "middleclassness": If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our "voluntary" contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

Anyway, I thought that excerpt was worthy of some reflection. In yesterday's post, I linked to the lively exchange between Sean Hannity and Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, about whether Trinity United Church of Christ espoused a "radical separatist" agenda. What I failed to mention at the time is that I do "get" why many White people are uncomfortable with the wording Hannity referred to from the church's web site--commitment to the Black family, the Black community, etc. Hannity asked, wouldn't it sound racist if you substituted the word White--if there was a church that openly stated it was all about supporting and strengthening the White community.

And I can't judge him for asking that. I've wondered the same thing in the past. Wright responded that churches have been that way for ages--White by default. White is "generic" to many of us, so we don't even use the word as a descriptor when we are describing a new person we met, for example. But that's not an easy concept to "get". It's going to take some serious thoughtful discussion among people of good will. Which means, and this is just a guess, it will likely be taking place somewhere other than Sean Hannity's television program.

A word of hope from Bishop Gene Robinson

2007-03-01T00:24:00.000-05:00

Crossposted at the Independent Bloggers' Alliance

In the past week or so, I've been watching for any word from Bishop Gene Robinson in response to the communique that came our of the recent meeting of the Anglican primates in Tanzania. This evening, I learned that he has written this in response to a plea he received for a "word of hope"...

Let’s remember that, for now, nothing has changed. The Episcopal Church has been bold in its inclusion of us, “risking its life” for us in dramatic ways over these last few years. Not perfect, but bold. Just because The Episcopal Church has been invited to subvert its own polity and become a Church ruled by bishops-only, a Church that is willing to sacrifice the lives and ministries and dignity of its gay and lesbian members on the altar of unity, does not mean that we are going to choose to do it. That is yet to be determined. Let’s not abandon hope simply because that is possible. The Primates have the right to make requests of us (nevermind the threatening tone of those requests). We do not have to accede to those requests in exactly the terms in which they are made.

Nothing is surprising in this development. None of us thought this issue was settled, did we? None of us expected our detractors to stop their efforts – whether their goals be genuinely about the authority of scripture and its playing out in our lives as Christians, or whether those goals have more to do with power and money and influence. (BOTH are represented in the actions taken.) We are fighting a larger battle here. As you have heard me say before, we are engaged in the beginning of the end of patriarchy. Did any of us believe that such a battle would be won without resistance? Did any of us believe there would be no more bumps in the road? Did any of us foresee smooth sailing into the future?

We still have countless allies. We are not engaged in this struggle alone. There are countless heterosexual members of this Church who now “get it.” They have heard our stories, felt our pain and taken up our cause as their own. There are countless heterosexual families who have joined The Episcopal Church (they are numerous in my own diocese) because they want to raise their children in such an inclusive Church. There are countless lgbt people who have come to our churches for the comfort and solace and grounding in Christ that we offer – and we dare not lose hope or momentum for them as well as ourselves.

Read the rest here. I don't really have any thoughts of my own to add, but am happy to hear from Bishop Gene. As I was searching for a word *from* him, Google searches yielded more than a few words written *about* him. I admire his strength and am thankful that he has the strong faith needed to carry him through times like these.

Also, click here for a transcript of Bishop Katharine's podcast this morning, and here for additional thoughts from Bishop Gene.

And I just gotta add, there is something about seeing that man's smile that just makes me feel a little better about the world. Thank you for that, +Gene.

Alternate link for comments

Table fellowship and Virginia ham

2007-02-18T14:45:00.000-05:00

I just don't seem to have the attention span or focus needed to keep up with multiple complex issues--especially at those times that I am working during the day. So while I've been focussed on how those with smaller blogs can find some way to cooperate in a way that is mutually beneficial, while still retaining their independence, I've completely lost track of some other things. For example, I had totally blanked on the fact that the bishops in the Anglican Communion were having a major meeting this week.

Via the Episcopal News Service, we have this story about Archbishop Peter Akinola and other archbishops of the "Global South" refusing to share Holy Communion with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Seven "Global South" archbishops refused to receive Holy Communion with their fellow Primates February 16, alleging that they were "unable to come to the Holy Table with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church because to do so would be a violation of Scriptural teaching and the traditional Anglican understanding."

Now, I have tremendous admiration for Bishop Katharine. Archbishop Akinola, not so much. But while my first thought was just about the "snub" aspect of the action. It was only a little later that it occurred to me the extent to which this action goes against something that was really central for Jesus. From the web site of The Center for Progressive Christianity:

It is probably no coincidence that many scholars today believe the stories about Jesus’s open table are considered some of the most authentic historical passages in the gospels, in part because they are so unique for the times. Marcus J. Borg wrote in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, “one of his (Jesus’s) most characteristic activities was an open and inclusive table.” (p.55) Later he notes that, “The inclusive vision incarnated in Jesus’s table fellowship is reflected in the shape of the Jesus movement itself.” (p. 56)

And on the subject of food, I found something interesting at a new blog called epiScope. The post is entitled "Virginia Ham", and it discusses the "unreasonable rift" in the Episcopal Church...

But in the present rift among our Episcopalian neighbors, one feels it is not so much deviant ideas, but how deviant behavior is defined. As we have recently seen, Virginians regard homosexuality as deviant and, I continue to insist, abhorrent. As we have also seen, they are loath to acknowledge this abhorrence, claiming, for the most part, they are constrained to obey the edicts inscribed in the book of Leviticus. Well, Leviticus prescribes dire consequences for any of us who fancy Virginia ham as well.

Good one--wish I'd thought of it. (Given that the most publicized recent rift in the Episcopal Church in the United States has been in the Diocese of Virginia.) More here.

Alternate link for comments

Just doing what the voices tell me...

2007-02-16T06:49:00.000-05:00

I used that line the other night in response to someone who has tried to "reason" with me about the futility of my latest internet project. I was being tongue in cheek, but I was also referring to something I've addressed before, in my story God, the Blue Puppy. As the mother of young children who watched Blue's Clues, I enjoyed the idea that God left little "clues" to let me know when I was on the right track toward fulfilling the purpose She has in mind for me.

Of course, now that my kids are 11 and 13, that show is a distant (sometimes pleasantly nostalgic) memory, so I don't talk about "God's Clues" any more. But from time to time I do feel "called", for lack of a better word, to take action. How do I know it's something I'm meant to do? 1. It feels out of character and scary. 2. The damn thing just won't go away. So, while I don't have a name for that insistent feeling that there is something I must do, there is an image/metaphor that seems to pop into my mind: Joan of Arc. Of course, the big problem with that...

...is that for Joan, it led to this.

And, you know, I am so not into that.

Of course I'm being metaphorical here--I don't expect to be barbecued. "Flamed" perhaps, in the good old-fashioned usenet sense, or potentially banned or reprimanded, depending on the site. Because the issue I currently feel that I must do something about, was spurred by the Orwellian-ly named Blogroll Amnesty Day. But it's not just about medium to small blogs being purged from the blogrolls of the "big dog" bloggers. It's about the increasingly evident consolidation of power that can be seen in some of the top ranking blogs. That's just wrong in my mind. The blogosphere has such potential to be truly democratic. As I wrote yesterday,

But the blogroll purge which, as I have already stated, does not affect me personally, has been the catalyst that prompted me to revisit some of these issues. Also an overarching issue that I have noticed over time: the man really tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, he's been quoted as saying that he is "not a leader" or that he's "just a guy with a blog". But on the other hand, he has often behaved like a very autocratic guy who just "happens" to have one of the most widely read blogs on the Democratic side of the aisle. And he has a great degree of power over what issues can see the light of day in front page posts.

This was starting to remind me of the situation with the mainstream media. They were controlled by interests other than "we the people", and they were too willing to play along with Bush during the buildup to the war in Iraq. They were also silent for far too long about the election integrity issues that many of us saw a mile away.

Anyway, in addition to work, digging out from the snow, and just generally the day to day responsibilities of an ordinary American who does *not* have ad space worth $9000 a week needs to keep up with, this is what I've been working on lately...

Puppy Bowl!

2007-02-03T22:41:00.000-05:00

I can't help myself--everywhere I look on the internets (well, the bloggy part of the internets, at least) I'm seeing posts about the Super Bowl. And I. just. don't. care.

Seriously, to care any less than I already do, I would probably need special equipment. But, not wanting to be left out of the fun completely, I thought I would post about the Puppy Bowl.

No, not that kind of bowl. I kid. This kind of Bowl...

Animal Planet has reinvented the Big Game with the cutest, fuzziest and - at times- fiercest players on the field. When we say "rookie" we aren't kidding - some of these athletes are just nine weeks old. From bulldogs to boxers and everything in between, it's a fantastic team playing in a spectacular brand-new stadium. Join us for tackles, fumbles and fouls on the third annual Animal Planet Puppy Bowl premiering Sunday, February 4, 3-6 p.m. ET with encore presentations at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. ET only on Animal Planet.

Click here for more.

Alternate link for comments

Douglas Adams speech excerpt

2007-01-27T15:36:00.001-05:00

The following is an excerpt from the Douglas Adams video I linked to in this post. Since I can't get a screen capture from the video, I'm including this image of Douglas Adams with his daughter, Polly.

The conclusion of Adams' talk on endangered species:

There is a kind of terrible irony that at the point that we are best able to understand and appreciate and value the richness of life around us, we are destroying it at a higher rate than it's ever been destroyed before. And we are losing species after species after species, day after day, just because we're burning the stuff down for firewood. And this is a kind of terrible indictment of our understanding.

But, you see, we make another mistake, because we think somehow, this is all right in some fundamental kind of way, because we think that this is all sort of "meant to happen".

Now let me explain how we get into that kind of mindset, because it's exactly the kind of mindset that the kakapo gets trapped in. Because, what has been a very successful strategy for the kakapo over generation after generation for thousands and thousands of years, suddenly is the wrong strategy. And he has no means of knowing, because he is just doing what has been successful up till then. And we have always been, because we're toolmakers, because we take from our environment the stuff that we need to do what we want to do and it's always been very successful for us--

I'll tell you what's happened. It's as if we've sort of put the "pause" button on our own process of evolution, because we have put a buffer around us, which consists of medicine and education and buildings, and all these kinds of things that protect us from the normal environmental pressures. And, it's our ability to make tools that enables us to do this.

Now, generally speaking, what drives speciation, is that a small group of animals gets separated out from the main body by population pressure, some geographical upheaval or whatever. So imagine, a small bunch suddenly finds itself stranded ina slightly colder environment. Then you know, over a small number of generations that those genes that favor a thicker coat will come to the fore and you come back a few generations later, and the animal's got a thicker coat.

Man, because we are able to make tools, we arrive in a new environment where it's much colder, and we don't have to wait for that process. Because we see an animal that's already got a thicker coat and we say we'll have it off him. (Laughter.)

And so we've kind of taken control of our environment, and that's all very well, but we need to sort of be able to rise above that process. To rise above that vision and see a higher vision--and understand the effect we're actually having.

Now imagine, if you will, an early man, and let's see how this mindset comes about. He's standing, surveying his world at the end of the day. And he looks at it and things, "This is a very wonderful world that I find myself in. This is pretty good. I mean, look, here I am, behind me is the mountains, and the mountains are great. Because there are caves in the mountains where I can shelter, either from the weather or from bears that occasionally come and try to attack me. And I can shelter there, so that's great. And in front of me is the forest, and the forest is full of nuts and berries and trees, and they feed me, and they're *delicious* and they sort of keep me going. And here's a stream going through which has got fish in it, and the water's delicious, and everything's *fantastic*.

And there's my cousin Ug. And Ug has caught a mammoth! Yay!! (Clapping). Mammoths are terrific! There's nothing greater than a mammoth, because you can wrap yourself in fur from the mammoth, you can eat the meat of the mammoth, and you can use the bones of the mammoth, to catch other mammoths!

Now this world is a fantastically good world for him. And, part of how we come to take command of our world , to take command of our environment, to make these tools that we need, is that we ask ourselves questions all the time. So this man starts to ask himself questions. "This world" he asks himself, "so, who made it?" Now, of course he thinks that, because *he* makes things himself, so he's looking for someone who will have *made* this world. "So, who would have made this world?" he thinks. "Well, it must be something a little bit like me. Obviously *much much* bigger, and (glancing up) necessarily invisible, but he would have made it. Now, *why* did he make it?"

Now, we always ask ourselves "why" because we look for intention around us, because *we* do things with intention. We boil an egg in order to eat it. So, we look at the rocks and we look at the trees, and we wonder what intention is here, even though it doesn't have intention. So we think, what did this person who made this world intend it for. And this is the point where you think, "Well, it fits *me* very well. You know, the caves and the forests, and the stream, and the mammoths. He must have made it *for me*!"

I mean, there's no other conclusion you can come to. And it's rather like a puddle waking up one morning--I know they don't normally do this, but allow me, I'm a science fiction writer (laughter). A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks "Well, this is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact, it fits me *so* neatly, I mean, *really* precise, isn't it? (Laughter) It *must* have been made to have me in it!" And the sun rises, and he's continuing to narrate the story about this hole being made to have him in it. The sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking, and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it's still thinking, it's still trapped in this idea, that the hole was there *for* it. And if we think that the world is here *for us*, we will continue to destroy it in the way in which we have been destroying it, because we think we can do no harm.

There's an awful lot of speculation one way or another at the moment, about whether there's life on other planets or not. Carl Sagan, as you know, was very keen on the idea that there *must* be. The sheer numbers dictate, because there are billions and billions and billions, as he famously did *not* say, in fact, of worlds out there, so the chance must be that there's other intelligent life out there. There are other voices at the moment saying that if you look at the circumstances here on earth, they are *so* extraordinarily specific that the chances of there being something like this out there, are actually pretty remote.

Now, in a way it doesn't matter. Because think of this--Carl Sagan, I think, himself, said this. There are two possibilities: either there is life out there on other planets, or there is no life out there on other planets. They are both *utterly* extraordinary ideas! But, there is a strong possibility that there isn't anything out there remotely like this. And we are behaving as if this planet, this *extraordinary*, utterly, utterly extraordinary little ball of life, is something we can just screw about with any way we like.

And maybe we can't. Maybe we *should* be looking after it just a little bit better. *Not* for the world's sake--we talk rather grandly about "saving the world". We don't have to save the world--the world's fine! The world has been through five mass extinctions. Sixty-five million years ago when, as it seems, a comet hit the earth at the same that there were vast volcanic eruptions in India, which saw off the dinosaurs, and something like 90% of the animals on the planet at the time. And another 150 million years earlier than that, another giant, giant, giant extinction. The world has been through it many times before, and what tends to happen, what happens invariably after each mass extinction, is that there's a huge amount of space available, for new forms of life suddenly to emerge and flourish into. Just as the extinction of the dinosaurs made way for us. Without that extinction, we would not be here.

So, the world is fine. We don't have to save the world--the world is big enough to look after itself! What *we* have to be concerned about, is whether or not the world we live in, will be capable of sustaining *us* in it. *That's* what we need to think about. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. (Applause).

Alternate link for comments

"America Says No" Rallies

2007-01-11T12:25:00.000-05:00

So, whatever happened to the notion that "Elections have consequences"? George W. Bush, after his narrow "victory" over John Kerry in 2004, claimed that he had a mandate to press forward with his agenda, rather than trying to work in a more bipartisan manner. You know, "Reach across the aisle"? Apparently that is only considered an admirable trait when it's Democrats that are in power.

The midterm elections have been described by many as being driven largely by public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. From those elections to any public opinion poll I've seen, the message from the American public has been a resounding "No!" to the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. Bush's response has been the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "La la la la la!"

For anyone who is not aware of this...

Volunteers will host actions in cities and towns across the country within 24 hours of the president’s speech with a simple message: "America says NO more troops in Iraq!”

I will be the first to admit that I am tired of trying to oppose a president who is so bound and determined to ignore and isolate any voices outside of his small circle of "yes men" (and women). Do I believe that we can change his mind on the escalation of the war in Iraq, announced last night in a special address to the nation? Sadly, no.

But the world is watching us, and I think it would be a sad commentary on American apathy if these rallies were sparsely attended. What does that say to people in other nations (who used to hold our country in such high regard) if our response to Bush acting in direct opposition to our will, is, "Yeah, whatever."

Click here to find a vigil or rally in your area.

Alternate link for comments

A prayer for the new year

2006-12-31T09:21:00.000-05:00

Holy Mother...Loving Father...
Source of All That Is...
Oh--You know who You are!

That daughter You gave me said a funny thing yesterday:
"It seems like God has gotten shy over the years"
(Meaning You don't talk to people like in the "old days")

I said I wasn't sure that was true--
that sometimes it just doesn't get written down
Sometimes people aren't sure it's really You
(Or are afraid to believe that it is)

And I told her of the time I heard from you
(or one of Your "people")
"Help heal the world" were the words I heard
while lying in bed early that morning
And then You held me close

Maybe I imagined that, but it didn't matter
The words felt real enough, and the need for healing was real,
so I promised that I would
Later I learned about tikkun olam,
the Hebrew phase which translates to "repairing the world"

That confirmed the notion that the call to help heal the world was true and real...

It's also impossible

There can never be enough glue, tape, bandages, needles and thread, hammers and nails, hope, patience, and love, to get the job done

I suppose that's why the baptismal vows say, "I will, with God's help"

So as we begin a new year, I ask again for Your help
Help me to find the strength, energy, and love to keep working
to mend that which is broken,
both in myself and in the world You entrusted to our care.

Alternate link for comments

On Poverty

2006-12-29T13:39:00.000-05:00

I strongly recommend reading Christy Hardin Smith's post Bringing Poverty to the Table. Yes, as I suspected, the post was prompted by Edwards' announcement yesterday. But even if you support a different candidate, please read. As Christy noted at the end of the piece:

That it has taken a Presidential candidate standing up and talking about this issue to get it back on the front pages of newspapers — at least for the day yesterday — is unconscionable. But at least people are talking about it again, and for that I applaud John Edwards for sticking to a topic that all of us need to be talking about much more frequently.

I don't have a candidate to support yet, as Gore still seems unwilling to run, Feingold has said he won't, and Howard Dean is a man of his word, who promised not to run if elected chair of the DNC. But poverty is one of those uncomfortable, dauntingly big and complex issues that tends to get swept under the rug by the majority. Maybe it's a bit like global warming in that respect. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were graphic examples of the urgency of both issues--we can't afford to ignore either. So I will join Christy in applauding Edwards getting poverty back into the headlines, even for one day. But I hope it will be for longer than that. Hopefully other candidates and officeholders will join him.

And I don't say this as a supporter of any political candidate. I say it as a human being. I also say it as an Episcopalian who is proud of my new Presiding Bishop who insists on keeping the focus on this issue, in spite of the efforts of others to shift the attention back to issues of human sexuality. From an interview in June of 2006:

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: We need to be examining the poverty that is real around the world. We need to be examining the fact that our brothers and sisters, Anglican and not, in places like Africa and Asia don't have enough to eat. Their children don't have the opportunity to go to school. AIDS and tuberculosis and malaria are rampant in many parts of this world and people with those diseases don't have access to adequate health care. That's where our focus needs to be.

And, from a description of Katharine Jefferts Schori's book, scheduled to be released in January...

Grounding her reflections in a theology of the reign of God—‘God’s dream for creation’—she dares to ‘dream big’ herself, casting a vision of a world without poverty and hunger, where we all recognize our interdependence with every other child of God.

Jefferts Schori's book can be preordered here.

And I have heard those words echoed by Bishop Gene Robinson, and by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and by many other people I respect and admire. I hope that more and more people will talk about it--especially people who have an audience. And when people try to distract us with something shiny, I hope that we will redirect, and bring the discussion back to issues of vital importance for our human family.

(Also posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and Street Prophets)

Update: I just discovered that Part II of Christy's discussion of poverty is now posted at FDL.

Alternate link for comments

Oplatki

2006-12-26T11:04:00.000-05:00

Here's a required part of Christmas when celebrated with my Mom's family:

One of the most beautiful and most revered Polish customs is the breaking of the oplatek. The use of the Christmas wafer (oplatek) is not only by native Poles in Poland but also by people of Polish ancestry all over the world.

The oplatek is a thin wafer made of flour and water. For table use, it is white. In Poland, colored wafers are used to make Christmas tree decorations. In the past, the wafers were baked by organists or by religious and were distributed from house to house in the parish during Advent. Today, they are produced commercially and are sold in religious stores and houses. Sometimes an oplatek is sent in a greeting card to loved ones away from home.

Family members extend oplatki (plural--oplatek is the singular) to one another, and break pieces off, offering good wishes and blessings for the coming year.

Every year we know that Oplatki Time is coming. It's awkward--like knowing you will be required to give a mini-speech to people you haven't seen since last year. Every year someone jokes about not doing it, or tries to barter it down to just holding up the wafers and making one big communal Christmas wish/blessing. But we always do the thing. It's tradition, dang it.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to Heifer in my Mom's honor. She was really surprised, and quite touched. Will share more later, but now it's family time.

Countering Anti-Muslim bigotry

2006-12-22T15:14:00.000-05:00

Note: I started this post at the beginning of the month and then got very busy with Christmas preparations and various events for the kids. But today, after more recent developments, such as Virginia Represenative Virgil Goode's letter about the importance of tightening immigration restrictions to avoid an "influx of Muslims", I decided I'd better post it.

What I wrote earlier this month...

From Yahoo News: In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep

When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.

Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans."

At the end of the one-hour show, rich with arguments on why visual identification of "the threat in our midst" would alleviate the public's fears, Klein revealed that he had staged a hoax. It drew out reactions that are not uncommon in post-9/11 America.

A video of news segment about this story can be seen at Crooks and Liars.

Here is a link to some columns by Dr. Asma Mobin Uddin, a Columbus area pediatrician and member of the Muslim faith. She makes public appearances (one at my church a couple years ago) to help people learn more about the misunderstood and sometimes mistrusted faith to which she belongs, has written columns for the Faith and Values section of the Columbus Dispatch, and has written a children's book, My Name is Bilal...

Synopsis:
Bilal worries about being teased by his classmates for being Muslim. He thinks maybe it would be better if people don't know he is Muslim. Maybe it would be best if he tells kids his name is Bill rather than Bilal. Then maybe they would leave him alone. Mr. Ali, one of Bilal's teachers and also Muslim, sees how the boy is struggling. He gives Bilal a book about the first person to give the call to prayer during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. That person was another Bilal: Bilal Ibn Rabah. What Bilal learns from the book forms the compelling story of a young boy wrestling with his identity.

Alternate link for comments

What part of "all" don't these people understand?

2006-12-21T10:02:00.000-05:00

Some disheartening stories I've seen recently...

Congressman Fears Influx of Muslims
Right Wing Questions Obama's Loyalty

I know I've posted these words from Bishop Desmond Tutu before, but apparently it's a lesson that needs repeating before it really sinks in.

And, God says, God says, "Yes, I do have a dream. Like, Martin Luther King, Jr." God says, "I, too, have a dream. I dream that my children one day will discover that they are family."

Now, that, actually, is not sentimental. It's one of the most radical things that Jesus ever uttered: "They are family." Family, you don't choose your relatives. Sometimes you wish you could. Family: a gift from God to you. And you: a gift to them from God.

And, in this family, there are no outsiders. Just all, all… all belong. It's an incredibly radical thing. All, all, all. You see, when Jesus spoke about… "If I be lifted up, I will draw…" he didn't say I will draw some. He didn't say I will draw some. He said, "I will draw all, all into this incredible divine embrace of love." All. Beautiful, not so beautiful. Tall; stumpy, like me. … Rich, poor, white, black, red. All, all, all, all. All belong. All. All. Gay, lesbian, so-called straight, all. [Laughter and applause.] All, all. All. All. [Applause.] All. All. All. All. All. Sharon, Arafat, all. Roman Catholic, Protestant in Northern Ireland. All. All. All. Bush, bin Laden. All. It's quite serious because, you see, God has no enemies.

By the way, one way to help those family members who are living in hunger and poverty, is through a donation to Heifer International. I've set up a page, with a modest goal of $250, here.

Alternate link for comments

Art, worship, and action

2006-12-19T10:29:00.000-05:00

The image you see above is entitled "O War-Torn Town of Bethlehem", and it can be found at the Episcopal Church and Visual Arts Exhibition online. Click here for the entry page of the "Unto us a Child is Born" section. As I was paging through the gallery, I had a hard time deciding which picture I wanted to post. Different images can "speak" to different people. But I think art can touch us on a level that words can't.

And music can certainly be powerful, inspiring, and motivating. Long story short, I found myself irritated with The Daily Show's segment on the U2Charist. Yes, I get that it's a funny name. But having attended such a service this past summer, I know that these services are designed to help get people feeling inspired and empowered about going forth and helping to right some of the wrongs in the world. At the service I attended, there was a lot of emphasis on the Millennium Development Goals. That's something I take very seriously, and getting more people to care about things like "eradicating extreme poverty and hunger" is a *very* good thing. So I was a tad annoyed when the segment *only* portrayed it as something silly and laughable.

Anyway, I realize the job of the folks at the Daily Show is to make people laugh. But now I feel like it's *my* job to make sure people know what the U2Charist is really about.

Here's a page on the Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation web site that tells a bit about how the U2Charist might be used...

A U2charist is an Episcopal Eucharist service that features the music of the rock band U2 and a message about God's call to rally around the Millennium Development Goals. The U2charist is a great opportunity to reach out to the people in your congregation and larger community, especially young people. This service the music and message of U2 about global reconciliation, justice for the poor and oppressed, and the importance of caring for your neighbor. Led by the global MDG ambassador, Bono, U2 is calling people worldwide to a deeper faith and engagement with God's mission. The U2charist seeks to be an extension of this ministry.

Who knows...maybe Jon can make up for this by having Bono, or, better yet, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, on the program to talk about the Millennium Development Goals. (Why not--he had Bishop Desmond Tutu on the program!)

Alternate link for comments

The "true on the inside" story of Our Lady of Guadalupe

2006-12-12T12:44:00.000-05:00

December 12 is the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here's a news story from the Houston Chronicle about today's festivities: Mexicans gather to honor the Virgin of Guadalupe on annual holiday. You can read the gist of the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe's appearance in 1531 to Juan Diego in this homily, given at the University of San Diego in the year 2000, tells the gist of the story.

...an elderly Indian man named Chuauhtlatoczin ["Juan Diego" in Spanish] had a vision of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at Tepeyac, a squalid Indian village outside of Mexico City. Mary directed Juan Diego to tell the bishop to build the church in Tepeyac. The Spanish Bishop, however, dismissed the Indian’s tale as mere superstition — he was, after all, an Indian — but then, to humor Juan Diego, he insisted that he bring some sort of proof, if he wanted to be taken seriously. So, three days later, the Virgin Mary appeared again and told Juan Diego to pick the exquisitely beautiful roses that had miraculously bloomed amidst December snows, and take them as a sign to the Bishop. When the Indian opened his poncho to present the roses to the Bishop, the flowers poured out from his poncho to reveal an image of the Virgin Mary painted on the inside of the poncho. That image hangs today in the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City and is venerated by thousands of pilgrims from all over the world.

While I was raised Catholic, I don't remember learning this story, or if I did, it didn't really register. Maybe that is because of the "otherness" of the characters involved. Mary of Nazarath, I now know, certainly was *not* blond and blue-eyed, but as a blond, blue-eyed child, that depiction seemed normal and familiar.

I only came to really read and ponder the story as an adult, having been officially received into the Episcopal church, and felt very much at home in my new church. But it was lacked any iconography of Mary, so I turned to other sources to feed that longing. The writing of Kathleen Norris, in particular, helped me come to terms with the significance of Mary from a more modern, feminist perspective than I had encountered in the past, and also introduced me to the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Here is an excerpt of her writing on the subject:

In a recent essay the writer Rugen Martinez lovingly articulates the paradoxes that enliven his sense of the officially sanctioned Mary of church doctrine, and, to borrow his phrase, the "Undocumented Virgin" of personal experience and legend, folktale, and myth. I should probably take this opportunity to make an aside and state that by "myth" I mean a story that you know must be true the first time you hear it. Or, in the words of a five-year-old child, as related by Gertrude Mueller Nelson in her recent Jungian interpretation of fairy tales and Marian theology, Here All Dwell Free, a myth is a story that isn't true on the outside, only on the inside.

Juan Diego was declared a saint by Pope John Paul II back in 2002, and I recall hearing news stories that there were doubts about the authenticity of the potential saint's story. I remember easily accepting the notion that the story was "used" as something like a marketing strategy to help convert the native people to Catholicism. And that may indeed be part of the truth. But it's not all of it. Kathleen Norris writes:

Mary's love and pity for her children seems to be what people treasure most about her, and what helps her to serve as a bridge between cultures. One great example of this took place in 1531, when the Virgin Mary appeared to an Indian peasant named Juan Diego on the mountain of Tepayac, in Mexico, leaving behind a cloak, a tilma, imprinted with her image. The image has been immortalized as Our Lady of Guadalupe, and Mexican-American theologian Virgilio Elizondo argues, in The Future is Mestizo, that the significance of this image today is that Mary appeared as a "mestiza," or person of mixed race, a symbol of the union of the indigenous Aztec and Spanish invader. What was, and still is, the scandal of miscegenation was given a holy face and name. As a Protestant I'll say it all sounds suspiciously biblical to me, recalling the scandal of the Incarnation itself, the mixing together of human and divine in a young, unmarried woman.

I'm getting used to the idea that nothing is as black and white as it first appears--indeed, to welcome and expect that. Here is another meditation on the meaning of the Virgin of Guadalupe, from Social Edge. Will Braun writes, in part:

As immigrant peoples in the Americas --or Turtle Island, as many indigenous people know it-- we live on ill-gotten land. Our homes and churches stand on land once home to others. Our spiritual histories must address this reality with honesty, grace, and compassion.

When I look at my postcard version of Our Lady of Guadalupe set beside my bed --as I often do-- I see a quiet and compelling invitation to redeem the historical legacy of colonialism in our lands and in our hearts. I let the image sink in. I let it inform my attitude to history and indigenous people, inspiring me to be as much like Our Lady of Guadalupe in posture and tone, and as little like the messianic conquistadors as possible.

Alternate link for comments

Robin Meyers' 2004 Peace March Speech

2006-12-11T11:21:00.000-05:00

When I posted the link to Robin Meyers' book last night, it hadn't yet occurred to me that I had read his words before. But further searching reminded me that he had given a powerful speech at a peace rally in 2004, which was posted and/or referenced on a number of progressive blogs. It can be found as a PDF here.

Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious.

Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith.

Robin Meyers is Senior Minister at Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City.

Just heard about this book

2006-12-10T21:34:00.000-05:00

...will have to check it out.
Why the Christian Right Is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future by Robin Meyers

From Bill Moyers:

"In the pulpit, Robin Meyers is the new generation's Harry Emerson Fosdick, George Buttrick, and Martin Luther King. In these pages, you will find a stirring message for our times, from a man who believes that God's love is universal, that the great Jewish prophets are as relevant now as in ancient times, and that the Jesus who drove the money changers from the Temple may yet inspire us to embrace justice and compassion as the soul of democracy. This is not a book for narrow sectarian minds; read it, and you will want to change the world."

Today is Human Rights Day

2006-12-10T09:51:00.000-05:00

Today is UN Human Rights Day so it seems like an appropriate time to post the UN Millennium Development Goals:

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a global partnership for development

I encourage everyone to read more about the goals, and do what you can to support them. And I will leave you with part of a sermon by Desmond Tutu:

And, God says, God says, "Yes, I do have a dream. Like, Martin Luther King, Jr." God says, "I, too, have a dream. I dream that my children one day will discover that they are family."

Now, that, actually, is not sentimental. It's one of the most radical things that Jesus ever uttered: "They are family." Family, you don't choose your relatives. Sometimes you wish you could. Family: a gift from God to you. And you: a gift to them from God.

And, in this family, there are no outsiders. Just all, all… all belong. It's an incredibly radical thing. All, all, all. You see, when Jesus spoke about… "If I be lifted up, I will draw…" he didn't say I will draw some. He didn't say I will draw some. He said, "I will draw all, all into this incredible divine embrace of love." All. Beautiful, not so beautiful. Tall; stumpy, like me. … Rich, poor, white, black, red. All, all, all, all. All belong. All. All. Gay, lesbian, so-called straight, all. [Laughter and applause.] All, all. All. All. [Applause.] All. All. All. All. All. Sharon, Arafat, all. Roman Catholic, Protestant in Northern Ireland. All. All. Bush, bin Laden. All. It's quite serious because, you see, God has no enemies.

Secondly, my enemy is not God's enemy. That's incredible: That we are family. And, if we are family, we are not doing our sisters and brothers a favor when we help them out of their poverty. The ethic of family: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. If we are family, how the heck do we justify spending as much as we do on what we call defense budgets? Budgets of death and destruction. [Applause.] When we know, we know full well that a minute fraction of those budgets would ensure that our sisters and brothers, those people out there, would have clean water to drink, would have enough food to eat, would have a decent education and health care, would have a safe environment in which to live. It's our sisters and brothers out there in those refugee camps. Those are not statistics. It is the mother of someone. It is the child of someone. Loved. And this God that we worship says, "I have no one, except you, to help me realize my dream."

Happy Bodhi Day

2006-12-08T21:19:00.000-05:00

During our family's nightly Advent candle lighting, I'm making a point of talking about the other "holidays of light" that are celebrated in different faith traditions. I know very little about Bodhi Day, so if anyone has anything to add, please do...

DEC-8: Bodhi Day (a.k.a. Rohatsu) is when Buddhist celebrate the enlightenment of the Buddha in 596 BCE.

He is said to have achieved enlightenment while sitting under a bodhi tree

Excerpted from a Bodhi Day sermon by Ryuei Michael McCormick

We should not think that this awakening is something that we must revere from afar. It is not that this Buddha is somehow set apart from us that makes him worth remembering. Instead, we should realize that the Buddha is important precisely because he was one of us, a human being who could and did wake up to a new vision of life and a new way of living in the world. What he did, we can do as well. The Flower Garland Sutra teaches that upon his awakening the Buddha thought, “I now see all sentient beings everywhere fully possess the wisdom and virtues of the enlightened ones, but because of false conceptions and attachments they do not realize it.”

It also says, “Then the Buddha observed all the beings of the cosmos with his pure unobstructed eye of wisdom and said, ‘How wonderful! How is it that these beings all have the wisdom of the enlightened ones, yet in their folly and delusions do not know or see it? I should teach them the right path to make them abandon illusion and attachment forever, so that they can perceive the vast wisdom of the enlightened ones within their own bodies and be no different from the Buddhas.’”

Some other links--not specifically about Bodhi Day, but I thought they were cool...

Walking with Peace and Presence

There's a video of Thich Nhat Hahn's "Peace is every step" walk in Los Angeles here, as well as a blog post about the experience.
by Thich Nhat Hanh

Alternate link for comments

Bodhi Day

2006-12-08T14:32:00.000-05:00

Today is Bodhi Day, and I've been planning to do something with that when we light our Advent candle as a family tonight. In the process, I found this...

I have arrived.
I am home.
In the here,
In the now.
I am solid.
I am free.
In the ultimate
I dwell.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Alternate link for comments

Rejoice (and celebrate diversity)

2006-12-07T15:56:00.000-05:00

I find the so-called "culture wars" with regard to saying "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" disheartening. Where's the joy in that?

Perhaps you've heard that Walmart has "learned its lesson" and has officially decided to rename their Holiday Shop, "The Christmas Shop." (And some other things--click the link.)

Yay--my holiday *totally* kicked all those other holidays' a$$es. We sure showed them! We're #1! We're #1!"

You knew that was sarcasm, right? This "victory" for Christmas leaves me cold. It's counter to everything I believe the season is meant to stand for.

This Advent, as our family takes time out each evening to light a candle and ponder something about this season, I'm trying to include things from the different "holidays of light". It takes some effort, because when I was growing up, I never really learned much about traditions other than my own.

So, I'm trying to learn more. Here's something I wasn't aware of until recently--December 8 is celebrated by some Buddhists as Bodhi Day, and honors the enlightment of Siddhartha Gautama.

So, what else are people celebrating at this time of year, and how are you celebrating?

Alternate link for comments

Happy St. Nicholas Day

2006-12-06T15:15:00.000-05:00

As Mahanoy at Street Prophets reminded us last night, today is the St. Nicholas Day. There are some stories about St. Nicholas on the Saint Nicholas Center web site. Tonight, at Advent candle time, I think I'll encourage the kids to think about how the stories can be "true on the inside"--what message these stories might have for us today.

Through the centuries many stories and legends have been told of St. Nicholas' life and deeds. These accounts help us understand his extraordinary character and why he is so beloved and revered as protector and helper of those in need.

One story tells of a poor man with three daughters. In those days a young woman's father had to offer prospective husbands something of value—a dowry. The larger the dowry, the better the chance that a young woman would find a good husband. Without a dowry, a woman was unlikely to marry. This poor man's daughters, without dowries, were therefore destined to be sold into slavery. Mysteriously, on three different occasions, a bag of gold appeared in their home-providing the needed dowries. The bags of gold, tossed through an open window, are said to have landed in stockings or shoes left before the fire to dry. This led to the custom of children hanging stockings or putting out shoes, eagerly awaiting gifts from Saint Nicholas. Sometimes the story is told with gold balls instead of bags of gold. That is why three gold balls, sometimes represented as oranges, are one of the symbols for St. Nicholas. And so St. Nicholas is a gift-giver.

More here. The image of Saint Nicholas seen above is from the gallery on the Saint Nicholas Center web site.

Alternate link for comments

Advent, continued

2006-12-05T11:09:00.000-05:00

After yesterday's post about Advent, I was inspired to create this card.

I'm still looking for suggestions of poems, songs, or other short pieces of writing that would be suitable for reflection along with our Advent candle lighting. I'd like to find a few things that are more generally invocative of the *themes* of Advent, but without the overtly religious language, in order to make it more accessible to my son, who is not a believer. (But I convinced him to come "along for the ride", by plying him with the little candies in the Advent calendar.)

Alternate link for comments

Taking time for pondering

2006-12-04T11:09:00.000-05:00

So, Christmas is coming again, huh? I was just remarking to my EfM group last night that I don't think I've experienced a single Christmas where I wasn't either a teacher or a student. Or if I did, I was probably a very new parent at the time. So at the time when I hear others talking about how they've done *all* their shopping already, or are at very least finishing it up, I'm in the midst of end-of-the-quarter/semester frenzy. "Soon..." I will quietly reassure myself. "Soon, I will be finished with what I'm working on, and will be able to turn my attention to the holidays."

But at the point when I am finally able to do that, some two weeks out from Christmas, all the ads are urging me to check out some "last minute gift ideas".

Last minute? No, this is hardly last minute--and believe me, I've *done* last minute! I've shopped on Christmas Eve more times than I can count. But still, those messages are out there, gently scolding me for not getting started sooner. (They have to do it "gently", of course, because they still want me to buy stuff).

And I say back to those messages, maybe not gently, but quietly, "Bite me."

The season of Advent is about waiting and preparing. The pre-Christmas frenzy of consumerism is about preparing, in rushing around, getting ready for the big day sense, but Advent is about preparing our hearts. I say this, not just to you, the readers, but as a way of reminding myself.

The liturgical season of Advent started yesterday, and I decided that this year, for the first time, we are going to do a nightly Advent ritual. I have always liked the idea of family rituals, but have never made a serious effort to start one and stick with it. Given the diversity of our family, though, I can't just take a pre-packaged ritual "off the shelf", but pretty much have to make one up.

I was raised Catholic, and am now Episcopalian. Demetrius was raised by Evangelical parents, but does not practice any faith tradition now (except, in a tongue-in-cheek way, the Church of the Restful Sabbath.) He appreciates hearing people share their stories from the journey. Humans are united in their search for meaning, wanting to make sense of the big picture, find reason for hope in dark times...

Son in Ohio, now 13, has been an "unbeliever" to some degree or another, almost from birth. His unbelief seems to be in inverse proportion to his perception that others to convince him to believe something, so I never push. But he's watched things like National Geographic Channel's Science of the Bible. We've talked, over the years, about the various "holidays of light" that are celebrated at this literally dark time of year. And we've talked about how there are some stories that are "true on the inside", whether or not one believes they are true on the outside, i.e., actually happened.

Daughter in Ohio, 11, has always been more religiously oriented than her brother. She doesn't attend Sunday school, but has been part of a church children's choir for 4 years. It's at a different church than the one I attend, which is kind of a hassle, I guess. In a perfect world, maybe our family would have a common place of worship. But it feels right to give everyone the space to do what best feeds their spirit/soul. I finally found a church that feels like "home" to me, but it's not the church that has the children's choir for my daughter, so we split our time between the two.

Yesterday was the first Sunday of the month, so she sang with her choir group:

Light one candle for hope, One bright candle for hope.
He brings hope to every heart, He comes, He comes...

Whether or not you believe that the biblical story of Jesus "really happened", there is something universal about the "hope in a dark time" theme at this time of year. That's one of the things I said last night as we lit the first candle on our makeshift Advent wreath. And I read part of the nativity story in Luke, emphasizing this verse:

But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.

And I said, whatever we believe, or don't believe, I think it's important at this busy, sometimes sensory-overloading time of year, to take time to ponder.

By the way, the quarter is *not* yet over--I still have to put finishing touches on an exam and grade some papers today. And I guess I need to run to the grocery store, because Demetrius is on a tight deadline and probably won't be able to get out. So I don't know yet what poem or song or piece of writing we will be pondering when we light our candle tonight, and am open to suggestions. ;)

Update: Via Father Jake Stops the World, a Meditation for Advent I. The song is "Quiet", by Paul Simon.

I've also really been appreciating (since discovering them only yesterday) the reflections of Sr. Claire Joy on her blog Flavor of the Month.

Alternate link for comments

Bishop Gene Robinson on wedge issues as distractions

2006-11-26T18:23:00.000-05:00

This is the third part of my transcription of Bishop Gene Robinson's talk at the Center for American Progress, when the host started to ask him some questions.
Part 1
Part 2

Wendy: In terms of the common good, one of the tensions, I think, with the common good, is I think exemplified in the General Convention. There was a nonbinding resolution that called on the church to exercise restraint by not consecrating future gay bishops. And something you said too, during the summer made me wonder about this. In an interview, you asked what was the most important thing the General Convention could do this summer, and you said that the United Nations Millennium Devel0pment Goals, which is something I really appreciated having worked some with the U.N. And you said, "I think God would have us be about taking care of the poor and marginalized in the world, and would actually be quite sad to see us obsessing over sex."

And so I wonder--one of the tensions, I think within the common good is that people sometimes tell people to wait on their individual rights or their group rights for "the common good". And I wonder how you handle that tension within discussions around the common good, and that sense of timing. And also I wonder if you could speak some to the issue of the right using sexuality issues as a tactic, as a wedge tactic to divide the coalition that you concluded on, that could possibly be put together.

Gene: In the last election, I think it was Barbara Boxer who said that she thought the debate on gay marriage was a "weapon of mass distraction". And I think that these sexuality issue debates that we are having is a massive effort to distract us from our mission. As a country--I mean, God forbid we should talk about Iraq, or the 45 million people who don't have healthcare, or, the list goes on and on and on. Better to talk about gay marriage, abortion, etc.

And I think the church is just as guilty of that, although I don't think the church is as conscious of what it's doing. I think in the political realm that's an absolutely intentional strategy. But I think that the church, while not planning to do so, has fallen into it. It's easier for us to fight about this issue than do the mission of the church.

The follow-up to the Mark story--Jesus comes back from the Syro-Phonecian woman thing, and it's the first time he starts talking about the cross, and how painful...whatever is in his mind about salvation and life with God and such, he starts saying, "You're going to have to pay a price for it." And you know what the disciples do? Twice--as soon as he says "This is going to be *really* hard, and you're going to have to pay a really big price", they start talking about who's going to sit on his left and his right in the Kingdom. And another discussion is "who's going to be the greatest?" And I read that to mean talking about the institution. Who's going to be one-up, who's going to have the best title, who's going to get "Right Reverend" in front of their name, you know? Who gets to wear the best vestments? (Points to himself and mouths "Me!" ;) )

We settled that! And I think in response to having to do the hard work of the Gospel, we retreat into something that's more familiar, safer, and is a wonderful distraction. So I think at the end of the day, the sexuality stuff is a distraction.

First of all, I think it's a distraction for straight people, from talking about their own sexuality. God forbid that we should *actually* talk about the state of marriage--the institution of marriage in the culture. And rather than talk about the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce, and what is *actually* tearing families apart (and there are all kinds of things tearing families apart) *I* have an idea--let's talk about gay marriage, and focus on that!

And, I think for the church, it is far earlier to talk about an openly gay bishop than it is to talk about what Jesus talked about, virtually more than *anything* else in the world, which is the plight of the poor. And so the reason I think that our embrace and our commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals is so important, is that it finally refocuses us on the mission of the church, instead of all this other stuff.

But, you know, I was pretty unglued by the decision our church made. My 0wn personal opinion is, I think we had a failure of nerve. I think that the kind of courage we had in 2003 was just simply not there. I also think we wanted to demonstrate in some way our commitment to the wider Anglican Communion, and our wanting to be in relationship with them. Obviously the sad part of that is that we were willing to do that on the backs of gay and lesbian people.

But, what I said to gay and lesbian people in our church was, I see this as pushing the pause button. We didn't push stop, and we didn't push reverse--we just pushed pause. There's no question in my mind where we're going. We just couldn't find the courage to go there this time.

So, the Millennium Development Goals are just so important, and you know what? If we start caring for the world's poor, alleviating the most extreme poverty. If we start supporting efforts to empower women and children. If we do the work that it will take to ease the suffering that's caused by malaria and HIV-AIDS and so on, if we're doing those things, we're going to be just fine. And if the institution changes, why should we be fearful of that? And why should a denomination, the Anglican Church, that got its *start* because of controversy and conflict, be afraid of change?

Click here for the whole video.

Alternate link for comments

Links to check out

2006-11-26T13:47:00.000-05:00

Just found out about this site--actually, I'd probably heard about it before and forgot about it--and thought I'd share.

http://www.buynothingchristmas.org

And it has a link to this, which also looks fascinating, and I am bookmarking to read later in more detail.

http://www.geezmagazine.org

Alternate link for comments

Gene Robinson on understanding what his opponents fear

2006-11-26T00:40:00.000-05:00

Part II of Bishop Gene Robinson's talk at the Center for American Progress...

So people are going to resist anxiety. People are going to resiste change. Change *always* involves anxiety, so why do we act as though that shouldn't be the case? Any time you're working to bring about change, you should not ask *are* people going to be upset, but when and where and how/ It's just simply going to happen. And somehow we keep acting as if that's a surprise.

I mean, I tell my clergy, if they aren't in trouble, then they're not preaching the Gospel. And that's a ditch I'm willing to die in for them. If I get complaints about clergy because they're preaching the hard stuff, I will go to the ends of the earth to support them in that. And if they're not in trouble, my guess is that they're preaching "Jesus, meek and mild" and not the Jesus we find in the Gospels.

...In this culture, and in this discussion about the common good and so on, I would say that we are these days much more apt to engage in debate than in dialog. The culture now is such that, politically--ugh--it has taken over. But I think just in normal discourse as well--when I listen to you, all I'm listening for are your weak points, so that I can come back at your weak points and win this discussion we're having. I'm not listening for your strongest points. I'm not trying to understand where you are, what your experience has been, what makes you think the way you do...I'm just looking for the place that I can pick you apart. So I'm listening for the *worst* that you have to say.

Wheras in dialog, it seems to me, I'm listening for the best that you have to say, and looking for some kind of common ground that would permit us to move forward together. I suppose it's just another version of "walking in someone else's moccasins", that's been so overused. But I just think that this "listening for the best" in the opposing arguments is a good thing.

So I have a suggestion for you, which is that you have a conference here, and that you invite two people on opposing sides of an issue, and get them to prepare the speech for the other side. Let each one of them speak, but let them speak as their opponent would speak. Kind of force them into thinking through what makes their opponents think the way they do.

Because the thing that keeps *me* as sympathetic as I'm able to be with my opponents, is to try to understand what makes them my opponents. First of all, those that oppose anyone gay or lesbian being ordained, much less a bishop, I remind myself that they're only believing what we've taught them for 3000 years. I mean, why should the last 10 or 20 years change their minds when they've got 3000 years of teaching behind that. Behind them, not behind me. So, why would that surprise me that they're holding onto that for dear life. That's one thing.

Second thing, it can be condescending, and maybe it is, but I'm just assuming they're coming from a place of fear. There is something about my election as bishop that scares them to death. And the closer I'm able to A) figure out what that is or--God forbid--ask them what that is--as best I'm able to determine what that is, it helps me be sympathetic to them in a way that allows me to stay in contact with them.

And to honor their integrity, because frankly, that will speak far louder than any words I will ever say. In a public setting, I *love* to get the tough question. I was speaking at Keane State College in Keane New Hampshire, and in the question and answer time, a young man stood up with a bible in his hand, open, of course, ready to read to me as I hadn't already that stuff, and ask this really tough question. And people in that audience afterwards, and to this day, remember that moment. Not because they remember what I said, but because of the way that I tried to treat him with the same kind of respect and human dignity as I expected from him. So I think that this "staying sympathetic" to what makes people fearful is just really, really important.

Lastly, I would say, I want to put this in a larger context. I think that the common good, the seeking of equal rights for all, the inclusion of every human being in our life, is about something really, *really* big, and makes it no wonder that we're experiencing the kind of resistance that we are. I think that we are experiencing the very early beginnings of the end of patriarchy. I think that's what people are unglued about.

For a very very long time, straight white western males have made most of the decisions for most of the world, and we're beginning to see the end of it. Finally, finally, finally, people of color are being brought to the table, finally women are being brought to the table, and now gay and lesbian people are being brought to the table. And *all* the voices of *all* the people are beginning to be at the table where those decisions get made. Is it any wonder that this patriarchal institution that we have, which has existed since the beginning of time, practically, is there any reason to wonder *why* there'd be so much resistance to that? I don't think so. I mean, we are trying to change something really, really big. And I can promise you, we will not see the end of it.

I mean, we may have ended slavery in the 19th century, and we may have had the civil rights movement in the 60s, but we *certainly* are not seeing the end of racism. And we may have had the women's liberation movement in the 70s, but does *anybody* think that sexism is over? And gay and lesbian people are still struggling for some of their *basic* rights, never mind a positive attitude in the culture. We're not going to *see* the end of it, but it's pretty darn exciting to see the *beginning* of the end of it. Because I think that's where we're going.

And until we get some straight white western males who "get it", and are also speaking out about this, we're not going to get too terribly far. The straight white western males who don't want to see this happen, are trying to keep us all divided. So that people of color, and women, and gay and lesbian people, and a whole host of others are fighting with one another over whose pain is greatest--who's had the rawest deal. And as long as they keep us divided, we're not going to be terribly effective in making these changes. Because if we were all united, we'd be the majority.

So I think it's a very exciting time. I can't *think* of any better time to be alive. And I also think that we ought to take *great* hope from that. The one criticism that I would have of the equal rights movement right now--and I think it's typical of the culture--is our lack of patience. We are in a *very* long journey here. And how dare we lose hope? We just don't have that luxury.

One of my favorite places in the whole world is the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. If you've not been there, go! But it's at the old Lorrain Hotel where Martin Luther King was shot, in the warehouse district of Memphis, which was the only motel he could stay at during that time. And at the entrance to that hotel is this enormous black monolith, which, when you get close to it, you realize is carved in bas relief. There is a never-ending, upwardly spiraling, line of African Americans. And every one of them is standing on someone else's shoulders. And I think that's how we have to view this struggle. We are on a journey, we're standing on the shoulders of some very courageous people who've gone before us, and if we do nothing else, we provide the shoulders on which our successors will stand. And that spiral is moving inexorably upward, toward the kind of vision that not only we have for the common good, but that I think God has.

Alternate link for comments

Gene Robinson on "Justice and the Common Good"

2006-11-23T23:43:00.000-05:00

The following is from a talk by Gene Robinson to the Center for American Progress, on the topic of Working for Justice and the Common Good. It took place on the third anniversary of his becoming the bishop of New Hampshire. Initially, I was thinking I would just try to summarize it, but there is a lot of good stuff here, so I ended up largely transcribing about the first third of it. Will share more in a future post, and in the some of the parts toward the end of the talk/interview, I'll have more of my own thoughts to share.

Bishop Gene Robinson: Micah said "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God". For the Episcopalians in the crowd, there is a typo in the prayer book--whoever did the typesetting transposed that into "love justice and do mercy." That's been in there since 1979. And I think that's the temptation that we have, which is to just *love* the notion of justice, and be perfectly willing to do those merciful acts of charity. But not do the hard work of justice.

And who is the common good for? This year (in the liturgical cycle) we are reading from the Gospel of Mark. It's the oldest, "lean and mean", "Cliff's Notes" version. Gene mentions being a proponent of studying the Gospels in terms of how they depict "what did Jesus know, and when did he know it" with regard to who he was and the nature of his mission. In the Gospel of John, which is believed to be the latest written, Jesus seems to know all.

In Mark, Jesus seems to be figuring it out as he goes along--which to Gene makes sense, because if God chose to live a completely human life, we don't know what's going to happen an hour from now. "And I think that's how Jesus lived his life, so, as you read Mark's Gospel, you can begin to see Jesus kind of putting all this together in his mind...I think Mark's Gospel gives us an idea of the development of Jesus' self-understanding.

Gene goes on to set the stage for telling a story that Robinson sees as a turning point in Jesus' self understanding.

"Jesus is, of course, always in trouble, especially with the religious types. ... So Jesus was really fed up to here with all this, and he goes on vacation. Well, it doesn't actually say that. It says he went into a foreign country--into Tyre, which is in modern day Syria. It does say that he didn't want anybody to know he was there, he didn't want anybody to know his name (which I can perfectly understand these days!) He just wanted a little peace and quiet.

But a woman who's described as Syro-Phonecian finds him. But she finds out he's there, and she comes to him and says "My daughter's possessed of a demon, will you heal her?" Now, he's still feeling pretty cranky--he's up to here with all the crowds and demands and stuff. So he says something that's really quite amazing that it made it into scripture. Because, if you're going to whitewash the story, this is not something you would tell.

He says to her, "Woman, the bread that I have to give doesn't belong to the dogs." Meaning *her*.

Now, she's got three strikes against her. She's a foreigner, she's a Gentile, and she's a woman, which counted for simply nothing in those days. And all three of which would have made him ritually unclean as a Jew.

And, she may not have been a Jew, but she sure had chutzpah. She kind of like puts her hand on her hip--you can almost see it--and says to him, "Well, you know, the dogs even get to clean up the crumbs after the meal!"

Now, Mark doesn't say this, but I would have put in a little thing that says "Gulp!" Because you can hear Jesus react like, "Whoa!" Here's this woman who has no business being with him,who has no claim on him, and yet she is laying claim to the good news that he's been preaching to the Jews.

And you can almost hear the wheels in his brain turning to say, "You know, maybe my mission isn't just to reform Judaism" (which is what I think he first had in mind). But maybe the mission, maybe this good news about the love of God, extends to *everyone*--to the whole world.

I think that's the kind of shift that we need, especially in this country, around who the common good is for. It's not just for me, it's not just for people like me, it's not just for people who think like me, but it's for all. And I think that this is a very difficult time to get that message across. I think it's a particularly American problem with our focus on individualism. Whether we say it or not, it's every man, woman, and child for themselves. It's at least *my family* for themselves.

People will tell you that Scripture says "God helps those who help themselves". It's not in there. What *is* in there is this mandate to care, not only just for everyone, but especially for the marginalized, for the poor, for those who have been pushed to the sides of society for whatever reason. We seem to be at no loss for finding yet more reasons to push someone to the side.
...
I think that the greatest enemy of the common good is anxiety. And probably every age has felt anxious, but boy, let me tell you, this one feels like it's right up there with the greatest times. And we have an administration right now that is using that anxiety, *promoting* anxiety, I think, to forward its own agenda.

Because, if I'm anxious enough, I'm willing to give up all kinds of things to make the anxiety go away--whether that's in the name of Homeland Security or--well the list goes on. Our anxiety is even color coded...you go to the airport and find out how anxious you should be that day.... We're told to *be* anxious--but we can't tell you what to be anxious about, we can't tell you *where* you should be anxious, or what to do about it, or how to avoid it, just be more anxious. And it's just in the air that we breathe these days.

And I think it's a great enemy to us, because when people are feeling anxious, they're thinking more about themselves and *not* about the common good. And I would say that one of the great instruments of promoting the common good right now is to acknowledge people's anxiety, and to look for value systems that speak to that anxiety.

Robinson goes on to tell about a book by Ron Heifetz called Leadership Without Easy Answers, in which the author says that leadership in today's culture is really about holding the hand of the organization, the people in the organization, and assuring them that we're going to live through this. That's the primary role of the leader is to lower the anxiety level of the institution enough so that they can get their work done. Because if they're highly anxious, if they're worried about survival, they're not going to be about their mission, because they're going to be all about survival.

...and I say this to clergy, with all the hubbub the Episcopal church is going through these days. We need to take the hands of those we are leading and say, 'You know what? This is going to be okay. God's in charge here.' We may not see the end of it in our lifetime, but, okay. That's okay. I mean, it's not *okay*, but we can live with it. And we can work with it. And in the end, God's will will be done. *Every* human being will be valued for who they are, so let's do our piece, and let's not beat ourselves up when we're not successful. And, by the way, let's find a little joy in it along the way!

And, my message would be, it is exactly where you find God. It is exactly where you find God--in the midst of that struggle.

More to come. You can listen to the streaming audio here.

Katharine Jefferts Schori's Investiture Sermon

2006-11-04T14:50:00.000-05:00

This morning, beginning at 11 a.m., I watched Katharine Jefferts Schori's investiture online via streaming video. This is the first such service I have ever witnessed, and I found it quite moving and hope-inspiring. At several points during the service I grabbed screen captures, which I hoped to share along with the transcript of her sermon. Unfortunately, the screen capture software, which has worked beautifully for me in the past, yielded nothing but all-black images. This is disappointing, because I had gone to the trouble of capturing some great shots, like the one of KJS knocking on the door with her staff at the beginning of the ceremony, shots of her with the outgoing Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, an pictures of the banners, choir, liturgical dancer...the list goes on. I hope there will be pictures of the event somewhere--possibly in the photo galleries of her official web page.

The sermon was wonderful, though, and to me it felt very timely because the focus was on the notion that "we're all in this together"--all will not truly be right with the world as long as some of God's children are living in poverty, without clean water, without adequate healthcare. But I'll shut up now and let Bishop Katharine's sermon speak for itself. She said, in part...

In Death of the Hired Man, Robert Frost said that "home is the place where, when you go there, they have to take you in." We all ache for a community that will take us in, with all our warts and quirks and petty meannesses – and yet they still celebrate when they see us coming! That vision of homegoing and homecoming that underlies our deepest spiritual yearnings is also the job assignment each one of us gets in baptism – go home, and while you're at it, help to build a home for everyone else on earth. For none of us can truly find our rest in God until all of our brothers and sisters have also been welcomed home like the prodigal.

There's a wonderful Hebrew word for that vision and work – shalom. It doesn't just mean the sort of peace that comes when we're no longer at war. It's that rich and multihued vision of a world where no one goes hungry because everyone is invited to a seat at the groaning board, it's a vision of a world where no one is sick or in prison because all sorts of disease have been healed, it's a vision of a world where every human being has the capacity to use every good gift that God has given, it is a vision of a world where no one enjoys abundance at the expense of another, it's a vision of a world where all enjoy Sabbath rest in the conscious presence of God. Shalom means that all human beings live together as siblings, at peace with one another and with God, and in right relationship with all of the rest of creation. It is that vision of the lion lying down with the lamb and the small child playing over the den of the adder, where the specter of death no longer holds sway. It is that vision to which Jesus points when he says, "today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." To say "shalom" is to know our own place and to invite and affirm the place of all of the rest of creation, once more at home in God.

You and I have been invited into that ministry of global peace-making that makes a place and affirms a welcome for all of God's creatures. But more than welcome, that ministry invites all to feast until they are filled with God's abundance. God has spoken that dream in our hearts – through the prophets, through the patriarchs and the mystics, in human flesh in Jesus, and in each one of us at baptism. All are welcome, all are fed, all are satisfied, all are healed of the wounds and lessenings that are part of the not-yet-ness of creation.

That homecoming of shalom is both destination and journey. We cannot embark on the journey without some vision of where we are going, even though we may not reach it this side of the grave. We are really charged with seeing everyplace and all places as home, and living in a way that makes that true for every other creature on the planet. None of us can be fully at home, at rest, enjoying shalom, unless all the world is as well. Shalom is the fruit of living that dream. We live in a day where there is a concrete possibility of making that dream reality for the most destitute, forgotten, and ignored of our fellow travelers – for the castaways, for those in peril or just barely afloat on life's restless sea.

This church has said that our larger vision will be framed and shaped in the coming years by the vision of shalom embedded in the Millennium Development Goals – a world where the hungry are fed, the ill are healed, the young educated, women and men treated equally, and where all have access to clean water and adequate sanitation, basic health care, and the promise of development that does not endanger the rest of creation. That vision of abundant life is achievable in our own day, but only with the passionate commitment of each and every one of us. It is God's vision of homecoming for all humanity. [Applause]

The ability of any of us to enjoy shalom depends on the health of our neighbors. If some do not have the opportunity for health or wholeness, then none of us can enjoy true and perfect holiness. The writer of Ephesians implores us to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace – to be at one in God's shalom. That is our baptismal task and hope, and unless each of the members of the body enjoys shalom we shall not live as one. That dream of God, that word of God spoken in each one of us at baptism also speaks hope of its realization.

The health of our neighbors, in its broadest understanding, is the mission that God has given us. We cannot love God if we fail to love our neighbors into a more whole and holy state of life. If some in this church feel wounded by recent decisions, then our salvation, our health as a body is at some hazard, and it becomes the duty of all of us to seek healing and wholeness. As long as children live exposed on the streets, while seniors go without food to pay for life-sustaining drugs, wherever peoples are sickened by industrial waste, the body suffers, and none of us can say we have finally come home.

Alternate link for comments

Shalom from Bishop Katharine

2006-11-01T14:18:00.000-05:00

This Saturday, November 4, marks the investiture of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The ceremony will be viewable via webcast. The following bulletin insert is going out for use at services this Sunday.

For Global Good

Presiding Bishop invites Church to widen ‘shalom’ by taking up U.N. Millennium Development Goals

In this octave of the Feast of All Saints, at this time of remembering the interconnectedness of communion and community, Katharine Jefferts Schori has begun her ministry as the Episcopal Church’s 26th Presiding Bishop. Here she encourages each Episcopalian to care for all creation by living a local life for global good.

by Katharine Jefferts Schori

The Episcopal Church adopted a set of mission priorities at its General Convention in June. First among them is justice and peace work, framed by the Millennium Development Goals. We understand this work as a visible sign of the work of building the Reign of God. A vision of the Reign of God lies behind the ancient Hebrew concept of shalom, which means far more than simply peace. Shalom has to do with the restoration of all creation to right relationship with God, so that the hungry are fed, the grieving comforted, the ill are healed, and prisoners set free. The mission of the church, according to our Catechism, is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ (Book of Common Prayer, page 855). That work of restoration and reconciliation frames all our ministry as Christians, whether we are students, parents, legislators, or farmers. We cannot be at one with our neighbors if some are starving or living in slums. The work of achieving the Millennium Development Goals is intimately wrapped up in the promises we make in the baptismal covenant to engage in God’s mission.

The other priorities adopted by our General Convention include work with young adults and youth, congregational transformation, reconciliation and evangelism, and partnerships within the Anglican Communion and with other faith communities. The fi rst priority has important connections and impacts on the others – for example, partnerships in developing countries, often through Anglican churches, are essential and intrinsic elements of addressing most of the MDGs, and our youth and young adults will experience part of their formation as Christians in service to others.

The Millennium Development Goals seek to end the deep poverty that limits human flourishing. Achieving them would provide concrete examples of the abundant life Jesus insists is the reason he came among us – “I came that you might have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

Alternate link for comments

Alex P. Keaton returns to Columbus

2006-10-30T14:07:00.000-05:00

Demetrius and I first moved to Columbus (to attend graduate school) at around the time the 80s sitcom Family Ties was wrapping up its seven year run. I remember our new neighbors telling us that the show supposedly took place in Columbus, Ohio, and that local stores like Lazarus (now Macy's) made sure that the characters could be seen carrying shopping bags bearing their names and logos. That little factoid had slipped my mind until I read at Pho's Akron Pages that Michael would be coming to Columbus today for an event with Sherrod Brown. Thanks to my incredibly patient husband being willing to come with me (I *hate* trying to parallel park), I was not only able to attend the event, but this time I've actually got pictures.

Actually, the reason I asked Demetrius to come along was because of the event's timing. When I first RSVP'd via Sherrod Brown's campaign site, it looked like the event would be from 11 to 12, so I was just planning to go to the event on my own once D came back from dropping Daughter in Ohio off at school. Then I got a reminder about the event saying that it was at 10 to 11, and it made a lot more sense to just go together after dropping Daughter off at school.

We arrived at about quarter to 10 at the building housing Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. We found a parking meter with a two hour time limit, but that seemed like it would be plenty of time. Nearly an hour and a half later, it was clear that it was *not* enough time, as Michael J. Fox and Sherrod Brown had not yet taken the stage. Demetrius had to run out to move the car and pump more money into the meter, thankfully getting back just as the program began. I was actually concerned that he might not be allowed back in, as the event was packed, with plenty of people who had been unable to find seats in the auditorium standing near the door. There were also bits of commotion from time to time as people in wheelchairs tried to get situated in the audience.

Turns out there was a section in the back of the auditorium that was labeled as reserved seating for people with disabilities.

But camera from the news had set up there.

One of the women sitting behind us said that the law building had been constructed before current accessibility standards were put in place. Professor Colker, who is a specialist in disability law, had used money from an award she won to pay for that seating area, and that she'd be furious to see what happened today.

There was also this guy wearing a shirt with the word REPUBLICAN in large letters on the front, who was clearly amused by the situation, and we wondered if and where he was planning to blog about it.

Once the program finally got under way, it moved along very quickly. We heard first from Dr. Wendy Macklin about the need for new sources of stem cells for research. She explained that stem cells come from the inner cell mass of blastocysts which are about 150 cell embryos, generated in in vitro fertilization clinics. Of the many embryos generated in these clinics, some will result in pregnancies, but many won't. Those that are not used sit in liquid nitrogen for sometimes years. In the past, these have been used to generate cell lines. We can use cells that were generated as cell lines before August of 2001. Initially there were about 22 cell lines, and of those, only a small number are usable, and those have been grown on mouse feeder cells in a variety of ways. Those are not likely to be useful for tranplantation in any way. Dr. Macklin said that even though getting new lines of stem cells would be unlikely to lead to a cure for any given disease immediately, it would be a huge boon to this area of research. For just one example, it would allow us to investigate how to "tweak" cells in the nervous system in other parts of the body that have been degenerating from a particular disease.

There were a number of people on the stage who were suffering from some type of disease or disability that could potentially benefit from stem cell research. Only one of them was scheduled to speak, but Sherrod Brown made a point of acknowledging the children by name. That was a nice gesture because, as tired as I had been getting of sitting and waiting for this event to begin, I could only imagine how restless the children were getting by the time things finally started.

After Wendy Macklin, we heard from Tanner Barton, an 11 year old boy from central Ohio talked about juvenile diabetes and how it affects his daily life. He's in 6th grade and is a competetive gymnast and swimmer. He went on to detail what is involved in constantly checking and maintaining the right blood sugar/insulin balance. The constant need for monitoring sometimes disrupted his practices and made him wary about sleeping away from home. He also related a recent experience that made him realize that he must be sure to get up early on days when he has an exam--so that he can have enough time between breakfast and exam time for his blood sugar to reach the optimal level.

Finally, it was Michael J. Fox's turn to take the stage. He started by saying that we need people like Sherrod Brown in Washington, so that science can reclaim its place in American society. It's part of what makes us great, along with our love and compassion for our citizens, and the desire to do the best thing for them. He thanked Tanner for sharing his experience with diabetes and said that it must be important for a guy his age to tell people what his life was like. Fox said, "Guess what? That doesn't change." At 45, you still want to share what your experience is like--it's a natural instinct. Michael congratulated Tanner on the beautiful job he did speaking about living with diabetes, adding, "I will use you as an inspiration."

Michael said that "this is kind of a coming home for me in a weird way", because Columbus is the home of Alex P. Keaton from Family Ties. He commented that he was recently asked what his character (a conservative teen who admired Ronald Reagan) would think of him campaigning for stem cell research. Michael quipped, "First of all, he'd be happy I'm wearing a tie..." and added that he thinks Alex would say it's the right thing to do. Sherrod Brown voting for the stem cell research enhancement act--to expand federal funding of stem cell reasearch--was the right thing to do--but Mike DeWine voted against it. He said, "A vote for Sherrod Brown is a vote for hope of a better quality of life for millions of Americans." Michael noted, as he has recently on television, that he is supporting candidates who support all stem cell research (regardless of party) Limiting this research is short-sighted, and Michael said that he has every confidence that research will improve the lives of people suffering from numerous diseases. The majority of the House and the Senate, and over 70% of Americans supported expanding funding for stem cell research, but Mike DeWine sided with President Bush in voting against potentially life-saving research. Sherrod Brown will stand on the side of hope, supporting stem cell research in the Senate as he has in the House of Representatives.

He went on to comment on the Limbaugh flap. "This past week I had a little run-in with some less-than-compassionate conservatives. I guess I'm not supposed to speak with you until my symptoms go away--or maybe I'm just supposed to go away." But he said that he's not going to go away, and neither are the millions of Americans and their families who live with debilitating diseases. We're going to make the diseases go away with the support of people like Sherrod Brown.

Michael J. Fox: I'm asking you to stand up for America's continued leadership in health, science, and medicine, and what is right for the hundreds of millions of Americans who have or are touched by debilitating diseases. Bush and DeWine's policies have been a rejection of the promising future of medical science. "Well, forgive me for this, but it's time we 'get back to our future'!"

This was greeted with laughter and applause for Michael, who received at least two standing ovations during his brief appearance on state. He ended by asking those in attendance to please vote for Sherrod Brown for Senate.

It was a very moving experience to see Michael J. Fox speaking to a packed auditorium about this difficult issue. It also made me have some rather uncharitable thoughts about Rush Limbaugh needing a visit from the Karma Fairy. Heck, *I* don't want to be seen in public if I'm feeling under the weather and not happy with the way I look. I can scarcely imagine the courage it would take to appear on camera, on stage, while not having the level of control over my nervous system that most of us take for granted. Especially someone who has been in show business--I would think that makes one more image conscious than the average person.

Michael J. Fox certainly *could* have chosen to live a private life with his family and friends, far from television cameras, not subjecting himself to the mockery and asinine speculations of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. There is no guarantee that expanded stem cell research would benefit him personally. I admire his courage in speaking out so publicly on this issue, and doubt I could ever be nearly that courageous myself, were I in his situation.

I'm almost positive that Mr. Limbaugh couldn't.

Alternate link for comments

Samhain: A space for remembrance

2006-10-28T02:12:00.000-04:00

Another post about Samhain from Street Prophets, this one by Alexandra Lynch.

Samhain is one of the single most misunderstood holidays in the Wiccan calendar by outsiders. It is simultaneously many Witches' favorite. It is certainly one of the key holidays for us. So what's going on here?

Click here for the rest.

Alternate link for comments

David Korten, Part 3

2006-10-25T13:47:00.000-04:00

The day of reckoning for our reckless ways is now at hand, as we face the mounting forces of a perfect economic storm, born of a convergence of peak oil, climate change, and a meltdown of the U.S. dollar. Peak oil of course occurs when global oil production peaks and begins its inexorable decline, in the face of continued rising global demand, sending prices soaring. Now, some experts believe that peak oil occurred last year in 2005, others believe it will not occur for another 10, 20, or even 35 years. Fortune Magazine correctly notes that the difference in those estimates is irrelevant. The era of peak oil is over, and we must act immediately to end our dependence on oil.

(the next section is a Power Point, but fortunately Korten does describe it in words as well) As he said the parts I've boldfaced, he clicked a big red X over the image to which he was referring.

Here are some of the implications for the ways in which our life will change. Long haul transport and global supply chains, foundations of the global economy--relics of a dying era.

Auto-dependent suburbia, strip malls, shopping centers, and box stores like WalMart located in the middle of nowhere--candidates for "going out of business" sales.

Oil-dependent industrial agriculture: destined to run out of gas.

Now take a look at this, do you see any oil dependence? These, of course, are the oil guzzling planes, ships, and ground vehicles we depend on to secure our access to cheap oil. Increasingly unaffordable, and, as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, wholly ineffective against current military threats.

As oil prices inexorably rise, much of our existing capital stocks will be reduced to stranded assets, including much of the supporting capital of our sprawling and unsustainable suburbs.

Alternate link for comments

David Korten on how we measure wealth

2006-10-25T12:09:00.000-04:00

This is a continuation of my transcript of David Korten's talk in Columbus on October 14. Part 1 can be seen here.

David Korten: Modern societies have, for more than 50 years, defined progress in terms of economic growth, and we've been highly successful at growing our economies. Since 1950, global economic output has increased by some seven times, and made a great deal of money for a few people.

Now, there's another side to this story. The Living Planet Index is a measure of the health of the world's fresh water, ocean, and forest ecosystems. That's the life support system of the planet--and arguably the foundation of all real wealth. Think about it, if there's no life support system, there's no life. And if there's no life, the whole concept of wealth loses its meaning. Now this index, as you can see, has declined by 37% in the past 30 years.

We see here the divergence, showing the indicators we use to convince ourselves that we are making progress and getting wealthier, and the true index showing that as a species we are collectively getting rapidly poorer. This difference, of course, creates massive distortion in our public policies.

Now, the good news in this, at least from the perspective of the planet, is that the species responsible for this devastation will be gone long before the index reaches zero.

Now consider, as we are depleting this planet, that 85% of what remains of our planet's life support system, is currently expropriated by the more fortunate 20% among us, to support often extravagent and wasteful lifestyles. Meanwhile, the poorest 20% struggle for survival on slightly more than 1%, and the middle 60% get by on 14%.

One of the many lessons that I learned in my years abroad is that much of what we call development is actually a process of expropriating the land and water resources on which the bottom 85% depend for their livelihoods, in order to make way for the dams, mines, shrimp farms, agricultural estates, golf courses, suburban sprawl, and shopping centers that primarily benefit the top 20%. Now to put this in simple language, conventional economic growth indicators in fact measure the rate at which productive resources of the poor are being transferred to the rich, and converted to garbage.

Now, it's an extraordinary thing that we measure our progress, not by our well-being, but by the throughput in our economic system, which is basically the rate at which we are throwing things away.

Alternate link for comments

Paganism

2006-10-21T19:16:00.000-04:00

Interesting post--this is one of the faith traditions I recognize that I don't know as much about as I should.

How I came to paganism (and how did you? :-) by Morgan

Alternate link for comments

David Korten in Columbus, October 14, 2006

2006-10-20T16:13:00.000-04:00

This is the beginning of my transcription of David Korten's remarks at the Earth Charter Summit that took place in Columbus, Ohio on Saturday, October 14.

David Korten: It is such a joy to be here in Ohio with such a great group of people --I've just been meeting extraordinary activists everywhere I go. And, I hope you'll excuse me if I just take a moment here to go shake hands with Granny D (laughter and applause). Granny D is such an inspiration, when I was facing my 65th birthday and thinking, "Well, you know, this is kind of a transition. I guess the rest of my life I should be starting to think about winding down and passing on the responsibilities." (Laughter) And Granny D of course is an extraordinary example of what we should all be doing with our elder years. She's a great inspiration.

Now, I'm also fascinated by your politics here. Dennis Kucinich is one of my heroes--one of the most visionary politicians of our time. (Applause). And of course I note that you cover the range, to a candidate for governor who really should be in the penitentiary. Anyhow, hopefully he will find his way to the appropriate outcome.

This is a very special weekend here, I'm sure you know this is one of four sets of activities by different initiatives. And of course the Earth Charter and the Earth Charter Summit is what brings together the visionary framework for all of the rest of our work. And I'm so pleased that the Earth Charter folks here in Columbus are framing the issue in terms of creating earth community, because that, to me, is really the way to frame the Earth Charter. That it presents the principles for the earth community that we must bring forth. And that gives the substance and the lead-in to action.

And then of course the other initiatives, CIRCA, which is focussed on ending corporate colonization--that is one essential step on the path to earth community. Then Simply Living, which working on, "Okay, how do we implement it in the way we live, the way we organize our living space? The way we organize our economies."

The key to this is positive. As was mentioned in the introduction, one of the things I've come to is resistance alone is a losing strategy. Ultimately, to win we must come forward to create the positive.

And then of course the fourth, and absolutely foundational element of this quadrangle is the Voting Rights Revival Conference. And of course Ohio here reminded us all that, among all the democratic reforms we need, it starts with counting the votes. Absolutely foundational. So, I congratulate you all on your work, and thank you for the invitation. I hope my comments today will help put the work you're doing in a deeper historical, cultural, and to some extent spiritual context.

Now, the underlying message of the Great Turning is quite straightforward. We humans have come to the end of a long and deeply destructive era. It is time to turn this world around for our own sake, and for the sake of our children for generations to come.

There's good news and bad news, and it comes in the same package. The news is "business as usual is over". Peak oil, climate change, the collapsing U.S. dollar, and spreading social disinigration born of the marginalization of the majority of humanity are coming together in a constellation of forces desined to fundamentally change every aspect of modern life.

Now, whether this convergence of forces plays out as an epic human opportunity or the final human tragedy, will depend on the stories by which we understand what's happening, and undrestand the choices that it is ours to make. And I'm going to be talking about those choices.

On a crowded planet, peace, sustainability, justice, and equity, are inseparably linked. The time to choose a different path is now at hand, because empire has reached the limits of exploitation that people and planet will tolerate. If we continue with business as usual, future generations will likely look back and refer to our time as "The Great Unraveling". A time of environmental and social collapse. Fortunately, it is within our means to move beyond empire--to give birth to a new era of earth community, based on a more mature understanding of our responsibility to one another, and to earth.

Buddhist spiritual teacher Joanna Macy suggests that if we are successful in navigating this transition, future generations may speak of this as the time of The Great Turning. The time when humanity turned from the way of domination and embraced the way of partnership.

Now, over the millennia, the primary insitutional form of empire has morphed from the imperial city-states of ancient time, to the imperial nation-states of the modern era, and more recently to the imperial global coporations of our immediate time. What remains constant, however, is the underlying pattern of domination and exclusion.

Now, from time to time, someone will ask me, "Why are you so obsessed about coroporations? Aren't they just communities of people?" Well, I think most of you here have been studying this issue just a little deeper--you probably wouldn't ask that question. Because, what we know, is that there are many highly thoughful, ethical people who work at corporations, but they are all, including the CEO, employees of the institution. They are paid to serve the institution at its pleasure, required by law to leave their values at the door, and subject to instant dismissal at a moment's notice. These are not qualities we normally associate with community.

We're talking here about an institution of enormous power, governed by absentee owners and accountable managers, in the business of converting the life energy of people and nature into money for the short-term financial gain of already wealthy shareholders and managers, without regard to the human or natural consequences. In other words, the publicly traded Limited Liability Corporation is a gigantic pool of money with an artificial legal personality, required by law to behave like a sociopath. PR images aside, it is a destroyer of community, and a powerful engine of wealth concentration in a world in desperate need of community and equity.

(More to come)

David Korten is the author of The Great Turning: from Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World.

Alternate link for comments

The Great Unraveling vs. The Great Turning

2006-10-14T11:58:00.000-04:00

Some of you may remember me posting about The Great Turning in the past couple years, and linking to Joanna Macy's web site. Today, as I mentioned here, I attended an Earth Charter Summit, where the featured speaker, David Korten was discussing his recent book entitled The Great Turning: from Empire to Earth Community. (He is also the author of When Corporations Rule the World.)

The event took place at an SGI Community Center, which is worship center for people who practice Nichiren Buddhism in the Columbus area. I didn't know that before I got there--figured it was just another community rec center when I first walked in. But all the bowls and cushions tipped me off that there might be some Buddhist practice going on there.

It will probably take me a while to get this written up, but I can at least give some highlights now. We started by watching two films, A Quiet Revolution and Another Way of Seeing Things.

Before the David Korten spoke, awards were given--they called them "Recognition with Gratitude". Cindy and Art Strauss, who attend my church, were recognized for their work with Simply Living. I don't see Art at church much because he has had various health problems, but he was a regular at peace rallies a couple years ago, and always brought handouts to help educate people about various issues. I think it was Art who first introduced me to Jim Hightower's writing via the Hightower Lowdown. Art is now in a wheel chair, having broken his hip--I wasn't aware of that until today. So Cindy wheeled him up to the front of the room, and he accepted the plaque with tears in his eyes and a catch in his voice, saying that he didn't deserve it, but that it belonged to everyone who had worked with them.

Art and Cindy are some of the people whose example reminds me that I have no business being "too tired" to keep plugging along, trying to help make the world a better place. Another such person would be Granny D. She was there today as well--attending the event because she was in town to speak at the Voting Rights Revival Conference this evening. And since she is currently reading David Korten's book, she wanted to hear him speak.

I will have to write up David's talk a little later, but much of the basic premise can be found in this article in Yes Magazine.

By what name will future generations know our time?

Will they speak in anger and frustration of the time of the Great Unraveling, when profligate consumption exceeded Earth’s capacity to sustain and led to an accelerating wave of collapsing environmental systems, violent competition for what remained of the planet’s resources, and a dramatic dieback of the human population? Or will they look back in joyful celebration on the time of the Great Turning, when their forebears embraced the higher-order potential of their human nature, turned crisis into opportunity, and learned to live in creative partnership with one another and Earth?

Click here to read more.

Alternate link for comments

Marcus Owens responds to the "war on religion" canard

2006-10-13T22:00:00.000-04:00

I think that we need to maintain a balance between church and state, in the United States and here in Ohio. In fact it was a president of the United States from Ohio, and a Republican at that, named Ulysses S. Grant, that in his State of the Union Address in 1875 warned of the dangers of wealthy churches. Wealthy churches with power, wealthy churches that would sap the resources from government, and pleaded with Congress to make sure that church and state were kept separate and distinct. Those are the words of the President of the United States in 1875.

The issues that we are hearing here today have been with this country since its beginning. You see on the program the words from Thomas Jefferson, as he struggled with what the right balance should be between religion and politics and state. I think it is important, as you think about the state of religion, the state of faith in this country, that you think about the reality of events, and not be carried away by those who would scare, who would intimidate, who would try to cause fear that somehow the government is trying to crush religion.

Indeed, today's New York Times has a front page story about the benefits that religions, that churches, that houses of faith have received in this country. They note that since 1989, there have been over 200 special exceptions, exclusions, and deductions created to support religious activity of all sorts, not just worship services but religious activity that gets into social services, that gets into land use planning. The churches, the houses of worship, have been given special dispensation under our laws--more than any other form of organized activity in this country. It's not accurate to say that there is a war on religion in this country. Quite the reverse.

But I think free speech, true free speech is threatened. It's under threat because of systems of belief that do not admire freedom of speech. That would tell you what you can read, and when you can read it. Who you would marry, who you would lie down at night with, behind the doors of your own house. That's not government's place to dictate that sort of thing.

Alternate link for comments

Opening remarks by Marcus Owens

2006-10-13T17:59:00.000-04:00

More from the Ohio church/politics forum.

Marcus Owens: (Regarding Jay Sekulow) Many years ago we found ourselves on opposite sides of a church case. An organization called the Church at Pierce Creek in upstate New York took out a full page advertisement on the eve of the presidential election, announcing that if one voted for Bill Clinton for president, you would go to hell--or words to that effect. And they solicited charitable contributions to pay for that advertisement. This wasn't a religious service, this was a full page advertisement in USA Today. Mr. Sekulow and I kind of squared off at a distance. I was director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service, he was counsel for Church at Pierce Creek. When the dust settled, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said there was no violation of the First Amendment in what the Internal Revenue Service had done. Indeed they noted that there was no factual issue here--there had been campaign intervention. This wasn't a statement of core religious faith, it was simply campaign politics.

Now, the case of All Saints Church has been brought up here--I do represent All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena California. And I can tell you on the Sunday before the presidential election in 2004, George Regas was doing exactly what a pastor, what the head of a congregation should do, and that is to attempt to reconcile religious belief with the events of the day, so that the members of the congregation could understand, could make their own decisions. Could see how they might apply ethical standards, standards of morality, and standards of moral behavior in the world in which we live. George Regas was very upset about the war in Iraq. That church has a tradition of being against killing. It has a social justice ministry that cares for the poor and those that are otherwise unable to care for themselves. He was *not* telling people how to vote, in terms of which candidate to vote for. He was telling people that they needed to check their system of values against the positions and the issues of the day, of their government.

The Internal Revenue Service, in their audit, said that it was the inference of his words, that he dared to criticize the policies of the Bush administration, and therefore that constituted campaign intervention. It was not a full page advertisement instructing people how to vote. It was not an electonic mail message sent on Easter Sunday evening to the congregation, transmitting a political video prepared by one political campaign against the other. This was core religious worship services and the government was taking the position that they had the right to censor, to probe the real meaning behind those words.

And I would argue that the First Amendment, whether it's freedom of religion or freedom of speech, stands between the government and those words. I believe also that it is extraordinarily important for people of faith, for institutions of faith, to try to set out value systems to provide the ethical framework for members of the congregation to make very important judgements. If they don't do that, they're failing in their mission.

Alternate link for comments

Barry Lynn on Politics and the Pulpit

2006-10-13T13:32:00.000-04:00

More from last Sunday's forum. Barry Lynn is the Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the author of Piety & Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom.

The issue in Ohio is the same one we're seeing all over the country, and I'm going to phrase this question in three ways.

Will churches deliberately or unwittingly let their sanctuaries become soapboxes for selected candidates for public office?

Will the churchgoers know incense from the altar or cigar smoke from the partisan political activity in the basement when they walk into a church?

Will the church advocate the civic responsiblity of voting, or advance the candidacies of certain people they want to see elected?

The rubber really will hit the road in the next few weeks, and here is what I hope will *not* happen in Ohio or around the country. Churches should not be opening their doors to meetings of, say, the Fairfield County Republican Party unless it is willing to do precisely the same for the Fairfield County Democratic Party. Churches should not a Democratic senate candidate to "say a few words" in their churches before election day unless they invite the Republican candidate to do exactly the same thing. And perhaps most importantly, churches should not distribute or allow to be distributed in houses of worship, any so-called "voter guides" that are obviously created to support one candidate over all others.

This year, a number of entitities have announced plans to put out these voter guides--the Christian Coalition, created by Pat Robertson, announced its intention to do so just this past week. And Focus on the Family has promised to have its State Policy Councils--Phil's group is one--to prepare and distribute guides in eight targeted states, which just happen to hold the key to whether the Senate is primarily Democratic or Republican after the election.

And here's my prediction based on the past practice of these groups. If you cannot tell for whom you are supposed to vote, after looking at, say, a Christian Coalition guide, then you obviously need new glasses. (Laughter).

How can voter guides be in violation of the IRS regulations? The first clue is that they're on a very narrow range of issues, not like the League of Women Voters. The second might be that they allegedly cull candidate positions from newspapers and other public sources, and then reduce these very complicated issues just to whether a candidate favors or opposes a position--one word answers to complex questions.

Based on these past practices, a lot of these voter guides, produced by the so-called "religious right", frankly are going to make all Republicans look like they are next in line for elevation to sainthood, and make every Democrat appear to be the next candidate for becoming a wax figurine in the House of Horrors museum in New Jersey. That's what they're intended to do. Those characterizations can be made using a variety of techniques.

A 2004 guide from Focus on the Family had language that used phrases like "partial birth abortion". Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a medical term, that is a political slogan of the right. When it appears in a document, it makes it very clear where the producer of that document wants people to stand. And I hope that when third party advocates of groups that are not member of your church come to your church and ask to distribute these voter guides, you look at them very carefully, whether they come from left, right, or center. Because pimping for any party or politician has no business occurring in the chapel, in the narthex, or even in the parking lot of any church in the United States of America.

Alternate link for comments

There's more

2006-10-11T13:53:00.000-04:00

There is more to write up from Sunday's event, but I'm just not getting a sense of there being much interest. I'll probably write more eventually, because I'm compulsive that way. But now I probably need to donate more of my attention to ways to bring in some income, so that I can help "put food on my family".

Quick note--there's a campaign to raise the minimum wage in Ohio. It seems to enjoy popluar support, and my husband made a couple bumper stickers in support of that amendment, by request.

So, in the face of the popular support for this amendment, opponents have decided to take the "personal privacy" angle and try to scare people into voting against it. Nice. Their claims are debunked here by the way.

So, when my husband *finally* gets a real offer of animation work (which has been really sparse this season)--something for *television*, no less, guess who it's for?

Naturally, the opposition to Issue 2.

Damn. We *really* need the money. But how many people would we be "throwing under the bus" if he took that project? And, as much of our time and energy as we have been devoting to working to make the world a better place, even for "the least of these" would be undone? Well anyway, he did say no to the project.

Alternate link for comments

Russell Johnson on the "war against people of faith"

2006-10-09T21:58:00.000-04:00

More from Sunday's forum

How can anyone say there's no war against people of faith when our children for 200 years could pray, read the bible, learn their alphabet?
...Our friends over here on our left have opposed the singing of Silent Night in schools, have opposed the Pledge of Allegiance that has been a part of our country for several decades. If there's no waging of war, go down the street and read Luke 2 during the month of December in school, and see if there's not a war against people of faith.

Our children are being muzzled. In Pennsylvania last week, there were children praying in school. And they needed to pray. I think children in Ohio deserve the chance to pray in their schools as well. We need to be able to to have academic freedom. If we teach a secular dogma called evolution, we should also be able to teach intelligent design. If we can read People Magazine, we should be able to read the Bible.

Reverend Barry Lynn and his friends Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Ted Strickland--they all have some things in common that take us further to the left than Ohio really lives. And I sense, candidly, the selective enforcement--Marcus Owens, if there's freedom of speech that's good for All Saints Church in, and I hope you win in California, please come and represent us, because it's good for Ohio too. (Applause) If it's good for the left coast, it's good for Ohio.

And I'll say, candidly, to our friend Eric Williams, please, we should never have to give up our citizenship. I believe that you have the right to say and do in your church whatever you want to in regard to those things. And I want you to have the freedom of speech. Please do not pretend that from Columbus, Ohio, you should be dictating to what we're saying in Fairfield Church in Lancaster, Ohio. I don't agree with you about a lot of things. I want to say you're a good guy, and we've shared the pulpit at different places and radio shows and things.

But, a lot of our folks on the religious left do not believe that the Bible is really true, do not believe in a bodily resurrection, do not believe in the tradition of marriage as I understand it, and they have that right to say that from their pulpit if they wish. And I will never ask the IRS to deprive you of your 501c3 because you disagree with me. I sense that the IRS is not here to somehow monitor what's going on at your pulpit or my pulpit. And I believe that just because we disagree on things, don't use the IRS to try to bully me. If you can't win in elections, if you can't win in the court of public opinion..."we'll go to the court and gather some sharp lawyers who can represent us well, and they'll craft something to try to take conservative Christians to court to intimidate them. And let's find one church that we can beat to a bloody pulp in a courtroom, and we'll make an example and intimidate churches all over the state to be quiet about life and marriage."

We will not be bullied and we will not be silenced, and we will shine. (Applause and cheers)

Alternate link for comments

Remarks by Barry Lynn in Columbus

2006-10-09T12:24:00.000-04:00

I bring you greetings from the forces of darkness. (Laughter.) See, everybody can agree with that.!

Of course people and institutions of faith have made tremendous contributions to American history and American progress from the beginning of our history. But as with any other institution, some of these contributions have been good, as in the abolition of slavery. Some have been bad, as in claiming that the verse from the book of Genesis "and God separated the light from the darkness" justified schools segregated by race. And some very silly interventions, such as opposing daylight savings time because it was an interference with "God's time". (Laughter) It's true!

But at their best, these institutions have done two very important things. One, they have regularly alerted the public to vitally important moral and ethical issues that we need to deal with as a nation. And second, like the prophets in the Christian Old Testament, they have called upon leaders to work for justice, from Columbus, Ohio to Darfur.

Those interventions, though, do not come without risk, because some actions can dilute the very independence of our religious institutions or the integrity of our political system. A secular political process undergirded by our secular constitution. Throughout today's conversation, I hope we can separate and keep in mind the idea that the political process in America really has two parts. One is a debate over values and issues. And the second part of the political process is direct partisan battling over who ought to be elected to one public office or another. And in general, it is that electoral phase that gets people into more contentious problems.

Ralph Reed was once one of the most powerful citizens in America, as he comandeered the organization of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Once when he was asked why he was not more critical of the administration of the first George Bush, he responded that when you are sitting in the dining car of a train, you don't blow up the railroad. In other words, retaining power and privilege might be used to justify silence in the midst of a world where you would otherwise have criticized or condemned even the most powerful leaders.

And I think that there's already evidence that some of the religious groups receiving federal funding through this administration's so-called faith-based initiatives have softened or terminated their criticism of *this* Bush White House. When Cesaer pays for your microphone, the tendency is for you to praise, not condemn Cesaer. This is to say that when religious organizations today get too cozy with kings or presidents, or the resources of those kings and presidents, there's an accomodationist tendency. When a church receives something from the government, it is more likely to give something back in return--one thing is the endorsement of that candidate who helps them. This can turn a church into a cog in a party's political machine, ending the very independence of the church and the integrity of secular governance.

A peculiar thing happened in North Carolina about a year and a half ago. The pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church had told his parishioners before the 2004 election to vote for George Bush. But then he later learned that 7 congregants--you might call them "backsliders" had actually voted for John Kerry. And the pastor orchestrated their ousting from the church. When that story became national news, the congregation decided to hold a meeting to reconsider the situation. The congregation voted to invite back the 7 evictees, and then on the same night, voted to fire the pastor.

See, that's just a more extreme example of what happens to the body of the church when political partisanship becomes a touchstone of righteousness. I happen to believe that Martin Luther King had it right. He spoke in churches, temples, and synogogues almost every day of his adult life about justice, but never once did he endorse a candidate from the pulpit, because he thought other institutions were those appropriate for that task.

And that's the division our tax code has today. It is a good one. I'd like to see it retained for the sake of the church *and* the integrity of the state.

Alternate link for comments

Opening remarks by Eric Williams

2006-10-09T00:22:00.000-04:00

Here are the opening remarks of Rev. Eric Williams from the forum I attended earlier.
...
I was raised in Ohio--a small town in northwestern Ohio. From a middle class family. I would describe my life as really middle of the road--very little cultural or religious diversity. My neighbors looked and sounded and believed much like me. Farmers. Republicans. Presbyterians. Republicans. Methodists. Republicans. Lutherans. Republicans. The Baptists and the Roman Catholics, well, they had to go down river to worship. (Laughter)

Today, I look at my neighbors, and I see great diversity. I listen to my neighbors and I hear them talk about their faith using many different names for God. The religions of my neighbors today include Christianity, Secularism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Hinduism, Unitarian Universalism, Paganism, Spiritualism, Native American religion, Bahai, New Age, Sikhism, Scientology, Humanism, Deism, Taoism, and many other faiths. (Applause) As a Christian, I do not seek to diminish or discredit my neighbor's religion. Instead, I heed the words of the great prophet Joshua, "Now, if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."

As I recognize significant and central differences in my neighbor's religions, I seek to respect and honor my neighbors in and through those differences, as Jesus advised his disciples when he said "Whoever is not against me, is for me."

I'm also a citizen of the church, raised in the American Lutheran church, rooted in the American expression of the great Protestant reformation and inspired by Martin Luther. Inspired by Martin Luther's invitation to dissent, when in 1517 he posted on the church door 95 theses, seeking to reform the political and theological abuses of the church. Inspired by Martin Luther's courage in the face of intolerance and threat, when he said, "Here I stand--I can do no other." Inspired by Martin Luther's recover of "sola scriptura"--that is, God's word being open to all believers. Inspired by Martin Luther's embrace of the Gospel of God's unconditional, unfailing love, for each and every person, despite our failures of faith and love. Inspired by one voice of faith, calling other voices of faith, to seek religious forum (?) and religious liberty.

This led to the English Reformation. Pilgrims and Puritans seeking relief and freedom from the established church of England. Many fled from the intolerance and persecution. They traveled to Amsterdam and eventually to these shores. In 1620, Reverend John Robinson sent the first pilgims to America with these words, "And if God should reveal anything to you, be as ready to receive it. For there is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word."

Pilgrims and Puritans sought religious liberty in this new land, but they did not extend that liberty to others. Instead, they established state churches. They required state orthodoxy. They governed religious and civic life, really as Protestant theocracies. Reverend Roger Williams was a Christian minister who immigrated to the Massachusetts colony in 1630. And five years later he was banished from there. Why? Because he was a passionate champion for religious liberty. He argued for the separation of church and state. He wrote, "When the church has opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God has ever broken down that wall itself, and removed the candlestick, and made his garden the wildrness that it is this day. Therefore, if God will ever please to restore his garden and paradise again, it must be walled in from the world."

James Madison was a member of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention. He was an outspoken advocate of religious liberty. Madison, like his senior colleague, Thomas Jefferson, feared that a small group of powerful churches could join together and seek special favors from the government. That religion would seek the power of the state to coerce religious belief and civic behavior. At the same time, Madison favored what he called a "multiplicity of religions". The free expression of a great diversity of religious beliefs and practices would guard against any government favoritism. The power, the intent of the words of that First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is echoed in the cry for religious liberty and the call for separation of church and state.

Jimmy Carter was the first president I voted for--oops! I just outed myself, didn't I? I voted for an Evangelical president! (laughter) And in his book, Our Endangered Values, Carter wrote, "Thomas Jefferson, in the original days of our country said that he was fearful that the church might influence the state to take away human liberty." Roger Williams, who created the first Baptist church in our country, was afraid that the church might be corrupted by the state. These two concerns led to the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of any official state church, and in the same sentence, prohibits the passage of any laws that might interfere with religious freedom. Separation is specified in the law. But, for a religious person, there is nothing wrong with bringing these two together, because you can't divorce religous beliefs from public service. At the same time, of course, in public office you cannot impose your own religious beliefs on others.

In conclusion, I am forever a Buckeye. And as a religious leader, I find myself in the middle of the road, responding to a great cultural and religious diversity that informs our religious life, that enriches my religious experience. I find hope and courage in my expectation that there is yet more light and truth to break forth from God's holy word. I am convinced that the free expression of our nation's great diversity of religious beliefs and practices, can and will guard against any governmental favoritism, or prohibition. In religious faith, in patriotic fervor, I continue to call for the separation of church and state, and cry out for religious liberty and justice for all.

Alternate link for comments

Forum on church and state in Ohio's electoral politics

2006-10-08T21:47:00.000-04:00

Here's a link describing the event. Russell Johnson, of the Ohio Restoration Project was the first to speak.

...The people of these shores export hope. Medicine, food. 90% of the bibles and missionaries--cites family members who traveled to other countries to spead the good news.

I think God's given 5% of the world's people 40% of the world's natural resources, and as a country we have a great opportunity to share hope with the rest of the globe.

Our nation's founding documents were woven with principles from God's word. For 175 to 200 years, our children could sing Silent Night, could read the Bible. I think if Johnny can read People Magazine every day, he should be able, with academic freedom, to read his Bible every day if he chooses. Families with faith have been building blocks to a great nation. God raised up our country with the technology and the timing and the resources to make a global difference.

During the past 50 years, there has been a secular bigotry of unheralded proportions against people of faith. And epic strides against people of faith have been made in almost every state. From our country's classrooms to our court houses, from Christmas carols to graduation celebrations, from the pledge of allegiance to our state motto...the forces of darkness, I think have opposed every public expression of allegiance to God. I don't mind at all atheists having their perspective, and they certainly have that freedom. But they should never silence people of faith, and the arteries of our culture, I think have been infected with the toxin of dogmatic secularism which have sought to deny America's Godly heritage.

Will our children be able to say the pledge of allegiance as "one nation under God?"

Is the Biblical definition of marriage going to be exchanged for political correctness?

Will public schools become more antagonistic towards taxpayers of faith?

Can anything be done to stop the harvesting of body parts of unborn children through partial birth abortion?

Will tax-funded universities continue their secular jihad against professors of faith and freedom of speech?

Will Bible-believing ministers be prosecuted under "hate crimes" for teaching the conviction of biblical truth

Should public schools practice academic freedom in teaching all theories of origin, including intelligent design? I think that Americans, and particularly in Ohio, there has been a strident crisis of faith between those from the left and the right. I certainly disagree with brother Eric Williams on several things. The religious left has been very involved in government for fifty years. In fact, if you look downtown in Washington, D.C., many of the religious left own some of the most expensive real estate in Ameria, right across the street from the Capitol, because they've been politically involved for over 50 years. The religious left has enabled the secular left in taking away many of our basic rights.

For 40 years, liberal politicians, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton have been using liberal pulpits to promote left-of-center world views. When conservative believers began to take seriously the stewardship of our citizenship, and to vote accordingly, the media began to make ridiculous claims like "the integrity of the United States Congress weighs in the balance, the Constitution weighs in the balance". Many of the left feel as if conservatives, if they're demonized enough, the tide of public opinion will turn against them. I think it's an attempt to intimidate and to smear the right for doing what the left has been doing for 50 years--being politically and civically involved. I sense it's time for the right *and* the left to be involved. And civil discourse like today, I think is a great opportunity for us to sit down and talk together and shake hands and work with these folks, even if we disagree, we can share ideas. And I think the religious right is saying, conservatives are saying, we don't want to be muzzled behind stained glass windows, we want to be a part of making a difference.

I sense today that we have an opportunity. The hinges of history *are* moving on our watch and the stewardship of our citizenship is crucial to this hour. The hinges of history are moving in a way that I think there's going to be increasing numbers of Baptists and Catholics and Pentocostals and Methodists who are welding together to say yes to marriage in Ohio, and 62% came out, voted yes. In 11 states, 67 out of 71 newspapers came out against marriage amendments. The average vote of the people who voted was 70% in favor of the traditional definition of marriage. I think it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. It's not enough to make pious observations and diagnose the culture. I think the sacred trust of freedom to be involved has been purchased with a high price, and many of our sons and daughters have volunteered to be a part of helping others share in the American dream.

I think it's time for us to stand, to pray, to serve, and engage. The Ohio Restoration Project seeks three things. Pray for the culture, serve the culture, and engage the culture. Get informed, get involved, get registered, and go vote. We do not endorse candidates. We do encourage people to stand for those who *are* standing for life and marriage, which are dear to our heart. We're glad to be a part of this today, and we look forward to the discussions that follow.

Alternate link for comments

Rev. Eric Williams on the role of churches in public policy

2006-10-07T23:50:00.000-04:00

Rev. Eric Williams' remarks to the forum on religion in the public square, which took place at First Friday this month at First Unitarian Universalist Church in Columbus.
.....
If you go to the web site of the United Church of Christ, you'll find that they have a whole web site on issues of justice and advocacy. And that web site opens with this statement:

Throughout its history from early engagement in the movement to abolish slavery to modern campaigns for civil rights and social justice, the United Church of Christ in every setting of the church has been engaged in ministries of compassion, advocacy and reconciliation. While there is a deep respect in the UCC for the right of every individual member to form her or his own views on these issues, there has always been a recognizable passion across our church to "make things right" - as a testament to our faith in God, our hope for God's future, our love for God's creation. In this way we seek to apply the commandment of Jesus Christ to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We turn to Proverbs 31 and read, "Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute, defend the rights of the poor and the needy". Isaiah says in Chapter 58, "Is not this the fast that I choose, to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, to break every yoke? If you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness, and your bloom be like the noonday."

In my study of scriptures, two central themes can be found concerning justice. The first is God's all-encompassing love, all-encompassing concern, God's mercy for all human beings, and the second is like it: our responsibility to love God's earth. Our responsibility to care for God's people. God placed Adam and Eve in the garden, God instructed them to care for it. In the story of Cain and Abel, God sent the clear message that we are *indeed* our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper.

In the tradition of the Exodus from Egypt, we learn from God's compassionate response to misery. To oppression. To slavery. God's law not only calls for individual piety, but it also calls for a communal responsibililty for the well being of all. God never asks us to love only those whom we're intimately familiar with, but instead, God calls us to that more difficult kind of love.

Over and over, the Law instructs Israelites to remember, who? The stranger. The foreigner, the orphan, the widow, the most vulnerable to hunger and poverty. It ties this instruction to that great Exodus event. Look at Deuteronomy: "When you gather your crops and fail to bring in some of the grain that you have cut, *do not* go back for it. It is left for the foreigners, the orphans, the widows. When you have gathered your grapes, do *not* go back over the vines a second time. The grapes that are left are for the foreigners, the orphans, the widows. Never forget, that *you were slaves* in Egypt, and that is why I have given you this command.

And there are other laws, and other prophets who speak out, insisting on justice for everyone. Amos is an example. Amos denounced those who trampled on the needy, who destroyed the poor in order to gain more wealth. He railed against those who lived in luxury while the poor were being *crushed*. The prophets main judgements were leveled against idolotry, and against social injustice.

This living God insists on personal morality, *and* on social justice. The Psalms invite us to celebrate God's justice. God always keeps promises. God judges in favor of the oppressed, and gives food to the hungry. Happy are those who are concerned for the poor--the Lord will help them when they are in trouble. And we find in the Wisdom literature, if you refuse to listen to the cry of the poor, your own cry will not be heard. Speak out for those who cannot speak--for the rights of all the destitute. Defend the rights of the poor and the needy. We find in scripture, concern for the poor, concern for the hungry, concern for vulnerable people is pervasive. It flows directly from the revelation of God to the rescue that God wrought, to those enslaved people.

As a Christian, what about Jesus? The justice ethic of Jesus is built on the Hebrew scripture, and yet we as Christians, our understanding of liberation emerges from that divine act of salvation in Christ. In life, in death, in resurrection, because the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world conquered sin and death, we're forgiven. We're reconciled to God, we're born anew, we're now imitators of God. We're called to act in ways--in sacrificial ways, in loving ways for others. The example of Jesus for Christians is our guide and our inspiration. Jesus had a special sense of mission to the poor, for the oppressed. In him and *for* them, the messianic promises were being fulfilled. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," Jesus quoted from Isaiah, "because he has annointed me to bring good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of God's favor.

The scriptures clearly, in my thinking, depict Jesus over and over again reaching out to those at the bottom of the social pyramid. The poor, women, Samaritans, lepers, children, prostitutes, tax collectors. Jesus was also eager to accept people who were well-placed, but he made it clear that *all*, regardless of social position, needed to repent. And for this reason, he invited that rich young lawyer to sell all his possessions, and give the proceeds to the poor. Clearly, in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, in the Gospels, it is the intention of God that *all* people need to be welcome to the table. And it is the responsibility of you and me and all of us together, to care for those who are most vulnerable. Those who are most kept from the table. And this intention flows from the very heart of God. The God, the Living One who reaches out and loved all of us. To those who are rich, to those who are poor, to those who are in between.

It's been my experience that churches are already doing an awful lot to take care of needy people directly through charity work. One estimate says that religious congregations give over 7 billion dollars a year, give easily 1/7 of their total income to people in need, *but*, Christians devote much less effort to influencing what the government does. God requires both charity and justice. And justice can often be achieved only through government. The view that nations as well as individuals will be judged by the way that they treat their weakest, their most vulnerable among them, is embedded in the witness of the prophets of Isaiah, of Amos. "How terrible it will be for those who write unfair laws," writes Isaiah, "and those who write laws that make life hard for people. They are not fair to the poor. They rob my people of their rights. They allow people to steal from widows and to take from orphans what really belongs to them."

We know that Jesus often criticized, and sometimes even disobeyed the law, when those laws got in the way of helping people. He healed people on the Sabbath, even though all work was prohibited on the Sabbath. In Jesus' day, religion and government were intermixed, and so Jesus was challenging the law of the land. And this threat that Jesus posed to both government and to religion, I think led to his crucifixion.

Government is not the only or always the best instrument to deal with injustice, but, it is one of the institutions--institutions created by God. Created by God as part of God's way, God's will, God's providence, if you will, to the welfare of all people. And because we live in a democracy, in a nation with a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, I believe, from my perspective, that we have a special privilege, and a responsibility, to use the power of our citizenship and our faith, to promote justice for all.

Alternate link for comments

What is the purpose of civil government?

2006-10-07T18:26:00.000-04:00

From a forum I attended last night. There were four speakers. I really appreciated hearing Eric Williams, who spoke first, and was one of the main people behind the IRS complaint that was filed against two major churches that were practically endorsing Ken Blackwell. I'm hoping to write up some of what he said next.

There were also two other speakers, both Evangelicals. Everyone was supposed to give a 10 minutes opening statement. Lankford's statement was almost 20 minutes, so it's taking a long time to get through it. But I do think it's important to try to understand the motivation here. I've done a diary at Kos addressing Lankford's view of history, government, and why Evangelicals feel forced to respond to the events that are unfolding. In this post, though, I'm just including what he said is the role of civil government. Obviously, my view of "what the civil government's job is" is quite different from his.

Let me give you a little different way to think of politics and government. I support what is called Christian public policy, and a fair question is, "What the heck is that?" Now we have some people who claim that there is no such thing as Christian public policy. Christian public policy, in my understanding, is public policy that glorifies God, and advances the kingdom of God. Now, obviously, there's lots of leeway for interpreting what exactly that means--what kind of public policy *would* glorify God, what sort of public policy *would* advance the kingdom of God, but that's our starting point. And I think a biblical understanding of government begins with the recognition that God ordained four types of government. And part of the problem we have is that we only talk about one of the four.

God ordained individual government--you are individually sovereign. You personally have rights and authority and responsibility, you will personally answer for your life before God. You deserve respect and dignity as an individual sovereign government. God ordained family government. Families have real authority, real responsibility, and should be respected as a government. That's a Genesis ordaination (sp?) government. Third, we have the church. The church is ordained as a *real* government. There's a lot of conversation today about whether the church should be tax exempt. I think biblically and historically, the church shouldn't *need* to be tax exempt, because the church is tax *immune*. That is, the church is a separate, sovereign government, that is immune from other taxes, because it's a *different government*. You shouldn't be able to tax the church--it's distinct from the civil government, and it was recognized that way in American government until 1954 when they changed the IRS code.

And then finally you have the civil government. Now, the key principle to understand is that Christians, or at least Christians who think like I do, Evangelical Christians who believe in Christian public policy--we don't hate big government because we're against government. We don't like big government because it encroaches on the responsibility of individuals and families and churches. You see, we all call for the government to do something about the problems facing us. And I hear all the time, "You know, the government ought to do something about that." And I always answer "You know, you are exactly right, the government should do something about that", but the question we don't often ask is, "which government?" Should the individual be responsible for that, should the family be responsible for that, should the church be responsible for that, or the civil government be responsible for that? Now, I personally believe that individuals, families, and churches are *absolutely* responsible for helping the poor. I *don't* believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the *civil* government is caring for the poor.

I have a quick question for you--here's a quiz. When were poor people invented?...Okay, second question, does God hate the poor? Obviously not--he made so many of them. When was the first federal welfare program in America? Roosevelt, 1933, Social Security. Didn't we have any poor people in the colonies? Poor people in the states? All of a sudden, we had federal welfare programs--why? Because we believed that responsibility for poor people was with individuals, families, and churches, and sometimes local governments would get together and help poor people, and that's where that responsibility rested. So, we seek stronger individuals, stronger families, and stronger churches, and a civil government that's fully empowered to do what it's supposed to do, but not to encroach on the other three legitimate governments. And so that's what I try to promote.

Alternate link for comments

The view from the Christian Right

2006-10-07T15:31:00.000-04:00

Demetrius and I attended First Friday at the local Unitarian Universalist church last night. On the first Friday of every month, there is a potluck followed by several choices of speakers, discussions, and activities. The main forum this evening was about the appropriateness of churches being involved in matters of public policy. There were four speakers, and what you see below are some of the remarks from Gary Lankford, president of the Ohio Restoration Project. He kept emphasizing that we need to really listen to each other, and learn to disagree, without being disagreeable. That quickly becomes difficult, for me, anyway. Part of his talk below...

The reason I'm here instead of at a high school football game on a Friday night, is because I think community forums are important, and I think we're in danger in our society of losing our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I've heard three very different perspectives, and I agree with all three of you on some points, and disagress vigorously with some of you on other points, but I'm happy to say that I consider you brothers in Christ, and hope we can find some point of commonality. Not only within the Body of Christ, but with other Americans who don't count themselves as part of our faith tradition. So, what I'd like to offer tonight is something that I've learned in dialog with what I call "liberals of good will". You know, there's a tendency in America to polarize and to demonize people who think differently than we do. I've heard lots of angry rhetoric on both sides, and yet when I sit down and talk with real people who disagree with me vigorously, I find that once we get through the initial friction, we're able to talk about some things and work on some things, and accomplish a little something, at least relationally, and find some points of commonality. And that's what I want--to help share with you some of the things that I'm learning, and maybe help you understand what it's like on the Evangelical side of the aisle.

I've learned from dialoguing with my liberal friends that they really do have a very different perception of what's going on in America, and the conflict in the religious conversation going on, so I'm going to share some of those things with you if I could.

For over 300 years in America, it was widely assumed that to be in public office, you needed to be a Christian--or at least a Unitarian or a Deist. And that distinction, though important, wasn't critical, because even Deists in ages past were much more biblical in their worldview and their understanding of scripture than many of today's Evangelical office-holders. It was a different culture, and we had a broad, Christian cultural consensus as the backdrop for the public discourse and the public debate. You know, one of the great achievements of American Christianity is religious tolerance. Religious tolerance was a new thing in the world, and not practiced very many places, and not practiced for very long anywhere.

Now when the colonists first came to America, they came for religious freedom from Catholicism. They were not very tolerant of other Protestants. Eventually they progressed to where they were tolerant of other Protestants. Some more time went by, and they finally accepted and tolerated Catholics. Some more time went by, and they finally tolerated Jews, and Hindus and Buddhists and other faith traditions--nonwestern religions. And finally America accepted Atheists and Secularists. And one of the historical ironies, once the Atheists and Secularists were accepted, they decided now would be a good time to kick Christians out of the public square.

And that's how the Evangelical side of the aisle feels now--we feel unwelcome in the public square. We feel like there's a deliberate, organized attempt to quiet us, and reduce our political influence, and reduce our ability to talk and debate in the public square. And this often comes as a great surprise to my liberal friends. Because they tend to think of the "Christian right" for lack of a better term, as being a powerful oppressive influence in society--something that must be fought. When my liberal friends say "Speak truth to power", they mean, "Speak against those angry religious right people that are ruining America." And yet we have a very different experience, and a very different perspective of what's going on in America.

There was this broad Christian consensus in America, and in the 1930s, the Secularists began to organize in a very purposeful way, and they made astounding progress for a country with the kind of religious tradition and cultural tradition that America had. And by 20 or 30 or 40 years later, they were pre-eminent in the universities, in the medias, in the mainline churches, and in government. In fact, it was in the 1950s that William F. Buckley wrote a famous book called God and Man at Yale. Yet Ivy League schools all over America had started as Christian seminaries, and by the 1950s, Christians weren't welcome there any more. Certainly not on faculty--they were ghetto-ized and minimized in universities in the Ivy League, and later, in the mainstream university experience. In fact, at most universities, outspoken Evangelicals are outnumbered by liberal people, 10-1 to 16-1, depending on what university you're in. That's a pretty significant victory for people on the left side of the aisle.

There were also some very significant Supreme Court decisions that came in the 1960s and 70s, and I want you to think about this for a second. These were all landmark decisions that marked major shifts in American culture and American experience. They all happened for the very first time in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1961, we had Torcaso vs. Watkins, where for the first time they outlawed religious tests for public office. 1961. In 1962 they outlawed any kind of school prayer in American schools, led in any way by teachers or faculty or staff. Here was the prayer that they outlawed in 1962: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." That was deemed a violation of the separation of church and state. Did you catch that? "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

In 1963, the Court found Bible reading over the school intercom unconstitutional. You couldn't read Bible verses in the morning announcements. In 1971, they devised a new test to determine what was "excessive entanglement" in church-state issues, called the Kurtzman test. Here are the three new definitions. The government action must have a secular purpose, or it's not allowed. Its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or advance religion--if it inhibits or advances religion, it's not allowed. And three, there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Now if you follow church-state court cases at all in the last 35 years, you'll find that the Lemon v. Kurtzman case settle nothing at all. Every Supreme Court had a totally different idea of what each of those three points meant in practical usage.

Then you have 1972, Roe vs. Wade, where all the state laws regarding abortion were overturned, and the Supreme Court decided there was now a constitutional right to abortion. After 200 years, now there was a constitutional right. It was a pretty significant change.

And 1977, the court found that the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools was unconstitutional. And they referred to the Lemon-Kurtzman decision in a 5-4 ruling, saying that even though the ten commandments were posted in schools since they were started, in the early 1800s, it was now unconstitutional.

So what you find is that by the 1960s, the liberal church became politically active. They became politically active in the war on poverty, in the civil rights movement, and in the anti-war movement. Now the conservatives were dragged reluctantly into politics in the late 70s and early 80s, back with the Moral Majority people and the Pat Robertson people, Christian Coalition and all that stuff. And I say reluctantly, because they're still reluctant. And I know they're reluctant because I'm still dragging them into the public square--they still don't want to be there. Most Evangelicals just want to be left alone. They feel like they're responding to an aggressive, hostile culture that won't let them be.

Now again, if you count yourself as a liberal, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just sharing with you what the experience is in my faith community, and the people that I talk to, the people I know that are politically motivated, and why they're motivated. The people I know don't have any desire to lead a theocracy. They don't have any desire to oppress women, or minorities, or any other group. That's not the motivation of churchgoing people. They feel like they have to respond to some of the things going on politically and culturally.

And the rhetoric has been even worse in the last five or ten years. In the last several years, people in my faith community have been accused of, here's a headline from Harper's Magazine, "The Christian Right's War on America". That's a cover story, "The Christian Right's War on America". Now we've been called the "American Taliban". We heard on national tv by that great philosopher Rosie O'Donnell, that radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. Now, most people in my faith community have trouble not taking that personally. There are no people among radical Christians that are bombing innocent civilians. Our churches don't get together and organize bombing raids, so that seems like an unfair criticism of people in my community.

We're often called extremists and hatemongers. Bigoted. Anti-tolerant. Homophobic. Mysogynist. In fact, we feel like we're the only group that you can criticize without fear of retribution. Now again, I share this with you, because, when I share this with liberals, they are very surprised that that's our experience. They don't think that's true at all. And again, one of the reasons I support community forums is it's very easy for us to talk in our own little echo chambers, and never talk to anybody that thinks significantly differently from we do, and we never learn to have any sort of dialog.

One of my favorite cultural moments was hearing Julia Roberts being interviewed on The Tonight Show. She was absolutely convinced that the Republicans had stolen the presidential election--the first George Bush election. Not because that was an illegitimate claim--her proof was, "I know they stole the election. I don't know a single person that voted for George Bush! They must have stolen it." And that's all too typical of us. We don't know a single person who voted for the other guy, so there must be fraud involved! I hope we can get past that.

There's more, but I'm still working on it. I really appreciated hearing Eric Williams, who spoke first, and was one of the main people behind the IRS complaint that was filed against two major churches that were practically endorsing Ken Blackwell. I'm hoping to write up some of what he said next.

There were also two other speakers, both Evangelicals. Everyone was supposed to give a 10 minutes opening statement. Lankford's statment was almost 20 minutes.

Alternate link for comments

Moments of "rightness"

2006-09-30T21:11:00.000-04:00

Every now and then I experience these moments where I sense that things really *are* right with the world, and unfolding in a positive direction--even though much of what we see and experience seems to suggest otherwise. Of course, I am fully aware that what I perceive as "God's clues", while they are meaningful to me personally, can easily be explained as ordinary coincidences. But I am thankful when the Universe provides them.

At different points in my faith journey, when I was feeling tenative about my move away from the Catholic church of my youth--more importantly the church of my grandmother, a tiny little something that would happen that would reassure me. Typically, it involved hearing one of Grandma's favorite hymns at the church I was attending. I know those are small, easily dismissed coincidences, but they have something important to say to me at a given moment, and for that I have been grateful.

Today, as my daughter practiced with the church youth choir, I waited, as usual, downstairs in the church library. Having exhausted, for the moment, their selection of books, I turned to the stand where various church newsletters and Episcopal periodicals were displayed. There, I spotted the most recent copy of Episcopal Life.

In it was an in-depth article about Presiding Bishop Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori (as well as an interesting piece about her husband) entitled A Confident Reconciler. Of course, in the past couple days I've written about both Thich Nhat Hanh and Desmond Tutu and their shared recognition that we are all part of a human family. Reading the Jefferts Schori article, I was struck yet again with the feeling that the Spirit truly was in the room when she was being elected. (Her election, came as a surprise to many, as she was not considered a frontrunner.) But the more I learn about her, the more I feel that she really is the right person at the right time. I really encourage everyone to read the piece, or at least part of it, just to get the sense of her style of leadership. It's a style I think we need more of at this point in history.

And then, as I was thinking this, I heard the girls upstairs starting to sing a hymn that I hadn't heard for some time. It wasn't one of the modern Dan Schutte style hymns that had been my favorites, but it's one that I came to appreciate because it was one of Grandma's favorites...

O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed!

Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee;
How great Thou art, how great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee;
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

Again, I know this isn't the stuff of miracles to most people, but for me that moment combined a sense of hope for the future and connectedness to the past--and reassurance that my beloved spiritual role model is still with me today.

Alternate link for comments

W.W.J.T.

2006-09-30T00:25:00.000-04:00