Didn’t See That One Coming…

Huh? What? Cairo’s falling? According to AlterNet, there’s “Breaking News: Cairo’s Falling!”.

OK. Tunisia fell. I don’t even exactly know where Tunisia is. I feel dumb not knowing about Tunisia, but there’s only so much a person can know while still dealing with the chaos that is regular family life, more snow than we’ve ever had, keeping a job, and being a good citizen by keeping up on the news.

But, as a reasonably intelligent and busy person, I know where Egypt is, I know that’s it’s frequently on the news, I know that Hosne Mubarak is it’s president, or prime minister or whatever they have there. It’s not a radical Muslim country with screaming terrorists in the streets — or it wasn’t yesterday.  It’s not a corrupt, evil power that we’re worried about — or it wasn’t yesterday. Mubarak wasn’t a well-known dictator who suppressed or made disappear thousands of people. Just yesterday, or two days ago, there was this stable government somewhere in the middle-east that had an incredible history, a booming tourist trade which went to see the incredible history, and so on. Today, apparently, there’s fighting in the streets, a curfew, the congress or whatever they have there is “sacked” and the world over there is nuts.

Part of me feels like I should seen this coming. Then the other part of me thinks, “what part of ‘they were stable and ok’ makes me think I should have seen this coming”? There’s only so much a person can cope with and — in the information age — we (or at least I) begin to think we should be up on all of it.  It’s enough to drive a person insane, but it doesn’t have to be.

One month ago, as the ball fell on Times Square, there was enough to worry about. There was recession here, failing markets around the world, a new Congress coming in, a president I supported apparently “dead in the water” as a leader.  there was Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea, trade deficits with China and human rights violations all over the world. Would I have predicted the greatest snowfall in a month on record? No.  A bad winter, yes, but a winter like this? Not even.  Would I have predicted birds just falling from the sky? No. Would I have predicted the fall of Tunisia? No. Had I heard of Tunisia? Yes.  Did I care about Tunisia? No. It wasn’t a threat to me.

So now, Egypt is in trouble and I feel troubled that I wasn’t well-informed enough to see it coming. Does Cairo’s apparent revolution effect me? Not yet, and not directly.  Heck, even if I lived there, I couldn’t have seen it coming, I think, any more than I could have foreseen guys in planes crashing into towers years ago or earthquakes happening in the middle of the World Series before that.

Quinnipiac University here in Connecticut has a global studies program I’m familiar with and people that study there probably know a lot more than I did about the subject. Would more global studies education have helped? Not that I can tell in this situation — at least in advance. Will it make a great deal of difference in sorting out what it means? You bet it will. People in those classes will have a much better understanding than I will of whether Egypt’s troubles are a problem for me or not — and what to do about it if they are.

But all the understanding in the world, all the quest for knowledge that we have, doesn’t mean we know everything and\or should. In the old days, before internet, TV, radio, or newspapers, countries rose and fell and people here never knew about it. Amazingly, they survived. Somewhere along the way, we began to assume that knowledge meant control. We began to assume that we could control everything and that control is the most important thing in life.  So, now when we feel out of control even the slightest bit, we seek more knowledge — more analysis, more pictures, more detail so that we don’t ever have to feel out of control again.

But maybe that’s the problem. Maybe we should just get used to the fact that we don’t and can’t control everything. Maybe we should accept that we don’t know everything, even if we want to. Maybe we could try controlling what we can instead of trying, as limited human beings that we are, to control everything. Fear doesn’t help us. Choosing to fear because we can’t understand — and somehow having more to fear —   is one more example of the poor choices we make — choices that don’t work for us.

Let’s save some energy for “rolling with the punches” that inevitably come, rather than always trying to see them coming in our world. Let’s turn off the media at some point in our day. Let’s live in the world we actually live in. We can’t do that forever or we’ll end up being isolated people who only care about themselves. But, today I’m aware that we need a little more balance between control and acceptance, our heads and our hearts.  Just a thought.

Peace,

 

John

 

South Church — Better Than It Has To Be

I  live  in the “real world” every day — the world where people get what they need and deserve based on their actions. I work, I get paid. My kids do good things and my wife and I support them. Things happen because they should and don’t because they shouldn’t, at least most of the time. Tires wear out on someone’s car because they have 60,000 miles on them. The sun rises and sets daily, as it should.   I am aware of what life should –and mostly does– hold.

I work in the really real world. Again, I am aware of what life should –and mostly does outside of there– hold.  In my work world, I see people who don’t hold to those standards and the devastation that brings.  I see men who have children and don’t give them what they need. I see spouses who can’t understand why, if they put nothing into their marriage, their marriage is failing. I see people who can’t imagine that their nasty actions make other people sad. I see people who don’t the hard work of parenting and instead either neglect their children or buy them –seldom listening, seldom actually knowing their kids, often wanting what’s best for them, seldom wanting what’s best for their child or — worse yet — children.

Then, there’s my church world. I am a member of South Church UCC in New Britain, CT and today the church made me proud, even as I grieved for it needing to.  South Church, like many churches and organizations we all know is “downsizing”  – not to give profit to our stockholders, as they do outside of the church, not to to give an extra bonus to our CEO as they do in the corporate world, not to become a “more efficient” church, as though efficiency was the hallmark of an organization.  Today, South Church in New Britain CT downsized because we had to.  Quite simply, when the stock market crashed a few years ago, our endowment took a hit from which it hasn’t ever rebounded.  Now, in order to survive, we have decided to downsize the staff at the church and cut back in various areas of the church budget which mostly centered around people — staffing cuts, salary and benefit cuts for staff, etc.

The church also lives in the real world where, like it or not, bills have to get paid and people have to eat. I have sat through enough Trustees meetings over the course of my lifetime where people speak of running the church “like a business” to know just what that is. Today, South Church did just that — only better. We ran the church as a church — a business where people matter.

Two or three months ago, I was asked to serve on the Personnel Committee for the church because the employees wanted to be taken into account and the church wanted to take them into account as decisions progressed.  We listened as people talked. We did our homework and found that standard handling of a situation was one-month-salary-for-every-one-year-a-person worked. There were special circumstances involved in our decision and we sought — out of justice — to rectify issues the church felt bad about.  The Committee recommended a certain amount to be more than fair — we wanted to be just.  We wanted to take responsibility for our actions and give what was appropriate. The Finance Board at our church heard our recommendations and did even better than that — three months plus benefits for two-and-a-half years of service.  It wasn’t an incredible package, but in  a world where labor laws allow factories to close without warning and offer no benefits at all, this was not business as usual. The church was better than it had to be.

During today’s meeting and vote, it was discovered that one staff member had agreed to voluntarily do her part-time job at the church rather than let the work be left undone.  Even if we were cutting the money, she was going to do the job. Another staff member — rather than cutting the salaries or positions of those under him — took a cut in his own salary and benefits.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if a CEO said “rather than cut our work force, I’ll take a cut in pay”? The church’s people again were better than they had to be.  Two pastors at the church are going to shoulder more of the burden because the work of the church needs to get done — people need to get visited, youth need to be taught, and so on.  Volunteers on Committees effected by staffing cutbacks stepped forward and are doing the work,  because they also care for the church and its ministry.

Finally, at the end of the meeting, someone suggested that the pastor being “downsized” be acknowledged as doing good, creative, and at times, hard work and that the church didn’t want to make these decisions but felt it had to. Yours truly seconded that motion and it was agreed that the motion to discontinue the position could be amended to say that, but there was a better idea. Not on the agenda, but nonetheless planned in advance, a co-moderator read a page-long tribute to the outgoing pastor and her hard work. That was made into an official motion and put into the church record, as well as an acknowledgement that the church grieved that we had to let go of anybody. Once again, in the final analysis, the church — the body of Christ — it’s people, acting like Christians — was better than it “had” to be. South Church, in making a horribly difficult decision, acted graciously and -surpassing even calls for simple justice — was better than it had to be.

I am honored to be a member of such a loving and caring church — one which does the best it can in hard times, caring for people and living out the message of the gospel. I just wanted you to know that such things existed. It certainly exists here in New Britain and it probably exists at many churches. Among the news of mean-spirited theology, egotistic hate-filled pastors who encourage violence against others, and churches fighting against scholarship, which fill the airwaves and the press, I thought a reminder of what churches can be might be a reminder of why we Christians go in the first place.

Peace,

 

John

What It’s Like To Be Poor

[It's been a day at work -- clients being thrown out of their homes, their cars dying, relationships fading or ending altogether, kids being sick, the list goes on.  I write this blog often enough and it helps me, but today I want it to help THEM (you know,my clients, my poor, not always "deserving" clients). I'm tired of explaining and bickering over what they need, why they, need it, how "much" the government gives them, etc.  It's not an esoteric or intellectual thing for my clients, and I don't have either answers or snarky comments in this particular article -- I just have a story.  It is not one person's story, it is not based on one particular person, it's a conglomerate of a bunch of people -- hopefully honest without being melodramatic.  So here it is, ... my impressions of what it's like to be poor...]

“Once I lived the life of a millionaire\ Had lots of money\ Didn’t have no cares” — Billie Holliday

How does a person get to be poor? There are all kinds of ways. Some people were born poor and stay that way, some people get hit by tragedy and become poor, some people have ailments and illnesses, some make dumb mistakes. For some people, their own choices have led them to it. For others, other people’s choices have led to it. It usually starts with children and a breakup. A woman marries and has a couple of kids. Her husband has a girlfriend, loses a job, drinks a lot, does drugs, beats  her, has depression, went to war and now has PTSD, was sexually abused, has a “midlife crisis” or something else happens — he dies at work , for instance and she ends up single, with two or more kids.  Sometimes, the woman really is the problem. She has nagged her man to death and he’s now done had enough, so they break up.

On his salary, they can’t afford two apartments — one for him and one for her, so he keeps what he can and — if he’s a good guy — he pays what he can in child support. This leaves him little or no money to live on and her even less. If he’s not a good guy, they’re all in trouble. In any case, most likely she gets the kids because “she’s the mother” and “he’s got a job”. If she married right out of High School, the last job she had was working at McDonald’s when she was 15 or as a camp counselor or if she went to college — some sort of a work-study job at the school library.

Because his child support isn’t enough to live on — assuming she gets some — she has to go “back” to work.  ”Back”, of course, assumes that she was ever there in the first place. So she looks for work, but she freaks out because she thinks, “who’s going to take care of the children?” — and she’s not the only one asking.  Her friends, her ex-, her family and the kids themselves all ask that question. Beside that, society in general seems to ask that question, because “she is, after all, the mother”.  So she doesn’t really look for work for awhile because she can’t afford child care, but she can’t afford not to work, and she’s not a good mother if she works and she can’t stand to be away from her kids and… and… the list goes on and her head spins. If she has family, they try to take her and the kids in. If her family is messed up, she doesn’t want to do that, because it’ll only cause more problems, so she’s on her own. If her family loves her and they have a connection, she moves in with them — assuming they have a place big enough for these extra kids and can handle having them there.  If not, that won’t work either.

In any case, the loss of the relationship, the loss of the money, various years wasted, all run through her brain and she gets depressed: not horribly, clinically depressed, but depressed nonetheless, because it’s a lot of loss to take in. Her ex-, dealing with whatever issues that caused him to leave the family, and missing his children, also becomes depressed.  Because of their depressions, neither of them is any fun to be around and (best case scenario) the people they are living with get sick of seeing them mope around the house, and resent taking care of them while they look for work or don’t. After awhile, even the best meaning families throw them out because it’s too much to deal with and/or they simply don’t have the means to keep it up.

He goes to work and can’t concentrate and/or pours himself into his work and/or pours himself another drink and his life slowly falls apart. If he’s lucky, he’ll meet some woman at work and they’ll get married.  If he’s not lucky, he loses his job — and with it — health insurance benefits. He already resents paying child support and he doesn’t get to see the kids, so he stops caring about them on some level.

Back at her side of the equation, she finally musters up enough courage to go against society’s expectations (in her head, anyway) and looks for a job. Welfare has kicked in and the Department of Revenue expects that her ex- is paying his child support. This puts her in a funny position. She could stay home and collect welfare and the kids could get State Medical Insurance and she wouldn’t have to find daycare or she could get a job that pays really well and pay for childcare. If she stays home, she’s a “welfare mom”, the bane of our American society, but she at least takes care of the kids. If she goes to work, she’s no longer the ideal mom and she has to spend time away from her children. And that “great job” that she’s so qualified for? She has no experience which will let her get the job, or she gets paid less than a man for a job she can’t usually get and (because she’s lucky) spends lots of time at work.  If she’s really lucky, she makes $15.00 an hour ( or $600.00 per week). After child care and taxes, she brings home about $250.00 per week or $1000.00 per month. Rent costs $700 for a crappy apartment in the old mill town these days but that’s what she’s got. After awhile, she tries to find a place but “first, last, and security” come to $2100 in a lump sum. That’s two months take home pay without eating, buying clothes, having fun every once in awhile, or anything else.  So, with any luck, it takes 6 months of working and saving to get an apartment. Note that that’s 6 months of working and saving. If either of those two fails, you’re poor for longer.

One day, while driving to-and-from work, her car breaks down. She doesn’t know how to fix it, her ex- doesn’t either (and probably wouldn’t come if asked, anyway), so she takes the car to the repair shop and the guy there charges — or wants to charge — $400.oo for all of the work that needs to be done. She can a) not get everything fix and worry about the car all the time; b) get the car fixed right and scrimp on food and stay on target for the apartment; or c) feed the kids as much as they eat and wait longer to be “movin’ on up”.   She chooses “a” and spends her time worried about the car. Her anxiety creeps out every once in awhile and she snaps at the kids, particular when Junior says he wants a pair of Jordans (sneakers) that cost $125.00 per pair, just like the hoodlum next door has.  She yells, but catches herself, apologizes and goes on, explaining that “no, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is”.

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Junior remains a good kid, instead of becoming a hoodlum. That’s very good, given temptation and all. If he completes High School, his grades won’t look as good as a suburbanite’s, because his school isn’t considered a quality school in the same way – it doesn’t have an arts program and orchestra, among other things.  In addition to that, Junior has to put up with comments like “I had sneakers like that, then my father got a job” as a “reward” for his acceptance of the situation.  Still, with hard work, he and his sister will get ahead, if the economy’s good and if they have talents that pay well after their done with school.

Ok, so life goes on and one of the kids gets sick.  Because the family’s on state medicaid, it’s been hard to find a primary care doctor. Instead, she takes the child to the Emergency Room for treatment, and it takes hour after hour after hour before the child gets seen. Before that, though, she’s decided to go home on-and-off three times. When they get seen, it takes an hour and she gets meds to treat the problem.  When she gets to the pharmacist, he informs her that state medicaid won’t authorize this particular prescription, so he calls the doctor back and gets another, more generic version for her child. She wonders if her child is actually getting the best medication, but she takes what she can get and the kid has to stay home from school for a few days.  She fears that work won’t give her the time off and daycare won’t take the kid. They can’t go to school, so what can she do? She calls her family or friends and hopes that they can do it. They can’t because DSS or DCF or whoever is involved in their life, so she send the kid to school sick and hopes for the best.  Sure enough, the school calls and she has to leave work in her broken car, put up with the boss’s “evil eye” and get her child.

Every once in awhile, she gets so frustrated with all of this that she goes “wild” — spending $100 on a night out or drinking until she’s drunk or buying extra toys for her children because she feels so bad she can’t get them stuff all the time, “like those other parents”. On these “binges”, she spends too much and “bounces” checks. These cost her $35.00 each plus something new — $6.95 per day until they’re paid off. Assuming this is the middle of the month, that’s another $140 she doesn’t have that’s got to come out of somewhere. If they turn down the heat some more, or she eats a little less, and nothing else happens, the fees can be gotten over.

And what if she “gives in” to the kids and gets them a computer game system (or just a computer, for that matter)?  She goes to Rent-A-Piece-of-Equipment that she saw on TV and pays “only” $50 a month for two years. That’s $1200 for a piece-of-equipment that costs $650 at the store. Is it worth it? Maybe not, but it’s what she can do.

But something does happen — it could be anything, but something happens — so the family has to absorb even more stress. If the daughter needs dental work, MassHealth or the local medicaid doesn’t cover it anymore, so the kid has to wait for a little while longer to get it fixed or go to the clinic where dental students work. She chooses to rinse her mouth with salt water three times a day to hold off until seen.

While at work, a man “hits on her”. Ok, he’s married and bit of a scumbucket, but he’d help pay the bills. They start to see each other. Then she has to break it off and work gets tenuous for awhile. His wife finds out and he moves away, so she keeps her job. At some point, she meets a friend’s friend and they start dating. Dating is a balancing act between kids, budget, work, and night school, so she can get a better job. Maybe she can manage it and maybe she can’t.  Maybe her boyfriend will work out and maybe he won’t.

This is the way life is and stays for the next five or ten years if she’s lucky -- and the system works.

But what if she isn’t lucky? What if she or one of the kids or her new boyfriend gets sick? What if there’s mental illness in the family? What if one of the kids joins a gang? What if addiction enters the family? What if the cost of things goes out sight for awhile? What if like tonight, it’s so cold that the family has to turn up the heat in their drafty place? What if it’s the summer and it’s been 105 degrees for 2 weeks? Do they turn up the electricity? What if there’s an accident of some sort and there’s no one who can work? How do they make it then?

Poverty, while not exactly illegal in this country, is seen by so many as failure — police, doctors, the system in general.  It limits choices or forces choices between difficult things on a daily basis, making life-and-death choices which can (and do) go awry easily. It’s not the worst thing someone can endure, but it robs people of all kinds of things during the course of their lifetime.  Resources, of whatever kind, leave “wiggle room” in life. Poor folks don’t have that. Do they succeed if they “make it”? Yes, but at a terrible cost if things get to be too much — families destroyed or isolated and separated.  It’s difficult at best.

That’s all I’ve got for now, but it’s something to think about.

 

Peace,

 

John

 

Martin, Barack, and the Way of Peace…

Every year, around the King birthday celebration, I like to say something about the man who was my hero. This is the 2011 edition.

As President Obama reached across the aisle in the wake of the elections, many people, including myself, were baffled about what it all meant. I thought, at first, “what a generous thing to do — not politically astute, but maybe he really is a leader”. Later, when I heard Bernie Sanders’ arguments that the rich’s tax cuts were at least partially the cause of the deficit, I thought, “No, he’s right, that’s actual justice”.

It would be incredibly easy to say that America’s first Black president was the embodiment of Martin Luther King’s “Dream”  and that Obama is “just like” King. It would also be a lie. It is quite possible that Obama is the embodiment of King’s dream, a president that I don’t know King could even have dreamed of — one who truly wants to “be judged, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character”.  While Obama might turn out to be a great leader (or not), he is not King.  Here’s why: Obama is not a pacifist. He’s a “practical” man.  He believes that sometimes you have to fight a war in order to correct a wrong or support democracy or defeat terrorism.  And for all of his wisdom about the “practicality” of non-violence and how he knew it was the only thing that would ultimately work, King was — according to nearly everyone else, not a very practical man. He was an idealist who let his idealism lead him because he believed it was founded in the Spirit of God.  King was a brave man, an extraordinary man, a prophet and leader. Obama is a nice guy, a believer in Democracy,and a believer in God, as well as a practical man. To the extent that he “dropped the gloves” and saw Republicans as human beings with a different agenda, he was very much like King.  To the extent that he accepted the injustice that Bernie Sanders pointed out, he isn’t.

It is this difference that makes King worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize and embarrassed Obama when he received it. It is this difference that confuses people about King’s non-violence and pacifism and keeps alive the illusion that pacifism and non-violence are for idiots and wimps. Non-violent action as a form of civil disobedience is active and not passive. It looks like “selling out” to people who are radical, when in fact it is radical to people who sell out themselves in frustration and anger. Non-violence requires not giving in to our easiest, but short-lived path: anger, hatred and violence. It is easy to act angrily when we see the conditions around us. It is easy to act violently when we fear losing our “proper” place to “those people”. It is easy to hate when we don’t know each other.

As much as I speak of, and fantasize about righting wrongs with violence, as much as I hope to give voice to the voiceless in their expression of anger, I am aware that King was right — acting it out  isn’t the right path.  Does it suck to hold back? Yes, yes, it does.  Does it cause stress and anguish internally? Yes, yes, it does. Does Jesus call us to do it? Yes, yes, I believe, he does.

The trick to non-violence — the challenge to it — is to both see injustice and be angry about it on an emotional level (ala Bernie Sanders) and not either give up (ala Obama) or give in to it (ala the guy who shot the senator in Arizona or the terrorists in Al-Quaeda). That is what makes King so incredible — he managed to do that.  Sacrificial suffering even when we have the right to get vengeance according to everything we know and feel — is what we are called to do.

I know this is not going to seem patriotic to many people, but if our response to 9/11 were sacrificial suffering and an attempt to understand the anger of terrorists without resorting to the violence of war, there’d be a lot fewer dead Americans and a lot more money to keep our economy up — for social programs and — yes, Bob — to cut taxes. And to our credit as Americans, there were plenty of people who only grieved about 9/11 and didn’t call for death to people they couldn’t understand. Does this mean that I wouldn’t want to catch Osama Bib Laden?  Not at all. I’d like the son-of-a-B to be caught and sent to prison for the rest of his life and the rest of eternity.

Hateful people win when we give into our own hate, or at least good people lose more when we do.

Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that, and refused to give an inch. While given plenty of chances, he never gave in to the temptation to “cut off his nose to spite his face”.

When Obama gave his speech at the memorial of the dead in Arizona, he was great as a Dad. The idea that he is a great father to his children came through loud-and-clear. I bet he genuinely would have liked the little girl who died, just as he likes his own daughters. But being a mature parent is more than liking your kids, it’s about saying no, it’s about setting limits, it requires getting angry at them at times and still loving them without acting just  like they do. It’s about having a bigger vision than they do.  King was that more mature parent, while Obama is the loving Dad.  King often thanked God that he was called to “love” his enemies rather than “like” them.  Both are better than an abusive parent — and I don’t believe Obama is that, by any means. He’s further ahead than I am in the “be nice” category than I am and further than some other presidents. And Obama will be remembered as a good president and an amazing person. Unless he’s willing to stand up to injustice more, though, he will not be remembered as a great president or an incredible leader. Unless he’s willing to be angrier, transform that anger into love, and stand his ground more, he will never be King.  Unless he knows God more and draws strength from God more, it will be impossible to do the anger\transformation thing which King was able to do. Then again, neither will we.

But hey, that’s just me.

Wishing you Peace, true peace — injustice-free peace on this day we remember Martin Luther King, Jr –

John

 

 

The End of the Rush? That’s What He Fears…

In the wake of the Giffords shooting, the press says Rush Limbaugh had this to say…  All the italics are mine..

“Rush Limbaugh criticizes the response of the Democratic Party and the media to the Tucson tragedy in his radio show today, saying that the event has been used to advance the Left’s political interests.

“The left, including the media, cannot accept the reality of a madman slaughtering innocent people. It cannot be ‘individual responsibility’ — they reject that concept anyway,” Limbaugh said.

He goes on to say that “the Left” believes that Utopia can happen and therefore “cannot deal with anything in reality that demonstrates that Utopia cannot exist.”

Limbaugh contrasted the Left’s response to his perspective on how conservatives view the event.

“We see the reality that Utopia cannot exist and our thoughts and emotions focus on the events, we do not seek to find a deeper meaning to it, we are about truth, which is why we look specifically at evidence and facts,” Limbaugh said.  “We don’t look at dreams, we, conservatives, pursue the truth.”

Mr. Limbaugh is running scared. He sees his entire business drying up and he doesn’t know what to do, except what he has always done — blame others. I pity him individually, but I can’t say I’m unhappy about the demise of his industry — fear and overblown rhetoric posing as truth. While my opinions here are specifically about Limbaugh, they don’t have to be. He just got the news coverage to prompt my article. I also have to admit that when I first heard him 20 years ago, I liked what he had to say, because he said some of what I thought but didn’t say.  After a month or so, though, I thought, “Wow, if you follow this train of thought, pretty soon, you’ll be driving it off a cliff”.” So, I stopped listening.  If this were some disgusting sex crime involving lesbian cheerleaders, Howard Stern would be in the same position.   In any case, this could be the end of the “shock jock”.  ”People that make their  living by  shocking and being over-the-top can’t live very well when people see how far off they’ve gotten and they have to tone it down. They can’t be boring and keep their ratings,  and they know it.  In five years, will Rush Limbaugh be on the air? Sure, but he’ll be a much small presence in a bigger world of ideas.

I just wanted to go over\correct a few of his statements here to show “off” he is.

First, “the event has been used to advance the Left’s political interests”. The Left may want to advance their interests here, I’ll give him that. Still, the nation’s still in shock and it doesn’t look good for anybody to prosper off of death.  Senators and Congresspeople from all sides are saying this was a tragedy and  when I heard about the shooting, I hadn’t heard of her — she wasn’t famous enough to be symbolic  to anybody but the shooter.  An assassination is an assassination, so it didn’t — and doesn’t — matter what party she was from.  If by “advancing the left’s interests”, he means “not advancing his interests”, he is correct. In the words of the church, we as a nation are “convicted”  by what happened. In the famous words of Pogo, “we have seen the enemy and it is us”.

Next, “It cannot be ‘individual responsibility’ — they reject that concept anyway,” Jon Stewart, who I consider to be leftist, said, for minutes at the beginning of the show, just that: In essence, “It is individual responsibility, the guy’s a madman, etc., but you can’t say the environment’s not toxic”.

Lastly, “we [conservatives] are about truth, which is why we look specifically at evidence and facts”. Such a crock!  Pundits, left or right, don’t make their living with facts, they make their living with opinions about the facts, and the loudest ones make the most money. The whole reason Al Gore had to put out “An Inconvenient Truth” was that people like Limbaugh has shut down the discussion of “Global Warming” or what we now call “Climate Change”!  It took an hour-and-a half of graphs and charts and startling pictures to convince people that Limbaugh and others didn’t know the facts. They relied on 1 scientist who said whatthey wanted to hear and they played up that one opinion despite a world of researchers who thought otherwise!

In listening to couples bicker, I can tell you that facts — actual facts — are the place where we find common ground.  Mr. Limbaugh and the entire world of talk radio\cable opinions is about not finding common ground. It’s about being unique and recognizable — “branding” and the like.  It’s about polarization and trying to get a rise out of people. Limbaugh can’t connect his “movement” to conservatives because the right won’t let him. It’s not about “Right” or “Left”, it’s about how far people are willing to push the edge of opinion to make a buck. It’s about the length of rhetoric’s reach and about not wanting to go past a certain point.  Both left and right — sane people from all walks of life — feel it’s gone too far.

Peace,

 

John

 

This is NOT CHRISTIANITY!!!!

A friend of mine e-mailed this to me last night. I don’t usually give idiots the time of day, but I felt like I had to defend Jesus one more time from IDIOTS who claim to know him.

As a contradiction to what you’ll see below, here are actual words from the Bible: (New International Version, ©2010)

Galatians 5:22-23

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

And from Jesus (remember him, Mr. Phelps?)

^{Matthew: 5: 1} Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, ² and he began to teach them.

The Beatitudes

He said:

³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹ “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹² Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And some more words of Jesus in red:

^{Matthew 5: 21} “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,^[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ ²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister^[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’^[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

(The term “Raca” here, may have been the equivalent to the word “faggot”, according to some scholars. Just thought you should know)

and still more words of that Jesus guy:

^{Matthew 5: 38} “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’^{[h] 39} But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. ⁴¹ If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

THAT is Christianity! Do you see any of that below? I don’t.

Peace, in the name of  Jesus..,

John

Why Can’t We Be Friends? — Pastoral Theology and Education

My sort-of-in-care person, Caroll Cyr, and I were talking the other day. She’s — at first glance — a conservative Christian and I’m — at first glance — a liberal Christian.  In fact, as we talked, and I thought about it tonight, I’m aware that — among conservatives, she’s a bit liberal and I — among liberals — am pretty conservative.  She’s not all about salvation, and believes in the social gospel.  I’m not all about the social gospel. I believe in salvation. To both of us, Jesus is the most important part of the faith and our actions should manifest themselves, so that you know we’re a Christian. To both of us, it’s important that our actions have a basis in the faith’s book, the Bible.  I love people that are acting in ways consistent with the faith, whether they believe or not. I don’t understand how they got there, but I think they’re really worth hanging out with. I like to have a place to check in and remain grounded, and — for me — that’s the Bible — especially the prophets of the Old Testament and the words of Jesus. If you can manage that without it, cool. That makes you a liberal democrat, or a socialist, or a communist. It could also make you a republican, depending on the issue.  For me, it all starts with the Sermon on the Mount. After that, it’s all gravy, as far as life goes.  Then there’s salvation. Jesus’ death on the cross is a weird occurrence among deity, and his resurrection is a weird occurrence among humans. For people who have ruined their lives, salvation is the only thing that’ll get it back. Those are the people I spend my days with. For people who haven’t, it may or may not feel like a necessity. Those are the people I spend the rest of my life with.

For others, it all starts with Jesus on the cross.  For many of them, it also ends there. They are saved, and that’s all that matters. They could care less about someone else.  Those are the people that I least like in the world, I think. Cancel that, people who are just plain evil or have no conscience or hurt each other for no reason but their own stupidity — I like them least.  But shortly after them in line is people who claim to know Jesus or the Spirit or God and it makes them feel superior to others, so they’re rude, belittling, harsh, and generally show none of the marks of the Spirit. Those people keep people away from Christianity, so I really dislike them. I could care less if they are saved. If it were up to me, they wouldn’t be — but it’s not up to me.  The thing they boast most about  and the thing they want respect for most,  from me gets my disrespect. But, then, I’m a Yankee, and we don’t like people who make a big show about their faith.

I like quiet Christianity. I’m not a big yeller. I like peaceful life. I don’t like people waving their arms and legs in face and I really hate the modern “ghetto” attitude known as ” ‘tude”. I don’t like to be scared or threatened anywhere. Christians who threaten are not well tolerated by me.  Now here’s where it gets weird: Many of the people I know who are quiet people and are Christian are conservative politically. Farmers, folks from the E and R side of my denomination, and people who feel called to be humble in a world full of egos tend to not have the values of the last 50 years or so.  Their Christianity is not modern. It is timeless. It is also based in a Bible that was written 2000 years ago and yes, still speaks today. I think that’s where Caroll comes in.  I think that’s her faith, and the quiet part of me shares that part of the faith. I like being hopeful but humble. She seems to like being humble but hopeful.

All of this led to a discussion about why I believe the way I do, while she believes the way she does.  How is it possible that if we start with the same basic book of rules, we come up such divergent opinions on things like “inclusive language” which she says “changes the Bible” or gay rights which puts us at opposite ends of the spectrum or abortion,which we’re not all that far apart about. How is that possible? And how can we both call ourselves “Christian”?

The answer is fairly easy. For every “hot button” issue that we disagree about, there are about 100 or more that we agree about. We both believe the words of Jesus, but we put different emphasis on different passages. We both believe Jesus is God and the Spirit. We both believe God is  ” the Father”, though I can be cool about God having feminine qualities and being called “Mother” because we both understand it’s a metaphor, get over yourselves! We both believe in salvation, and we both believe we are saved. Neither one of us eats lobster — but both because we don’t like it, I think, not because the Bible calls us to be kosher.  We both believe that God calls us to make something of ourselves, to be nice to others and to share the gospel because, as we understand it, that’s what Christians do.

We did, however, stumble on something that explains the rift. I went to seminary and she didn’t. I spent my time in the lofty place of intellectuals who think of the Bible with a certain view, language with a certain view, symbols with a certain view. She spent her time with everybody else — what we used to call “normal” people. They see the Bible as The Bible. If it says “God is the Father”, they think it says “God is the Father”, rather than implying anything else, including some wider, deeper meaning. When she asks why her pastor or former pastor believe this other meaning is in the text, she doesn’t know what he knows.  When explained, it makes more sense. She still may not agree with it, but it makes more sense and we’re not throwing labels at each other.

Seminary taught us to forget what we thought we knew and learn more about what it really means. Later, we go back and reclaim the naive parts of our faith in a thing called the “second naivety”.  Seminary education uses a thing called the “hermeneutic of suspicion” — which kind of means “don’t trust the source to not have their own agenda” and/or “don’t trust the source to be who it says it is”. For instance, the “Letters of Paul” frequently aren’t by the Apostle Paul at all. They might have been “In The Style Of” the Apostle Paul (as we like to say in re-makes and mini-series today).  But before you go ballistic reading this, historically speaking, that was okay for the time.

But, in addition to that, we were taught to think about oppressive language and the impact it has on people. If I say God is a Man, does it mean that women can’t understand God and, therefore can’t be priests or ministers? Is it racist to say someone’s mood was “black”?  Do we really think of “Man” as meaning “humanity” anymore? Some translations now say “The Human One” instead of “The Son of Man”.  Heck, do we still think of “lepers” as “unclean”? My favorite translation — The New Jerusalem Bible replaces “leprosy” with “virulent skin disease” — a real mouthful —  either because it’s a dis-service to lepers or recent study has shown that not every supposed leper had what we now call “leprosy”! And how serious do we take the Bible, since my wife is a minister (and Caroll is a Christian Educator), do we really still think that “women should keep quiet in church”? Would I tell my daughter that? A resounding “No! Of course not!” would have to be my answer. But some people take the Bible that way and think we’re ignoring the TRUTH of the BIBLE if we think otherwise.

What else? In seminary, they taught us that there were five sources for four gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and “Q”, the “Saying Source” which is a book that nobody’s ever actually seen but was believed to be kicking around at the time the gospels were written and Matthew and Luke used it extensively.

Then there’s those “liberal” political ideas that came out of the Vatican — “Jesus gives special preference to the poor (and we should ,too) , and “Liberation Theology” which says that Jesus was what we would now call a “leftist”, and that the gospels are against political oppression. The list goes on.  But here’s the kicker — the things I’m saying were believed by educated pastors in the 1950′s (except for liberation theology, which is from the 80′s and some of the “post-modern” word stuff)!  How is it that our congregations never got word of this?

Why do I tell you these things? Because most denominational pastors know about them and believe them, but somehow news like this never leaks out to the congregation, leaving us with people in the pews who think that “the Bible means exactly what it says”, even if we’re not exactly sure what it says because nobody has an original copy, and there are words in Hebrew and Greek that simply aren’t translatable.  We use the tool that the Bible is, with two different understandings of what it’s for!  Folks in the pulpit take these as assumptions, while people in the pew think this is some sort of new-fangled weirdness being imposed by the politically correct higher-ups in the denominations. Change a Christmas hymn? You’d have thought someone had changed the tablets on Sinai! But it’s always been this way? All the way since 1940 or so!

Pastors aren’t trying to change things just because they feel like it. They’re trying to live out the faith that they’ve been taught as the “highly educated clergy” that congregations expect.  This, it turns out, is where Caroll and I see things differently frequently. Some things are “givens” to me that she, as a layperson\semi-clergy person, doesn’t have. Why? Because no one explained them!

Why weren’t they explained? There are a bunch of reasons, all based in that lowest form of ministry for some, Christian Education. First, many churches don’t have Adult Christian Education.  Most people in America think that regular education stops when you’re an adult and get a “real” job. “If “regular” education stops, why shouldn’t Christian education?”, they think.

Many good and nice congregations have “issue” discussions and “mission” films or fundraisers for adults. Those things are great for what they do, but they set up this rift by leaving out the Bible and the way to look at it as adults.  This leaves the education of many congregations at the level of making Noah’s ark with Popsicle sticks.  That’s not enough to make it in the real world, even if they are good stories.

Another reason that we don’t educate our adults? Because “education” wreaks of “Youth Ministry” and I don’t care how much people say, “Youth are the future of the church”, youth programs never get funded to the level that they ought to. Youth Ministry is to the church what Music Education and sports are to public schools — they are the first thing cut because kids “don’t matter”. They aren’t pledging units, so they don’t bring in money. In fact, they cost money. Plus, kids aren’t legally old enough to sit on many boards, so kids frequently don’t have representation.  Plus, (to be fair) many are off listening to their iPods.  I say this because it is my experience (not the iPods part) as a member of the United Church Youth Council so many eons ago. In the supposed “Year of Youth”, spending on youth programs was 1% of the total budget! Camps and Conferences struggle to stay alive (ala Deering) because money goes elsewhere. Seminarians want to become “real ministers”, not “just” Youth Ministers.  And Youth Ministers don’t get paid like “real ministers”, which seminarians need given the costs of seminary.  (Sorry to get off on a rant there. It’s a personal pet peeve.)

The last reason we seldom offer religious education to adults, and not always to children?  In America, we’re suspicious of education itself. Many people in this country simply don’t like people with an education because they’re thought to be “too big for their britches” or because  they become the bosses of 50 employees who have to obey them at work. Education means “aristocrats” and “royalty” and this country was founded on “just plain people” over and against such things. We don’t like those smart (aka “sneaky”) people. And with good reason, I suppose as lawyers and congresspeople and lobbyists make up rules that everyone else has to follow.  As someone who’s really first generation college-educated, education means you can’t go home because you know and care and think about things the folks back home have never heard of.

So here’s a way to make discourse about religion civil in this country: if you’re a pastor, educate your people about what you know. If you’re a congregant, ask about this stuff. Demand an Adult Bible Study and attend it when it happens! Bridge the gap between educated clergy and far-less educated congregations. And if it doesn’t happen, read on your own. Go to the seminary bookstore or look on-line.

Ok, that’s enough rambling for now. Oh, and BTW, Caroll is not in any way responsible for the content of this blog.  These are strictly my opinions.  If you want to know what she thinks, ask her.

Peace,

 

John