Remember that 'art' exhibit of Christ submerged in urine?
If works of art in general are free speech, this is hate speech.
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Taking a stand against hatred in the public square
Remember that 'art' exhibit of Christ submerged in urine?
If works of art in general are free speech, this is hate speech.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Learning from another culture: Zacchaeus and laws about stealing
I think that if you asked most Americans -- or even just Christians and Jews -- whether they would rather live under modern American law or under Torah law, many would say American law. (Though if given a choice between Torah law and Shariah law, they would likely choose Torah law.) But I'd like to mention a provision in the Torah that makes more sense to me than our modern American laws: what do you do about stealing?
Zacchaeus the tax collector lived in a Roman-occupied land and could have thought in terms of Roman law. I'm not sure whether he had done anything wrong under Roman law, but under Torah law he was a thief, admitting that he had cheated people. He thought in terms of the Torah:
Our culture has lots of things still to learn about justice.
If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. (Exodus 21:1)In our "advanced" modern justice system, if a person has something stolen from them, they will never recover its value except possibly through insurance. Even if someone catches the thief, still the lost property or its value will never be restored to the person who was wronged. The thief may spend time in prison -- which costs the taxpayers, does not help the thief, and does not help the person who was wronged. It prevents the thief from stealing again only so long as he is confined, but not the day afterward. And in our prisons, the thief is supported at other peoples' expense from other peoples' labor; that's an interesting consequence for a thief. It's easy to wonder whether we ever really thought that one through.
Zacchaeus the tax collector lived in a Roman-occupied land and could have thought in terms of Roman law. I'm not sure whether he had done anything wrong under Roman law, but under Torah law he was a thief, admitting that he had cheated people. He thought in terms of the Torah:
If I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount. (Zacchaeus, in Luke 19:8)Here is an interesting thing: under Torah law, the person who was cheated is now better off than if he had never been wronged, since he receives back four times his original loss. That justice system took the wrong of a crime and turned it into a blessing for the one who was wronged. It also turned the former thief into an honest man who was now a benefit to the one he had harmed.
Our culture has lots of things still to learn about justice.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
What would better journalism look like?
Every once in awhile I wonder what various industries would look like if they were run according to Christian standards and principles. Recently I found myself wondering about journalism. It's difficult to get quality information on many subjects because you basically get either left-wing or right-wing political propaganda, depending on the news outlet. Sure, I try to keep up with the talking points of both sides, but the irritating thing is the debate stays really shallow, and there isn't a lot of in-depth coverage out there.
What would Christian news look like? It would speak the truth with love. It would also follow the wisdom of Solomon: "The first to present his case seems right until someone comes forward to question him." Both sides would be heard, and both sides would be questioned.
Let's take a hot-button topic, and I'll show you what I mean. Let's talk about the criminal justice system: the concerns over convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty. The usual stances are: the left accuses the right of being too hard on criminals, being too gung-ho for justice, and risking convicting the innocent -- and, of course, racism. The right accuses the left of being too soft on criminals, being more pro-criminal-rights than pro-victim-rights, and acquitting the guilty.
What could a reporter do?
Let's take just one more hot-button topic. Let's talk about illegal immigration -- or more specifically, the reporting on illegal immigration. The boilerplate stances are, on the left, that the poor from Mexico deserve a chance at the relative prosperity in America, that immigration enforcement and border security are just a cover for racism, and that the U.S. should provide a path to citizenship for those who enter the country illegally -- or from the right: that millions of illegal aliens are taking jobs that millions of Americans really need and adding a high burden of social service costs, and that the drug war in Mexico is too dangerous to leave our borders as they are. The reporting rarely gets deeper than that. That means it's not really reporting as such, it's more a matter of position papers being put out by the news affiliates of the two main political parties. People looking for real solutions are left without enough information.
What more could a serious investigative reporter find out?
Here are things that could probably be found with some background research. This first batch of items is limited to things where there are probably official statistics available, or that where statistics could be gleaned from existing sources with some effort. Because this first group of questions has to do with laws, statistics, and budgets, the subject matter is relatively limited, dealing with things that are covered by law or tracked by statistics.
After the basic statistics and background research had been done and the reporter has a clearer idea what to ask, they could start lining up interviews. I bet every one of my readers could think of good questions to ask. Here are types of people I'd expect would make good interviews:
Here's the thing: if I sit around at a blog and can think of this, I know that a professional reporter could think of this, and better, if they tried. And it's not just these particular issues. Almost every issue of any depth could and should have someone do some serious reporting on it. The financial crisis, unemployment, recent frauds, an expose on how Congress really works ... all kinds of possibilities.
My point is not that a Christian would be (D) or (R); I think political point-scoring would be shunned as dirty pool by someone whose first priority is following Christ. A Christian approach to reporting would go beyond the slogans and canned talking points and get to the people really involved, with an eye to both love and justice.
What would Christian news look like? It would speak the truth with love. It would also follow the wisdom of Solomon: "The first to present his case seems right until someone comes forward to question him." Both sides would be heard, and both sides would be questioned.
Let's take a hot-button topic, and I'll show you what I mean. Let's talk about the criminal justice system: the concerns over convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty. The usual stances are: the left accuses the right of being too hard on criminals, being too gung-ho for justice, and risking convicting the innocent -- and, of course, racism. The right accuses the left of being too soft on criminals, being more pro-criminal-rights than pro-victim-rights, and acquitting the guilty.
What could a reporter do?
- Calculate and publish the conviction percentages by judge. Check if there really is a difference in conviction rates between Judge(D) and Judge(R).
- Is there a particular judge whose conviction rates are way out of line -- much higher or much lower -- compared to the others in the group? Spend some time in that courtroom and figure out why.
- Check and publish mistrial rates.
- Check and publish the plea bargain rates, and the typical differences in sentences.
- Stay in the courthouse for a week or a month and take a survey after every acquittal. Pay the former defendants $20 each to tell you, anonymously, whether they were really innocent or guilty, to get a handle on the "acquitting the guilty" rate. If you're really feeling bold, ask them if their lawyer knew they were guilty before entering that "not guilty" plea, and ask them what factors enabled them to get away with it.
- Check for overturned convictions or known cases of convictions later proved false. Research and write up the factors that led to the miscarriage of justice. If possible, get enough cases that patterns can be detected.
- Interview the judges, prosecutors, public defenders, defendants, police, and victims about the different questions that come up during the background research.
Let's take just one more hot-button topic. Let's talk about illegal immigration -- or more specifically, the reporting on illegal immigration. The boilerplate stances are, on the left, that the poor from Mexico deserve a chance at the relative prosperity in America, that immigration enforcement and border security are just a cover for racism, and that the U.S. should provide a path to citizenship for those who enter the country illegally -- or from the right: that millions of illegal aliens are taking jobs that millions of Americans really need and adding a high burden of social service costs, and that the drug war in Mexico is too dangerous to leave our borders as they are. The reporting rarely gets deeper than that. That means it's not really reporting as such, it's more a matter of position papers being put out by the news affiliates of the two main political parties. People looking for real solutions are left without enough information.
What more could a serious investigative reporter find out?
Here are things that could probably be found with some background research. This first batch of items is limited to things where there are probably official statistics available, or that where statistics could be gleaned from existing sources with some effort. Because this first group of questions has to do with laws, statistics, and budgets, the subject matter is relatively limited, dealing with things that are covered by law or tracked by statistics.
- How many people are in the country illegally?
- How many jobs are held by people in the country illegally? What kinds of jobs? What are the typical hours in a work day? In a week? What is the typical pay? Who are the typical employers?
- What are the typical living conditions?
- Is there any estimate on what percentage of illegal residents have jobs that are intrinsically criminal (e.g. drug smuggling), what percentage have regular jobs, what percentage are day laborers, what percentage are unemployed?
- How much money does the average illegal worker send back home to a dependent family in the average month or year?
- Which public-funded service programs serve people regardless of citizenship or legal resident status?
- How many publicly-funded students are in the country illegally? What percentage is that? What are the percentages on the high and low end of the spectrum for different neighborhoods, cities, counties, states? (Scope depends on the level at which the reporter works.)
- How many illegal-resident students receive publicly-funded special services such as bilingual or ESL / ELL programs?
- How many illegal-resident students receive free or reduced-price school lunches?
- How many crimes are committed by people in the country illegally? Is there an estimate of the financial or human cost of the crimes?
- As a percentage, how does the rate of criminals for illegal residents compare to that of citizens and legal residents?
- How many people in the prison system are in the country illegally? What is the cost of incarceration? Who pays it? What percentage of the people in the system are in the country illegally?
- Where does an illegal resident go to get health care? Who pays the bill?
After the basic statistics and background research had been done and the reporter has a clearer idea what to ask, they could start lining up interviews. I bet every one of my readers could think of good questions to ask. Here are types of people I'd expect would make good interviews:
- Day workers
- Illegal residents with regular permanent jobs
- Employers
- Apartment managers / landlords
- Police
- Immigration officials
- Money transfer / wire transfer workers
- Coyotes (professional people-smugglers) if available
- School officials: admin; BIL/ESL workers
- Hospitals, doctors' offices, local health officials
Here's the thing: if I sit around at a blog and can think of this, I know that a professional reporter could think of this, and better, if they tried. And it's not just these particular issues. Almost every issue of any depth could and should have someone do some serious reporting on it. The financial crisis, unemployment, recent frauds, an expose on how Congress really works ... all kinds of possibilities.
My point is not that a Christian would be (D) or (R); I think political point-scoring would be shunned as dirty pool by someone whose first priority is following Christ. A Christian approach to reporting would go beyond the slogans and canned talking points and get to the people really involved, with an eye to both love and justice.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
What if ... ?
It was awhile back in conversation over a detective story that I had to explain to my daughter what a "plea bargain" is. Which is to say, I had to explain some of the stranger things in our court system. And as happens when you see the world through new eyes again, I found myself wondering:
What would happen if, in the bar association, it was considered a breach of ethics -- or even threatened your good standing as a lawyer -- to knowingly enter a "not guilty" plea for someone you knew to be guilty? What if, in defending someone known to be guilty, the only ethical option acceptable to a lawyer was to seek a more lenient sentence? If a lawyer was seeking the acquittal -- rather than the fair sentencing -- of someone known to be guilty, what if that lawyer was seen as obstructing justice? Would the change hurt anyone but the guilty? I suspect that, to keep down the nuisance and harrassment suits against lawyers, such things might be better handled by the bar or some such rather than leaving the policing of lawyers to the whim and initiative of citizens; otherwise the pendulum would swing too far the other direction and no good defense would be mounted. Besides, proving what a lawyer knew, and when, would not be an easy matter.
What would happen if a defendant's plea -- or rather, the honesty of a defendant's plea -- was considered during the sentencing phase of a trial? What if a person who made an honest admission of guilt could have his or her honesty considered during sentencing as some sort of incentive for honesty? Possibly it already is considered ... but when explaining "plea bargain" to my daughter, I had to wonder: how many people plead "not guilty" even when there is (say) a security video tape of a robbery, just because currently there is no incentive to be truthful?
These things would work best if we had better standards for convicting only the guilty. Granted, the majority of the guilty seem to walk free from our courts. But sometimes it goes the other way and someone innocent ends up living a nightmare. So speaking of "what if": What if every state undertook a study of convictions that were later disproved and overturned, then found out how the blazes that happened? What if similar cases were nominated for a review? What if juries were advised when any "red flag" situations arose that have been known to cause wrongful convictions?
Just pondering. There may be holes in these ideas, but I wonder if they could help.
What would happen if, in the bar association, it was considered a breach of ethics -- or even threatened your good standing as a lawyer -- to knowingly enter a "not guilty" plea for someone you knew to be guilty? What if, in defending someone known to be guilty, the only ethical option acceptable to a lawyer was to seek a more lenient sentence? If a lawyer was seeking the acquittal -- rather than the fair sentencing -- of someone known to be guilty, what if that lawyer was seen as obstructing justice? Would the change hurt anyone but the guilty? I suspect that, to keep down the nuisance and harrassment suits against lawyers, such things might be better handled by the bar or some such rather than leaving the policing of lawyers to the whim and initiative of citizens; otherwise the pendulum would swing too far the other direction and no good defense would be mounted. Besides, proving what a lawyer knew, and when, would not be an easy matter.
What would happen if a defendant's plea -- or rather, the honesty of a defendant's plea -- was considered during the sentencing phase of a trial? What if a person who made an honest admission of guilt could have his or her honesty considered during sentencing as some sort of incentive for honesty? Possibly it already is considered ... but when explaining "plea bargain" to my daughter, I had to wonder: how many people plead "not guilty" even when there is (say) a security video tape of a robbery, just because currently there is no incentive to be truthful?
These things would work best if we had better standards for convicting only the guilty. Granted, the majority of the guilty seem to walk free from our courts. But sometimes it goes the other way and someone innocent ends up living a nightmare. So speaking of "what if": What if every state undertook a study of convictions that were later disproved and overturned, then found out how the blazes that happened? What if similar cases were nominated for a review? What if juries were advised when any "red flag" situations arose that have been known to cause wrongful convictions?
Just pondering. There may be holes in these ideas, but I wonder if they could help.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Thanksgiving: How to fix poverty on American Indian reservations
The issue of justice for Native Americans is near and dear to my heart. I think the goal for which we should strive is for the American Indians to be at least as prosperous as the rest of us in this country, and consider that the smallest return on their welcome that we could, in good conscience, accept. I have long pondered how we could realistically reach that goal.
I would like to float an idea as a possible solution: what if the American Indian nations were given permanent seats in the U.S. Congress? Benefits of congressional seats:
I would like to float an idea as a possible solution: what if the American Indian nations were given permanent seats in the U.S. Congress? Benefits of congressional seats:
- Representation: a voice in policy;
- Representation: a voice when lobbying for federal projects;
- Electoral votes: every presidential candidate in a close race would be obligated to visit the reservations, a thing which is almost unheard of presently.
- Presence: it would go a long way towards alleviating the "out of sight, out of mind" forgotten status of the American Indians
Friday, April 27, 2007
Part 2: What If Your Profession Had Been Named
I had enough fun with posting What If Your Profession Had Been Named that I thought I'd do it again.
If reporters, journalists, and other authors came to him and said,"What should we do?"
Would he have said, "Do not bear false witness; Judge your neighbor fairly; Do not go about spreading slander; Speak the truth with love"?
Monday, April 23, 2007
What if your profession had been named?
Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?"
"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.
Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"
He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely -- be content with your pay."
These are some of the conversations recorded between John the Baptist and those who came to be baptized. But I can't help but wondering what he would say to us today. I know most of us could stand to hear, "Be content with your pay." But would there have been more pointed advice for some trades? What if ...
If some lawyers came to him and asked, "What should we do?"
Would he have said, "Do not defend the guilty nor accuse the innocent; seek only justice" and "Do not bear false witness"?
If some car salesmen came to him and asked, "What should we do?"
Would he have said, "Do not take advantage of the widows or the young" and "Do not use dishonest price scales to take extra money from the unwary"?
I know there are other professions that have a reputation for being ethically challenged. But do you wonder what he would have said if he were talking to people of your trade? Here's mine:
If he were talking to programmers, would he have said, "Do not inflate your estimates to avoid an honest discussion on the merits of a project"? Or "Don't abuse your expertise to give misleading answers that suit your convenience"? (You always suspected some of us did. Well, some of us do.)If your profession had been named, what would have been said to you?
Friday, February 16, 2007
What do the KKK and the NAACP have in common?
This was written in response to Dr. Platypus' call for posts on racial reconciliation as part of the next Christian Reconciliation Carnival, which he will be hosting. I'm swerving an inch from the topic, but it's still in the same neighborhood. Dr. P.'s call for posts is up; please send in your posts and questions on anything related to Christian reconciliation for the next Christian Reconciliation Carnival.
The KKK and the NAACP agree?
I did a spooky thing researching this post. I actually went and read several articles at a KKK website to do a little fact-checking. Yes, of course I found some appalling things; I'd have to rate that website "exceeds expectations" on prejudice. Their message was being dressed up and marketed as some sort of Christian nationalism, even though I expect most Christians -- including most Christians of European descent -- would have trouble recognizing Christianity in their message.
The reason I went to the Klan site is because I was fairly sure I had noticed some common ground between the message of the KKK and the NAACP. No, really, hear me out. Here are things that both the KKK and NAACP want to point out: Drug problems in the black community. Welfare-dependence, poverty, family breakdown in the black community. Blacks overrepresented among criminals and convicts. HIV/AIDS rampant in the black community. Poor educational performance in the black community. When both the leaders of a community and their worst enemies acknowledge the same problems, it's time to admit that the problems are there. I also wonder whether the best way to disarm those enemies (e.g. the Klan) is to effectively tackle the problems in the black community. Effectively ... that's where the rubber meets the road.
If we believe the problems in the black community are hopeless, if we have abandoned the problems and the people and made it "their" problem not "our" problem, then racism has already crept in. If we give up hope for the redemption of black communities, then we give up the common ground of our shared humanity. If pointing a blaming finger replaces love, the difference between our thoughts and open bigotry becomes a matter of degree rather than kind.
The Image of God
When I read those articles at the Klan website, I saw a trend in how the Klan views blacks. The KKK does not recognize in blacks what is common to all humanity: the image of God. Blacks are made in the image of God, like all other races, and because of this blacks have an incalculable worth and dignity through God's act of love in making his masterpiece of humanity. The image of God is one that blacks also share including a rational mind, the capability of love, and the drive to creativity. Blacks, along with all of mankind, are given the gift of lordship over the world and the responsibility of care for the world, and the call to be a channel of God's blessing to the world. Blacks, along with all of humanity, are loved and treasured by God. Bigotry fails to see the image of God in the other.
The Fall of Man
When I read those articles at the Klan website, I saw a trend in how the Klan views whites. The main thing the KKK does not recognize in whites is also common to all humanity: the fall into sin. We all share in the fall, blacks and whites both. Christ died for us all, and has redeemed us from every nation, tribe, people, and language. Christ restores us, cleans us, forgives us. He binds up the brokenhearted, is at home with the outcasts, and welcomes sinners. This is our common humanity and our common bond. While prejudice may talk the game of being Christian, it does not see our sin as our common bond, does not offer hope of redemption. Strangely, we find that self-elevating self-righteousness degrades us, while in our humility we are uplifted.
Hope and Transformation
There is a limit to what a law can do. In the years since slavery was abolished in this country, some things have become very clear. No law can set a man's mind free. No law can give hope. No law, reaching in from the outside, can change what is inside us. Justice in the laws was necessary; it just wasn't enough. Opportunity is necessary, but it is also not enough to fix a broken life or a broken community. If the black communities are to have life again, there must be hope. Hope causes change from the inside out. It allows people to notice opportunities and do something with them. The first hope has already been discussed: that we are all made in the image of God. Next I'll discuss the very practical hope of redemption.
Redemption
In the U.S., an incredible number of young black men give up on themselves and become criminals. It is common to hear the call: let's reach the next generation and save them from that fate. I think that's too low and distant a goal. I think we have to reach this generation and save this generation from that fate, even the people already in prison. Redemption can do that. Redemption starts with lives that are already ruined and meets them with compassion instead of judgment, forgiveness instead of accusation. Redemption proclaims the year of the Lord's favor when our debts are canceled, our sins are forgiven. I do not believe it will work to reach the children but give up on the parents. I believe we must reach the parents, wherever they are, even in prison, with the message of hope and redemption.
Justice
We hear that it is unfair how many blacks end up in prison. That raises a whole series of questions about whether the justice system works. But I think the justice system has problems at every stage, not just in the courtrooms, not just in the arrests, but in how different neighborhoods are handled. There is a temptation to solve the problem backwards, trying to reduce how many people are caught rather than how many people commit crimes. Failing to address the crime problem in black neighborhoods just leads to more black-on-black crime. This makes for some neighborhoods that are overrun by crime, neighborhoods where I wouldn't want to stay after dark. So how about the people trying to raise families there? If black communities are going to have their dignity restored, they must be safe places to raise children, safe places to live, safe places to work, safe places to start businesses.
My neighbor across the street is a teenage black girl who spends weekdays with her aunt on the wrong side of the tracks and weekends with her father in my neighborhood. "The police don't care," she tells me. There's crime going on all over the place. Parents send their young children to run drugs for them because nobody will question a child. "They aren't doing anything to stop them." Speaking of needing a safe neighborhood, this young girl has already been raped twice while in the other neighborhood; it has definitely taken a toll on her outlook on life. Chalk up a few more reasons for needing to reach the parents' generation if we want to give hope to the children.
The Light of the World?
In those neighborhoods, where are the churches? My friend tells me that her church in that neighborhood is full of people who praise the Lord on Sunday and deal crack on Monday. I wonder, does the preacher ever tell them to stop? Did he used to tell them to stop but gave up? Has he kept saying it but stopped meaning it, stopped expecting anybody to listen to him? Or does he just not dare to say anything for fear people won't listen and he'll be proved irrelevant? Meanwhile, by not saying anything, he would have already made himself irrelevant on that level. The Bible isn't afraid to name the ugly sins we fall into, the ways we trap ourselves and wreck our lives.
It may not be that simple. It may be that the church is the only thing those drug dealers have to keep them from giving up on life completely. Then again, the preacher is human too; it has to be tempting to give up.
Fellowship
It's easy to sit here in a mostly-white corner of the blogosphere and try to play armchair quarterback on the problems in someone else's community. If we're looking at Christian reconciliation, it has to start here: we have to know each other. We have to meet each other and talk to each other. We have to listen to each other, even offer support. I think my church has a sister church in some country in Eastern Europe, where we check on their well-being and their needs, offer them prayers and support; we make it a point to offer friendship, to know how they are and ask how they are. But we don't have a sister church in a poor neighborhood in our own city. Black churches and white churches are, by and large, not "in fellowship" with each other doctrinally. The church's divisions help perpetuate the brokenness and dysfunction of poor communities, making us relatively ineffective in addressing problems. The ultimate Christian gift we can give each other is fellowship.
Conclusion
I wish there were a nice tidy conclusion to this post. But if there were, this post would no longer match the real world. The real conclusion to racial reconciliation is when redemption reaches every corner of the real world.
The KKK and the NAACP agree?
I did a spooky thing researching this post. I actually went and read several articles at a KKK website to do a little fact-checking. Yes, of course I found some appalling things; I'd have to rate that website "exceeds expectations" on prejudice. Their message was being dressed up and marketed as some sort of Christian nationalism, even though I expect most Christians -- including most Christians of European descent -- would have trouble recognizing Christianity in their message.
The reason I went to the Klan site is because I was fairly sure I had noticed some common ground between the message of the KKK and the NAACP. No, really, hear me out. Here are things that both the KKK and NAACP want to point out: Drug problems in the black community. Welfare-dependence, poverty, family breakdown in the black community. Blacks overrepresented among criminals and convicts. HIV/AIDS rampant in the black community. Poor educational performance in the black community. When both the leaders of a community and their worst enemies acknowledge the same problems, it's time to admit that the problems are there. I also wonder whether the best way to disarm those enemies (e.g. the Klan) is to effectively tackle the problems in the black community. Effectively ... that's where the rubber meets the road.
If we believe the problems in the black community are hopeless, if we have abandoned the problems and the people and made it "their" problem not "our" problem, then racism has already crept in. If we give up hope for the redemption of black communities, then we give up the common ground of our shared humanity. If pointing a blaming finger replaces love, the difference between our thoughts and open bigotry becomes a matter of degree rather than kind.
The Image of God
When I read those articles at the Klan website, I saw a trend in how the Klan views blacks. The KKK does not recognize in blacks what is common to all humanity: the image of God. Blacks are made in the image of God, like all other races, and because of this blacks have an incalculable worth and dignity through God's act of love in making his masterpiece of humanity. The image of God is one that blacks also share including a rational mind, the capability of love, and the drive to creativity. Blacks, along with all of mankind, are given the gift of lordship over the world and the responsibility of care for the world, and the call to be a channel of God's blessing to the world. Blacks, along with all of humanity, are loved and treasured by God. Bigotry fails to see the image of God in the other.
The Fall of Man
When I read those articles at the Klan website, I saw a trend in how the Klan views whites. The main thing the KKK does not recognize in whites is also common to all humanity: the fall into sin. We all share in the fall, blacks and whites both. Christ died for us all, and has redeemed us from every nation, tribe, people, and language. Christ restores us, cleans us, forgives us. He binds up the brokenhearted, is at home with the outcasts, and welcomes sinners. This is our common humanity and our common bond. While prejudice may talk the game of being Christian, it does not see our sin as our common bond, does not offer hope of redemption. Strangely, we find that self-elevating self-righteousness degrades us, while in our humility we are uplifted.
Hope and Transformation
There is a limit to what a law can do. In the years since slavery was abolished in this country, some things have become very clear. No law can set a man's mind free. No law can give hope. No law, reaching in from the outside, can change what is inside us. Justice in the laws was necessary; it just wasn't enough. Opportunity is necessary, but it is also not enough to fix a broken life or a broken community. If the black communities are to have life again, there must be hope. Hope causes change from the inside out. It allows people to notice opportunities and do something with them. The first hope has already been discussed: that we are all made in the image of God. Next I'll discuss the very practical hope of redemption.
Redemption
In the U.S., an incredible number of young black men give up on themselves and become criminals. It is common to hear the call: let's reach the next generation and save them from that fate. I think that's too low and distant a goal. I think we have to reach this generation and save this generation from that fate, even the people already in prison. Redemption can do that. Redemption starts with lives that are already ruined and meets them with compassion instead of judgment, forgiveness instead of accusation. Redemption proclaims the year of the Lord's favor when our debts are canceled, our sins are forgiven. I do not believe it will work to reach the children but give up on the parents. I believe we must reach the parents, wherever they are, even in prison, with the message of hope and redemption.
Justice
We hear that it is unfair how many blacks end up in prison. That raises a whole series of questions about whether the justice system works. But I think the justice system has problems at every stage, not just in the courtrooms, not just in the arrests, but in how different neighborhoods are handled. There is a temptation to solve the problem backwards, trying to reduce how many people are caught rather than how many people commit crimes. Failing to address the crime problem in black neighborhoods just leads to more black-on-black crime. This makes for some neighborhoods that are overrun by crime, neighborhoods where I wouldn't want to stay after dark. So how about the people trying to raise families there? If black communities are going to have their dignity restored, they must be safe places to raise children, safe places to live, safe places to work, safe places to start businesses.
My neighbor across the street is a teenage black girl who spends weekdays with her aunt on the wrong side of the tracks and weekends with her father in my neighborhood. "The police don't care," she tells me. There's crime going on all over the place. Parents send their young children to run drugs for them because nobody will question a child. "They aren't doing anything to stop them." Speaking of needing a safe neighborhood, this young girl has already been raped twice while in the other neighborhood; it has definitely taken a toll on her outlook on life. Chalk up a few more reasons for needing to reach the parents' generation if we want to give hope to the children.
The Light of the World?
In those neighborhoods, where are the churches? My friend tells me that her church in that neighborhood is full of people who praise the Lord on Sunday and deal crack on Monday. I wonder, does the preacher ever tell them to stop? Did he used to tell them to stop but gave up? Has he kept saying it but stopped meaning it, stopped expecting anybody to listen to him? Or does he just not dare to say anything for fear people won't listen and he'll be proved irrelevant? Meanwhile, by not saying anything, he would have already made himself irrelevant on that level. The Bible isn't afraid to name the ugly sins we fall into, the ways we trap ourselves and wreck our lives.
It may not be that simple. It may be that the church is the only thing those drug dealers have to keep them from giving up on life completely. Then again, the preacher is human too; it has to be tempting to give up.
Fellowship
It's easy to sit here in a mostly-white corner of the blogosphere and try to play armchair quarterback on the problems in someone else's community. If we're looking at Christian reconciliation, it has to start here: we have to know each other. We have to meet each other and talk to each other. We have to listen to each other, even offer support. I think my church has a sister church in some country in Eastern Europe, where we check on their well-being and their needs, offer them prayers and support; we make it a point to offer friendship, to know how they are and ask how they are. But we don't have a sister church in a poor neighborhood in our own city. Black churches and white churches are, by and large, not "in fellowship" with each other doctrinally. The church's divisions help perpetuate the brokenness and dysfunction of poor communities, making us relatively ineffective in addressing problems. The ultimate Christian gift we can give each other is fellowship.
Conclusion
I wish there were a nice tidy conclusion to this post. But if there were, this post would no longer match the real world. The real conclusion to racial reconciliation is when redemption reaches every corner of the real world.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Defeating Hatred in the Culture War
When hatred becomes an industry, a money-making institution, an organized and deliberate force, how do we respond? The hatred industry often revolves around the culture war; both sides have mobilized in a war of bitter words and growing grudges. It's really not so different in principle from when there is enmity on an individual level. There has ever only been one solution to hatred. It's love. Hatred despises love and insults it, considers it useless, holds it in mockery and contempt; but hatred does that with everything, and it gets tiresome. Here is the time for Christians to be an organized and deliberate force that insists on loving its enemies.
The teachings of Christ are as applicable and as workable as ever. They call for sacrifice: sacrificing our own hatred, our own anger, our own bitterness, our own wish for repay evil with evil.
Love your enemies. That includes the most strident, abusive, and abrasive anti-everything-we-care-about hate-monger that exists. He or she is still in the image of God, and we still hope for redemption.
Pray for those who persecute you. So we all have "the enemy" on our personal prayer lists, right? And in the prayers of the church? Not snarky sinful prayers, but real ones that lay our bitterness and grievances at Christ's feet and pray for reconciliation. We need to pray for healing in our land.
Bless those who curse you, return good for evil. There are a good few public figures cursing Christians these days, and plenty of ones who do the same in private lives. We need a good few public Christians returning good for evil, and plenty of ones who do the same in private lives.
Even in political situation, in the midst of a culture war, we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Back to the charts. On the left side below are common injustices that everyone knows their own side has suffered in the culture war. On the right, some ideas on how to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, how to bless those who curse us and return good for evil.
The teachings of Christ are as applicable and as workable as ever. They call for sacrifice: sacrificing our own hatred, our own anger, our own bitterness, our own wish for repay evil with evil.
Love your enemies. That includes the most strident, abusive, and abrasive anti-everything-we-care-about hate-monger that exists. He or she is still in the image of God, and we still hope for redemption.
Pray for those who persecute you. So we all have "the enemy" on our personal prayer lists, right? And in the prayers of the church? Not snarky sinful prayers, but real ones that lay our bitterness and grievances at Christ's feet and pray for reconciliation. We need to pray for healing in our land.
Bless those who curse you, return good for evil. There are a good few public figures cursing Christians these days, and plenty of ones who do the same in private lives. We need a good few public Christians returning good for evil, and plenty of ones who do the same in private lives.
Even in political situation, in the midst of a culture war, we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Back to the charts. On the left side below are common injustices that everyone knows their own side has suffered in the culture war. On the right, some ideas on how to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, how to bless those who curse us and return good for evil.
| Common injustice in the culture war | As we would have them do to us |
| Finding the most insane, extreme, or dangerous person on the other side and pretending that is the general case with people on the other side; refusing to notice the sane and reasonable voices among the opposition. | Finding the most sane and reasonable person on the other side and considering them carefully. |
| Insisting that mistakes were not only deliberate, but also done out of stupidity or malice. | Realizing that mistakes are part of human nature, and showing mercy instead of vindictiveness in finding and correcting them. |
| Refusing to imagine that the people on the other side are capable of human decency, or could act from intelligence and kindness. | Assuming that the people on the other side or capable of human decency and are acting from intelligence and kindness. |
| Giving a biased, inaccurate representation of facts, leaving out whatever does not suit our own side. | Being conscientiously truthful; refusing to distort facts; refusing to skip items that do not suit our point but instead giving them fair consideration. |
| Overlooking every decent thing done by the enemy, and every decent point made. | Acknowledging when the other side has a point -- not in an exaggerated way, but just avoiding the petty and ungenerous spirit that can result in our behaving unfairly and failing to notice decency in the other side. |
| Using ridicule and mockery, trying to belittle and dehumanize the opposition. | Using gentleness and respect, thereby humanizing both us and them. |
| Making no effort to accurately understand the points raised by the other side. | Making every effort to accurately understand the points raised by the other side. |
| Not restraining the more hostile or hateful folks on their own side. | Restraining the hostile or hateful folks within our own camp. |
| Interpreting everything in the unkindest way possible, not even troubling to ask why. | Reconsidering whether we truly understand; being willing to ask why and listen to the answer. |
| Being willing to stoop to viciousness. | Being completely unwilling to stoop to viciousness; treating even those who mistreat us with gentleness and respect, not because they deserve it, but because of the image of God in them, because we hope for their redemption. |
| Misrepresenting the other side's point and motives. Making no effort to give a just and honest representation of the other side | Accurately representing the other side's point and motives. Making every effort to give a just and honest representation of the other side. |
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Thanksgiving: Pass along the blessings
Thanksgiving in the U.S.A. has become a season not only of Thanksgiving, but also (unfortunately) a season of collective shame and regret over what our forefathers did to the Native Americans. I'd encourage Christians to take the lead in being clear-headed and constructive on this front, not by sweeping the shame and regret under the rug, but by acting with deliberate generosity towards the Native Nations.
Do we share the blame for the wrongs committed by our ancestors? I'd expect we only share in the blame if we see the continuing injustice and take no action. The Native Americans welcomed us; they did not begin by thinking we should go back to Europe or that we should have nowhere to live in the land. But they did seem to think they would be treated with justice and treated as friends, and they did seem to think they would have a better outcome than we have since given them.
Many churches already have outreaches and ministries to the Native Americans, but despite that extreme poverty is still rampant. I'd encourage you to consider beginning your Christmas shopping at a Native American-owned shop. If you don't know one near you, several links are available below. Cool jewelry? Check. Nifty pottery? Check. Beautiful weavings? Check.
Southwest Indian Foundation
Potlatch
Eagle Dancer Gallery
Do we share the blame for the wrongs committed by our ancestors? I'd expect we only share in the blame if we see the continuing injustice and take no action. The Native Americans welcomed us; they did not begin by thinking we should go back to Europe or that we should have nowhere to live in the land. But they did seem to think they would be treated with justice and treated as friends, and they did seem to think they would have a better outcome than we have since given them.
Many churches already have outreaches and ministries to the Native Americans, but despite that extreme poverty is still rampant. I'd encourage you to consider beginning your Christmas shopping at a Native American-owned shop. If you don't know one near you, several links are available below. Cool jewelry? Check. Nifty pottery? Check. Beautiful weavings? Check.
Southwest Indian Foundation
Potlatch
Eagle Dancer Gallery
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Feminist theology and social justice priorities
This continues a series on what I hope is constructive criticism for feminist theology. By now I'm eager to move along to more edifying subjects, and have only two posts remaining (this and one more, as I start typing the current post).
I think one of the more obvious ways in which feminist theology has neglected the concerns of average women has been in the area of priorities. Given that social justice is a concern, is the ordination and promotion of women really the highest priority among theological issues? I'm not saying that to discourage conversation on that subject; it's a topic of the day and let's have the conversation. Instead, I mention priorities by way of a perspective-check.
Social Justice Top Priority: Commitment to Marriage
Let's talk about social justice. One of the leading causes of poverty in this nation -- surely a social justice issue -- is single motherhood. I expect that working marriages would do far more to reduce poverty than increasing the minimum wage. Yet people see the minimum wage as a worthwhile social justice issue, but do not see strengthening the family as a social justice issue. However, it is a social justice issue.
I think we sweep problems like that under the rug because they are messy and embarrassing. It sounds much nicer to talk about whether we have enough women who are pastors and bishops. But in the meantime we have too many women who are living in poverty because their boyfriends pressured them into sex and then abandoned them when they wouldn't have an abortion, or whose husbands walked out rather than invest the work needed to sustain a marriage. The good we do in the average woman's life -- and child's life -- by creating a two-parent, stable, just and merciful Christian home far outweighs the good done to that same woman by having a woman bishop who won't address those concerns either. Home life is sometimes dirty and ugly; Christianity is at its strongest with love, redemption, justice, and mercy. But these things don't happen by themselves. What happens by itself, in our hearts and lives, is increasing sin, dismay, and disorder. The spiritual neglect of a home long-untended makes itself felt in too many lives. The leaders have to lead and make points of these things with their people.
Social Justice Priority: No Pressure to Abort
How many pastors use abortion as an example of evil in our culture? Now, how many of those pastors actually say, from the pulpit, that a man should never ask his wife or girlfriend to abort their child? They also say that, these days, one of the leading causes of death in pregnant women is being attacked by the father of the child. Have we mentioned to our people that these are horrific things, that a man should never attack his wife or girlfriend with the intent to induce a miscarriage? A friend of mine from church is raising a profoundly retarded and disabled child because her husband attacked her while she was pregnant. Rather than inducing a miscarriage, he induced a very premature delivery. It may seem too horrific to say or consider, but it happens around us, and even in our churches, because we are sinners too. Just as "do not murder" and "do not commit adultery" are obvious but are written in the Ten Commandments all the same, we need church leaders who are willing to address the obvious and ugly problems around us.
Social Justice Priority: Justice and Mercy in Courtship
Dating is often an exercise in the man trying to press the woman as far as she will go towards sexual intercourse. I'll take the traditional women's complaints against the men first, then look at the other side of the coin.
When it comes to pre-marital sex, even men who are Christians often show no signs of self-restraint, placing the burden of guilt or pressure of rejection on the woman. Teaching men to be self-controlled, to hold themselves accountable for how far they go, would greatly ease the burden on women. When was the last time anyone heard church leaders address that it is wrong to use high-pressure tactics, to use emotional blackmail, or to take advantage of emotional insecurity in order to gain sexual concessions? The next generation approaching puberty includes my own daughter. I can explain all this to her, but it would help if I had the church's support. For a Christian man it should be unconscionable to make an inappropriate advance in the first place. We need to re-set our expectations there.
Enough picking on the men, though. Women also must be taught those same standards of accountability, responsibility, kindness and justice. Not only are women perfectly capable of pressuring men unduly, there is also the temptation to blame it on the man, which may seem plausible because of traditional expectations. Christian women should know that it is ungodly to take advantage of men, and that it is especially repugnant to blame men for our own moral shortcomings. Blaming other people for our own faults is the height of injustice. It kills love, rejects mercy, and ignores kindness. It stunts spiritual growth, cutting us off from repentance and forgiveness. I hope it doesn't seem strange to you that I hold women accountable and hope other women will take the lead in holding ourselves accountable. Both egalitarians and complementarians will notice that Paul's instructions to Titus to have older women teaching younger women about the realitiies of building loving families. It seems odd, if not worse, that the one area on which complementarians and egalitarians should have full agreement is the one thing that I can't see either camp doing.
Quality of Life and Quality of Culture: Peace with Men
Strife between men and women is nothing new. Peace between men and women, and goodwill, is a worthy goal. But a certain strain of feminism tries to score political points by grievance-mongering. I'm not saying there are never grievances, I'm saying the approach being used is sometimes more likely to aggravate the grievances than resolve them. In this way, the feminist movement has at times had a negative effect on male/female relations. If the Christian feminists or Christian feminist theologians are to have a positive impact on this, some more constructive approaches would be welcome.
The Point?
Our Lord called down blessings for the peacemakers, for the merciful, for those who longed for righteousness, and for the pure in heart. All of Christ's brothers and sisters are called to be channels of blessing in the world. When feminist theology is genuinely Christ-like, it promises to be a blessing to the world.
I think one of the more obvious ways in which feminist theology has neglected the concerns of average women has been in the area of priorities. Given that social justice is a concern, is the ordination and promotion of women really the highest priority among theological issues? I'm not saying that to discourage conversation on that subject; it's a topic of the day and let's have the conversation. Instead, I mention priorities by way of a perspective-check.
Social Justice Top Priority: Commitment to Marriage
Let's talk about social justice. One of the leading causes of poverty in this nation -- surely a social justice issue -- is single motherhood. I expect that working marriages would do far more to reduce poverty than increasing the minimum wage. Yet people see the minimum wage as a worthwhile social justice issue, but do not see strengthening the family as a social justice issue. However, it is a social justice issue.
I think we sweep problems like that under the rug because they are messy and embarrassing. It sounds much nicer to talk about whether we have enough women who are pastors and bishops. But in the meantime we have too many women who are living in poverty because their boyfriends pressured them into sex and then abandoned them when they wouldn't have an abortion, or whose husbands walked out rather than invest the work needed to sustain a marriage. The good we do in the average woman's life -- and child's life -- by creating a two-parent, stable, just and merciful Christian home far outweighs the good done to that same woman by having a woman bishop who won't address those concerns either. Home life is sometimes dirty and ugly; Christianity is at its strongest with love, redemption, justice, and mercy. But these things don't happen by themselves. What happens by itself, in our hearts and lives, is increasing sin, dismay, and disorder. The spiritual neglect of a home long-untended makes itself felt in too many lives. The leaders have to lead and make points of these things with their people.
Social Justice Priority: No Pressure to Abort
How many pastors use abortion as an example of evil in our culture? Now, how many of those pastors actually say, from the pulpit, that a man should never ask his wife or girlfriend to abort their child? They also say that, these days, one of the leading causes of death in pregnant women is being attacked by the father of the child. Have we mentioned to our people that these are horrific things, that a man should never attack his wife or girlfriend with the intent to induce a miscarriage? A friend of mine from church is raising a profoundly retarded and disabled child because her husband attacked her while she was pregnant. Rather than inducing a miscarriage, he induced a very premature delivery. It may seem too horrific to say or consider, but it happens around us, and even in our churches, because we are sinners too. Just as "do not murder" and "do not commit adultery" are obvious but are written in the Ten Commandments all the same, we need church leaders who are willing to address the obvious and ugly problems around us.
Social Justice Priority: Justice and Mercy in Courtship
Dating is often an exercise in the man trying to press the woman as far as she will go towards sexual intercourse. I'll take the traditional women's complaints against the men first, then look at the other side of the coin.
When it comes to pre-marital sex, even men who are Christians often show no signs of self-restraint, placing the burden of guilt or pressure of rejection on the woman. Teaching men to be self-controlled, to hold themselves accountable for how far they go, would greatly ease the burden on women. When was the last time anyone heard church leaders address that it is wrong to use high-pressure tactics, to use emotional blackmail, or to take advantage of emotional insecurity in order to gain sexual concessions? The next generation approaching puberty includes my own daughter. I can explain all this to her, but it would help if I had the church's support. For a Christian man it should be unconscionable to make an inappropriate advance in the first place. We need to re-set our expectations there.
Enough picking on the men, though. Women also must be taught those same standards of accountability, responsibility, kindness and justice. Not only are women perfectly capable of pressuring men unduly, there is also the temptation to blame it on the man, which may seem plausible because of traditional expectations. Christian women should know that it is ungodly to take advantage of men, and that it is especially repugnant to blame men for our own moral shortcomings. Blaming other people for our own faults is the height of injustice. It kills love, rejects mercy, and ignores kindness. It stunts spiritual growth, cutting us off from repentance and forgiveness. I hope it doesn't seem strange to you that I hold women accountable and hope other women will take the lead in holding ourselves accountable. Both egalitarians and complementarians will notice that Paul's instructions to Titus to have older women teaching younger women about the realitiies of building loving families. It seems odd, if not worse, that the one area on which complementarians and egalitarians should have full agreement is the one thing that I can't see either camp doing.
Quality of Life and Quality of Culture: Peace with Men
Strife between men and women is nothing new. Peace between men and women, and goodwill, is a worthy goal. But a certain strain of feminism tries to score political points by grievance-mongering. I'm not saying there are never grievances, I'm saying the approach being used is sometimes more likely to aggravate the grievances than resolve them. In this way, the feminist movement has at times had a negative effect on male/female relations. If the Christian feminists or Christian feminist theologians are to have a positive impact on this, some more constructive approaches would be welcome.
The Point?
Our Lord called down blessings for the peacemakers, for the merciful, for those who longed for righteousness, and for the pure in heart. All of Christ's brothers and sisters are called to be channels of blessing in the world. When feminist theology is genuinely Christ-like, it promises to be a blessing to the world.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Women's Liberation and Love of Family
This continues the series about whether feminist theology is neglecting the voice of the woman in the pews. First, Christian feminism must reclaim Christ's priority of love for our lives, contrary to secular feminism's disdain of family. Second, social justice must be applied to our own homes and workplaces; in a Christian sense this includes bringing justice, love, mercy, blessing, and rest into the equation.
Bricks without Straw: Feminism and the Workload Problem
Feminists v. Family and the Priority of Love
When someone speaks dismissively of "women's jobs" and "women's roles", much less "making sacrifices for the family," it's a safe bet that the one voicing disdain is a feminist. The feminist has often insisted that family life is at worst demeaning, at best unnecessary, and at any rate undesirable. The liberal women's movements can give the impression that staying at home and raising children is a benighted throwback to an unenlightened age, an oppressive condition from which someone could only wish to be liberated as from a prison, something that amounts to embracing a second-class subservient status. Here the feminist has not only failed to understand the voice of the average woman, but has considered it unworthy of consideration.
As long as feminism is antagonistic towards family life, it will be opposed to large numbers of women who enjoy family life at least as much as their careers. A healthier and more mature feminism must make room for women's dignity to include a love of family. Feminism, as it comes of age, must become comfortable with the other members of a family: it must become comfortable with children, and it must become comfortable with men. The assessment of children must be expanded beyond "expense" and "career distraction." The assessment of men must be expanded beyond "oppressor" and "competitor." The feminist assessment of life must also expand to include love as a legitimate part of life in addition to accomplishment and status. Failing to do so handicaps feminism's applicability to real life, and handicaps the lives of those who embrace feminism above love. Christian feminism -- especially in the form of Christian feminist theology -- could easily elevate itself above secular feminism by embracing a solid family model. It is difficult to see how a view based on Christ's teachings can avoid the priority of love for very long; one of Christ's most prominent and distinctive teachings is the priority of love.
What can the leadership do?
Back to the day-to-day issues of exhaustion and frantic schedules. There are some practical contributions that the church leadership -- whether pastors or theologians -- can make in this situation. We can follow the Bible's lead of including family and household concerns among the pastoral and social justice concerns of the church:
Bricks without Straw: Feminism and the Workload Problem
You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don't reduce the quota. (Exodus 5:7-8)Women's liberation has been both a blessing and a curse to the average woman. While many women have taken on work outside the home, the workload at home was not reduced. Exhaustion and frantic schedules are among the most common complaints, along with less time for the family.
Feminists v. Family and the Priority of Love
When someone speaks dismissively of "women's jobs" and "women's roles", much less "making sacrifices for the family," it's a safe bet that the one voicing disdain is a feminist. The feminist has often insisted that family life is at worst demeaning, at best unnecessary, and at any rate undesirable. The liberal women's movements can give the impression that staying at home and raising children is a benighted throwback to an unenlightened age, an oppressive condition from which someone could only wish to be liberated as from a prison, something that amounts to embracing a second-class subservient status. Here the feminist has not only failed to understand the voice of the average woman, but has considered it unworthy of consideration.
As long as feminism is antagonistic towards family life, it will be opposed to large numbers of women who enjoy family life at least as much as their careers. A healthier and more mature feminism must make room for women's dignity to include a love of family. Feminism, as it comes of age, must become comfortable with the other members of a family: it must become comfortable with children, and it must become comfortable with men. The assessment of children must be expanded beyond "expense" and "career distraction." The assessment of men must be expanded beyond "oppressor" and "competitor." The feminist assessment of life must also expand to include love as a legitimate part of life in addition to accomplishment and status. Failing to do so handicaps feminism's applicability to real life, and handicaps the lives of those who embrace feminism above love. Christian feminism -- especially in the form of Christian feminist theology -- could easily elevate itself above secular feminism by embracing a solid family model. It is difficult to see how a view based on Christ's teachings can avoid the priority of love for very long; one of Christ's most prominent and distinctive teachings is the priority of love.
What can the leadership do?
Back to the day-to-day issues of exhaustion and frantic schedules. There are some practical contributions that the church leadership -- whether pastors or theologians -- can make in this situation. We can follow the Bible's lead of including family and household concerns among the pastoral and social justice concerns of the church:
- Encourage employers and managers to be compassionate about family time, not to set obstacles for parents caring for children, not to begrudge adequate leave to workers who have children.
- Encourage Christian employers to seek out ways to make their family policies a blessing to their workers. For example, employers could make arrangements for part-time workers still to have health insurance coverage under employer-based group plans, or could grant an automatic half-holiday for a child's birthday or an anniversary. I wouldn't want to limit the conversation to ideas that suggest themselves to me based on my own situation. As Christian employers, not only justice and hard work but also kindness and grace should be evident. We should make our management policies such that all people wish they had a Christian manager, CEO, or HR Director.
- Make justice in the home a priority. Encourage parishioners to review home workloads whenever exhaustion is a problem for anyone in the family. Have each household make sure that the workload is distributed fairly and that unnecessary work is eliminated.
- Encourage realistic measures of how fairly household chores are distributed. Here is one possible test for whether work is distributed fairly: if one person is often still doing chores after the rest have sat down to rest, then that person is likely doing more than their share of the work, and the others less than their share.
- Make mercy in the home a priority. Encourage people to take notice of tiredness, to take seriously the need for rest, for sleep, and for peace and quiet.
- Making blessing in the home a priority. While not descending to a legalistic view of the Sabbath, be the good shepherd who makes the sheep lie down in green pastures and leads them by still waters. It restores their souls. If the sheep look harassed and helpless, that's the shepherd's cue to do something about it.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Haunted World: The Past that Won't Stay Buried
Amityville Horror. The Shining. Poltergeist (and Poltergeist II). Pet Sematary (and Pet Sematary II). And more imitators than you can count. What do they have in common? The Native American / Indian burial ground underneath it all. Then there's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, with its cursed Aztec treasure. This horror over our national past is not strictly a United States phenomenon. Mexican horror films have seen their share of Aztec mummies.
The stuff that nightmares -- and horror films -- are made of: Genocide of chilling scope, partly accidental through disease but far too much deliberate. A culture's betrayal of those who welcomed them. The more technologically advanced cultures plundering and dispossessing the less technologically advanced cultures. These days shame has increased to the point where it's not considered polite to mention that the native peoples of the Americas were less technologically advanced, even though the New World cultures of the time were often stone-age and, more often than not, pre-literate in development. But I don't think these things should be swept under the rug. Abusing our advantage was an aspect of what went wrong, and part of a pattern that has repeated itself often in history. One lesson we need to remember these days is that scientific and technological advantage does not make for better people. And if the learning of our culture counts for anything, then how in the world did all that happen?
We Christians have to wonder at those times. Had the words of Christ fallen on deaf ears? Had our culture learned no more, or forgotten so much, about treating others as we would want to be treated? To be sure, there were cases of people protesting the treatment of the native population back when the land was still, in the main, in their possession. But not enough to make a difference. The majority of people went along with what was happening. And as a culture, it gives us nightmares. (Are horror films the nightmares of a culture? I wonder.)
Then there's the temptation of self-defense. How many cultures in the rest of the world are built on the subdued ruins of the peoples who lived before? How many of our cultural role models (such as Greece and Rome) were empires? How many of the native peoples of the new world attacked and conquered and enslaved each other, built empires at each others' expense before any Europeans came? But that rings hollow in our own ears despite being true. It's just that defending ourselves by saying "we are absolutely no better than anyone else at their worst" is no excuse at all, and we know it.
Neither is this only an American-content concern. It began under Old World flags with Europe pushing out its religious heretics and deporting its criminals, or plundering gold and silver to send back to the mother country. Still, those of us who live in the Americas must remember that when the New World won its independence from the Old World, nothing changed. The high-sounding ideals of the U.S. Declaration of Independence did not make the U.S. suddenly wiser or kinder in its dealings with the native peoples. "All men are created equal ... " Ouch.
It wasn't us. But for many of us, it was our culture and we don't get away clean. And the time for easy solutions is centuries past. Many of us are not from Europe -- we are from Africa or Asia; not part of the culture that betrayed its hosts, though still living on land that was not rightfully gotten from its previous owner. Is there still a lien? Many of us who look European are of partially native ancestry. Many of us who are of entirely European ancestry would have nowhere to go in Europe now, when we no longer even remember the names of our ever-so-great-grandparents' home towns, even if we assumed (perhaps optimistically) that we would be welcomed in Europe. Many a hard-traced family tree in the U.S. stops at the eastern ocean in the early days of our country, unable to bridge the gap to where we came from.
Still the horror movies keep asking: Will the spirits of the betrayed ever rest? Can there ever be peace after what happened? Is there a solution of gold returned or blood repaid to end the nightmare? The movies always seem to find the answer in two or three hours. It is both easy and true to say that history cannot be undone. But not all of history has been written. We do not share guilt for the evils of the past merely because we are the descendants of "Pilgrims" and and conquistadores. But the lingering problems of injustice are as much a part of our cultural heritage as the music and scientific achievements of our culture. We share the evils of the past if we do nothing to right the wrongs we have inherited. As a culture, it bothers us; that's why so many works of literature pick up on that theme. We know we have to act, but have no easy time figuring out what to do. The first step is figuring out what end result we would want. This would be a good step in the right direction: that the native peoples who remain now should live in as much prosperity as is common in this nation. So the task falls to our generation: to figure out what it would take to make that happen. Will our children inherit our nightmares and our horror stories, a tradition of helplessness or apathy or self-justification? Or a tradition of action?
The stuff that nightmares -- and horror films -- are made of: Genocide of chilling scope, partly accidental through disease but far too much deliberate. A culture's betrayal of those who welcomed them. The more technologically advanced cultures plundering and dispossessing the less technologically advanced cultures. These days shame has increased to the point where it's not considered polite to mention that the native peoples of the Americas were less technologically advanced, even though the New World cultures of the time were often stone-age and, more often than not, pre-literate in development. But I don't think these things should be swept under the rug. Abusing our advantage was an aspect of what went wrong, and part of a pattern that has repeated itself often in history. One lesson we need to remember these days is that scientific and technological advantage does not make for better people. And if the learning of our culture counts for anything, then how in the world did all that happen?
We Christians have to wonder at those times. Had the words of Christ fallen on deaf ears? Had our culture learned no more, or forgotten so much, about treating others as we would want to be treated? To be sure, there were cases of people protesting the treatment of the native population back when the land was still, in the main, in their possession. But not enough to make a difference. The majority of people went along with what was happening. And as a culture, it gives us nightmares. (Are horror films the nightmares of a culture? I wonder.)
Then there's the temptation of self-defense. How many cultures in the rest of the world are built on the subdued ruins of the peoples who lived before? How many of our cultural role models (such as Greece and Rome) were empires? How many of the native peoples of the new world attacked and conquered and enslaved each other, built empires at each others' expense before any Europeans came? But that rings hollow in our own ears despite being true. It's just that defending ourselves by saying "we are absolutely no better than anyone else at their worst" is no excuse at all, and we know it.
Neither is this only an American-content concern. It began under Old World flags with Europe pushing out its religious heretics and deporting its criminals, or plundering gold and silver to send back to the mother country. Still, those of us who live in the Americas must remember that when the New World won its independence from the Old World, nothing changed. The high-sounding ideals of the U.S. Declaration of Independence did not make the U.S. suddenly wiser or kinder in its dealings with the native peoples. "All men are created equal ... " Ouch.
It wasn't us. But for many of us, it was our culture and we don't get away clean. And the time for easy solutions is centuries past. Many of us are not from Europe -- we are from Africa or Asia; not part of the culture that betrayed its hosts, though still living on land that was not rightfully gotten from its previous owner. Is there still a lien? Many of us who look European are of partially native ancestry. Many of us who are of entirely European ancestry would have nowhere to go in Europe now, when we no longer even remember the names of our ever-so-great-grandparents' home towns, even if we assumed (perhaps optimistically) that we would be welcomed in Europe. Many a hard-traced family tree in the U.S. stops at the eastern ocean in the early days of our country, unable to bridge the gap to where we came from.
Still the horror movies keep asking: Will the spirits of the betrayed ever rest? Can there ever be peace after what happened? Is there a solution of gold returned or blood repaid to end the nightmare? The movies always seem to find the answer in two or three hours. It is both easy and true to say that history cannot be undone. But not all of history has been written. We do not share guilt for the evils of the past merely because we are the descendants of "Pilgrims" and and conquistadores. But the lingering problems of injustice are as much a part of our cultural heritage as the music and scientific achievements of our culture. We share the evils of the past if we do nothing to right the wrongs we have inherited. As a culture, it bothers us; that's why so many works of literature pick up on that theme. We know we have to act, but have no easy time figuring out what to do. The first step is figuring out what end result we would want. This would be a good step in the right direction: that the native peoples who remain now should live in as much prosperity as is common in this nation. So the task falls to our generation: to figure out what it would take to make that happen. Will our children inherit our nightmares and our horror stories, a tradition of helplessness or apathy or self-justification? Or a tradition of action?
Monday, March 20, 2006
Open Letter to Mexico: About That Fence
"TexMex flag" LoneStar on Green with Aguila
I've lived in Texas nearly all my life. I'm proud of our TexMex heritage. I love seeing the Aguila flying alongside the Lone Star and the Stars and Stripes at businesses as I drive down the road. I'm used to people who don't speak English; it's ok, my Spanish will get me along.
I hear that there are people who want a fence along our southern border for reasons I find sad. I hear that there are people who want a fence because they think badly of Mexicans, or because they think other languages have no place in our country. Is it possible that some people may slam Mexican culture before going to their favorite TexMex place for dinner and a margarita while Selena is playing in the background? It's possible. And when a hungry immigrant turns up on our streets -- it happens all the time -- I wish him the best finding a job.
But I have a complaint: the nation of Mexico is taking advantage of us by not taking care of its own people, by sending them somewhere else for help at someone else's expense. Mexico looks down its nose at the U.S.A. -- and we have our faults; hey, nobody's perfect. But Mexico's jobs program is "have people go north and send money back". Mexico's education program is "have people go north and go to school, they'll educate you." Mexico's health program is "have people go north for the doctors". You say there are health, education, and jobs programs in Mexico. It's true but they aren't working; that's why the people keep coming north.
And so I have to say this: I support building the fence along our border. The only traffic it stops is illegal traffic. All the bridges and legal crossings are still open. It's not too much to ask that people enter legally. I don't think it's too much to ask that Mexico contribute towards the cost of health and education for its citizens in our country. And most of all, I don't think it's too much to ask for Mexico to make a serious effort to take care of her citizens.
Friday, November 25, 2005
"Fighting" AIDS and the deaths caused by morally silent Christianity
World Vision, a Christian group, recently published on Five Ways to Fight AIDS. They note that in the last year an estimated 3,100,000 people have died of AIDS, which is more by a huge margin than the tsunami and the hurricanes combined. Their suggestions? 1. Pray; 2. Sponsor; 3. Be an Advocate; 4. Run, Walk, Bike, or Swim; 5. Spread the Word.
The World Vision article is typical of many, and the remainder of this entry does not concern World Vision in particular, but the general "morally silent Christian" approach of which they are an example. Of that approach, it is all very kind and well-intentioned. But it is not helpful in stopping the spread of AIDS in the same way as reducing the top risky behaviors -- IV drug use and promiscuity. This morally silent stance is supposed to be non-judgmental. And it is. It's also directly culpable in letting people continue at high risk of death, so that millions more are expected to die.
It's no big surprise when some secular groups are against what Christians would recognize as morality. Despite the obvious destructive effects of drug use and promiscuity, secular groups are slow to speak against these actions because of their determination to be anti-religious, even if that stance costs millions of lives a year by current estimates. It is, perhaps, testimony to how intense is the secular hatred of religion that they will not consider "monogamous and drug-free" among the solutions. This despite the fact that simple monogamy and refraining from drug use would be the most cost-effective and long-lasting way to solve the problem. Still, that is not even permitted serious discussion. The permissive approach looks at the root of the problem and absolutely refuses to tackle it. This ensures the continued spread of the disease. Due to the constraints of reality, the "preventive" measures will occasionally fail, but promote the continuation of the exact behaviors that spread this deadly disease.
It may be predictable that secularists take this approach. What is less excusable is when Christian groups consign millions of people to die because they are afraid of being called names. Who cares if people call us names if we are saving lives? Are we really so frightened of name-calling, or so naive as to think the anti-Christian bias from the secularists will stop if only we won't condemn today's popular pet sins? Do we really think we're doing a favor to those at risk of dying by allowing them to feel unjudged in their destructive behavior? Do we imagine they'll thank us when they're dying that at least we didn't speak up when it could have helped? Or are we so confused about morality ourselves that we're unwilling to preach it in order to save lives, as if that were not among the legitimate purposes of morality?
The best thing we could do for high-risk AIDS areas is to send missionaries to teach forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ's name, and to stop living decadent lives. A condom protects you from AIDS today but not when the box is empty; monogamy protects you from AIDS for free and forever. Clean needles protect you from AIDS while you have a supply of clean needles; not shooting up protects you permanently.
I hope to follow up in the future with why Christians must reclaim monogamy as a good message.
The World Vision article is typical of many, and the remainder of this entry does not concern World Vision in particular, but the general "morally silent Christian" approach of which they are an example. Of that approach, it is all very kind and well-intentioned. But it is not helpful in stopping the spread of AIDS in the same way as reducing the top risky behaviors -- IV drug use and promiscuity. This morally silent stance is supposed to be non-judgmental. And it is. It's also directly culpable in letting people continue at high risk of death, so that millions more are expected to die.
It's no big surprise when some secular groups are against what Christians would recognize as morality. Despite the obvious destructive effects of drug use and promiscuity, secular groups are slow to speak against these actions because of their determination to be anti-religious, even if that stance costs millions of lives a year by current estimates. It is, perhaps, testimony to how intense is the secular hatred of religion that they will not consider "monogamous and drug-free" among the solutions. This despite the fact that simple monogamy and refraining from drug use would be the most cost-effective and long-lasting way to solve the problem. Still, that is not even permitted serious discussion. The permissive approach looks at the root of the problem and absolutely refuses to tackle it. This ensures the continued spread of the disease. Due to the constraints of reality, the "preventive" measures will occasionally fail, but promote the continuation of the exact behaviors that spread this deadly disease.
It may be predictable that secularists take this approach. What is less excusable is when Christian groups consign millions of people to die because they are afraid of being called names. Who cares if people call us names if we are saving lives? Are we really so frightened of name-calling, or so naive as to think the anti-Christian bias from the secularists will stop if only we won't condemn today's popular pet sins? Do we really think we're doing a favor to those at risk of dying by allowing them to feel unjudged in their destructive behavior? Do we imagine they'll thank us when they're dying that at least we didn't speak up when it could have helped? Or are we so confused about morality ourselves that we're unwilling to preach it in order to save lives, as if that were not among the legitimate purposes of morality?
The best thing we could do for high-risk AIDS areas is to send missionaries to teach forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ's name, and to stop living decadent lives. A condom protects you from AIDS today but not when the box is empty; monogamy protects you from AIDS for free and forever. Clean needles protect you from AIDS while you have a supply of clean needles; not shooting up protects you permanently.
I hope to follow up in the future with why Christians must reclaim monogamy as a good message.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Celebrate Thanksgiving: Give Native Americans Something to be Thankful For
- Personal: Start your Christmas shopping at a Native American gift shop. If you have funds for more than just shopping, make a donation to a Native tribe. Many have housing or job-building projects that could use more funding.
- Group: Purchase land adjacent to a reservation and donate it to the Native tribe.
- Government: Work with elected officials to create a program whereby new state parks or national parks are created and put under the guardianship of the Native Nations.
When the Europeans first came to this country, the Native Americans welcomed them. I do not know what they expected, but this was surely not it. And typically what follows next is hand-wringing, but not constructive. The main non-rallying cry has been, "What can we do now?" But "what can we do now?" is only a call for inaction if there is no answer. If we can rightly be ashamed of our forefathers' blindness, we can also rightly be proud of their accomplishments -- but none of that is actually helpful.
The answer is not for people of non-indigenous descent to go back to Europe (Asia, Africa). Things have gotten a bit more complicated over the centuries. The Karankawa tribe who used to live on the land where I now sit -- they are entirely extinct. My children, on the other hand, are 1/8 blood Cherokee, though they have never applied for tribal papers from the Cherokee Nation.
The answer is not to spend all our time wringing our hands over the wrongs of the past. Neither is the answer to sweep the wrongs of the past under the rug. Do we share the blame for the wrongs committed by our ancestors? I'd say the answer is: We only share in the guilt if we see the injustice and take no action. The injustice is not only a past event but a continuing reality, and when we take no action we share that guilt.
But is there any action to be taken? If we cannot give the land back, and we cannot go back to Europe, what remains? I would go back to the original observation that the Native Americans welcomed us; they did not begin by thinking we should go back to Europe or that we should have nowhere to live in their land. But they did seem to think they would be treated with justice and treated as friends, and they did seem to think they would have a better lot than we have since given them. (Some have noted that the Native Americans were not actually any more peaceful than Europeans, just less well-armed. That's probably true enough, but amounts to hinting that might makes right, which is not an ideal that I'd choose to support.)
I'd respectfully submit that our Thanskgiving Celebrations are best if we also give the Native Americans something to be thankful for. Help them have the same prosperity we enjoy in their lands. That, I think, is more what they had in mind when they welcomed us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
