I'm feeling funky because that nasty little guy in the photo has infected me... a cold virus.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
A Day without a Mexican
About a year ago there was a little film calledA Day without a Mexican. The story line was that a fog came over Californian and all of the Mexicans disappeared... those here legally and those not. It wasn't a great film but the message was solid. California fell apart and by extention, so did the rest of the country. After all, almost all of the crops picked in California are picked by Mexican workers with a significant percentage (I've heard 40% but don't hold me to that figure) picked by undocumented workers. If they suddenly disappeared, that would mean a lot of strawberries rotting in the fields and an incredible price increase in the broccoli on the dinner table.
This week, our legislators are looking at immigration reform. And once again, it is the poorest of the poor who suffer short-sighted and easy fixes. Our porous borders have led to concern about terrorists getting into the country easily but few point out that none of the 9/11 hijackers got here illegally. They all had visas. This knee-jerk reaction won't stop Al Qaida members from getting in but it will stop a poor Mexican who is here because he can do a better job feeding his family picking vegetables in California than trying to farm in central Mexico. It will hurt the American who struggles with food vs. energy in our country if food prices go up because of changes in the work force. There are issues of race and class involved when educated white folk get in easily while poor, uneducated brown and black folk are sent home.
And the church has been pulled into the mix with the proposed law. Evidently, it would make it a federal crime for any organization to provide services for folk who are here illegally. A church helping with housing or food for undocumented workers would be liable under the law. Would "spiritual" service count? Who knows. What is clear is that essentially, the church would become an agent for the state, checking the documents of people who come for help or to be part of the Christian community. The bishop of Los Angeles has come out and said that his priests will ignore the law. I hope that stand will be taken by church leaders of all stripes across the country. We are not called to be agents of the state, but of the love of Jesus and frankly, I can't see him turning a Mexican migrant worker in to the INS or even encouraging the worker to head back across the border when his family is depending upon that income.
Immigration reform is needed... but the change needed is not to re-write the words on the Statue of Liberty - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." It should not say, "Give me your well educated, your rich, the haves yearning to avoid responsibility in their homelands..." What would Jesus do? He'd throw his arms around the Mexican and say, "Dios te bendiga!"
This week, our legislators are looking at immigration reform. And once again, it is the poorest of the poor who suffer short-sighted and easy fixes. Our porous borders have led to concern about terrorists getting into the country easily but few point out that none of the 9/11 hijackers got here illegally. They all had visas. This knee-jerk reaction won't stop Al Qaida members from getting in but it will stop a poor Mexican who is here because he can do a better job feeding his family picking vegetables in California than trying to farm in central Mexico. It will hurt the American who struggles with food vs. energy in our country if food prices go up because of changes in the work force. There are issues of race and class involved when educated white folk get in easily while poor, uneducated brown and black folk are sent home.
And the church has been pulled into the mix with the proposed law. Evidently, it would make it a federal crime for any organization to provide services for folk who are here illegally. A church helping with housing or food for undocumented workers would be liable under the law. Would "spiritual" service count? Who knows. What is clear is that essentially, the church would become an agent for the state, checking the documents of people who come for help or to be part of the Christian community. The bishop of Los Angeles has come out and said that his priests will ignore the law. I hope that stand will be taken by church leaders of all stripes across the country. We are not called to be agents of the state, but of the love of Jesus and frankly, I can't see him turning a Mexican migrant worker in to the INS or even encouraging the worker to head back across the border when his family is depending upon that income.
Immigration reform is needed... but the change needed is not to re-write the words on the Statue of Liberty - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." It should not say, "Give me your well educated, your rich, the haves yearning to avoid responsibility in their homelands..." What would Jesus do? He'd throw his arms around the Mexican and say, "Dios te bendiga!"
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Anniversary
Dennis McFadden had a great aphorism in his blog the other day - "where you sit, is where you stand." So let me first say where I sit...
I grew up in the Viet Nam era and each night on the news heard the body count and saw the horrors of a war that we shouldn't have been fighting. The draft ended just as I reached that age but I thought very carefully about what I would do if I was drafted. I stood at the margins of the anti-war movement. I didn't have any friends who didn't come back but I did have friends who went and were never quite the same again.
I went to college as a Christian to a school in the Anabaptist branch of Christianity and was steeped in the peace church movement.
As I read the scriptures and look at church history, I don't see how any Christian can be anything but a pacifist. I know some still hold to theories of just wars and justifiable wars, but looking at the nature of modern warfare, I can see absolutely no justification for modern warfare.
Which brings us to the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Over 2300 young American men and women have died there. Over 17000 are injured. Estimates of Iraqi deaths range from 50,000 to over 100,000. No reasonable person can look at the situation in Iraq today and say that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were under Saddam. No reasonable person can look at this quagmire and propose a workable solution for either the short term or the long term. John Kerry's question from the last election rings all too true - "Who wants to be the one to ask a young man or woman to be the last to die for an unnecessary war waged under false pretenses?"
And that doesn't begin to take into account the spiritual damage done to these young people. The other day, our local paper had a story about a young man who is a sniper in Iraq. I have no idea how many people he has killed but I do know that is literally his job. He sits in a hidden protected vantage point and shoots people. Tell me, what does that do to a person's spirit?
A few weeks ago, the VP accidentaly shot a friend while hunting for quail. He said it was the worst day of his life. All that told me was that he is either the coldest, the most unimaginative, or the person least able to empathize with others in our world... Each day, people die because of the failed policies of this administration. Each day mothers, wives, fathers, children, husbands cry because their loved ones have died. Every day young men and women see and do things that scar them forever. And every day, fat cats in Washington, New York, and other centers of power grow richer because of it all.
So what do we do now? I wish I had answers. Perhaps, Iraq should be three smaller countries. After all, it was an artificial copuntry put together by the British. Perhaps, the future of the place should be turned over to their neighbors and they can support the fledgling governments. They have the most to gain or lose over what happens there. Perhaps, we should just walk away and see what happens next - certainly nothing that we are doing there is helping.
Personally, I feel that Bush & Cheney should both be impeached at the least. Some have argued that they should be tried for war crimes. I can see that logic. I'd like to see everyone in congress who voted for this war or at least those who continue to support it turned out on their behinds.
Usually anniversaries are occassions for celebration... this is one for mourning.
I grew up in the Viet Nam era and each night on the news heard the body count and saw the horrors of a war that we shouldn't have been fighting. The draft ended just as I reached that age but I thought very carefully about what I would do if I was drafted. I stood at the margins of the anti-war movement. I didn't have any friends who didn't come back but I did have friends who went and were never quite the same again.
I went to college as a Christian to a school in the Anabaptist branch of Christianity and was steeped in the peace church movement.
As I read the scriptures and look at church history, I don't see how any Christian can be anything but a pacifist. I know some still hold to theories of just wars and justifiable wars, but looking at the nature of modern warfare, I can see absolutely no justification for modern warfare.
Which brings us to the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Over 2300 young American men and women have died there. Over 17000 are injured. Estimates of Iraqi deaths range from 50,000 to over 100,000. No reasonable person can look at the situation in Iraq today and say that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were under Saddam. No reasonable person can look at this quagmire and propose a workable solution for either the short term or the long term. John Kerry's question from the last election rings all too true - "Who wants to be the one to ask a young man or woman to be the last to die for an unnecessary war waged under false pretenses?"
And that doesn't begin to take into account the spiritual damage done to these young people. The other day, our local paper had a story about a young man who is a sniper in Iraq. I have no idea how many people he has killed but I do know that is literally his job. He sits in a hidden protected vantage point and shoots people. Tell me, what does that do to a person's spirit?
A few weeks ago, the VP accidentaly shot a friend while hunting for quail. He said it was the worst day of his life. All that told me was that he is either the coldest, the most unimaginative, or the person least able to empathize with others in our world... Each day, people die because of the failed policies of this administration. Each day mothers, wives, fathers, children, husbands cry because their loved ones have died. Every day young men and women see and do things that scar them forever. And every day, fat cats in Washington, New York, and other centers of power grow richer because of it all.
So what do we do now? I wish I had answers. Perhaps, Iraq should be three smaller countries. After all, it was an artificial copuntry put together by the British. Perhaps, the future of the place should be turned over to their neighbors and they can support the fledgling governments. They have the most to gain or lose over what happens there. Perhaps, we should just walk away and see what happens next - certainly nothing that we are doing there is helping.
Personally, I feel that Bush & Cheney should both be impeached at the least. Some have argued that they should be tried for war crimes. I can see that logic. I'd like to see everyone in congress who voted for this war or at least those who continue to support it turned out on their behinds.
Usually anniversaries are occassions for celebration... this is one for mourning.
Monday, March 20, 2006
A Small God vs. Soul Freedom
Today therre have been multiple articles written about an Afghan man facing death for his faith. Two thoughts...
The first is that basic Baptist tenet that faith cannot be coerced. It is freely chosen or it doesn't exist. What the leaders in Afghanistan do not realize is that they are sowing the very destruction of their religion by forcing it upon people.
The second is that folk who feel the need to protect their God have a very small God. Seriously now, if the future of Christianity were to depend upon me protecting the faith, it would die very quickly. If Islam in Afghanistan requires the death penalty to keep people in the fold, what does that say about their trust in the power of their faith?
The first is that basic Baptist tenet that faith cannot be coerced. It is freely chosen or it doesn't exist. What the leaders in Afghanistan do not realize is that they are sowing the very destruction of their religion by forcing it upon people.
The second is that folk who feel the need to protect their God have a very small God. Seriously now, if the future of Christianity were to depend upon me protecting the faith, it would die very quickly. If Islam in Afghanistan requires the death penalty to keep people in the fold, what does that say about their trust in the power of their faith?
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Bonhoeffer quote
Today I read a letter from Bob Roberts - a retired muckity-muck from my denomination where he quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
“How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously
regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?”
He was talking about the impeding separation of the PSW region from the larger body of American Baptists. And he used the quote well... I found myself reading that quote and immediately wanting to point a finger... which of course is the point isn't it? Whenever one points a finger, they are immediately guilty of the judgmentalism that Jesus clearly condemns. I spend more time there than I would like.
Of course, the problem is that we must make judgments. But... we must also be aware of our own sin, our own blindness to our own sin, as well as cultural and theological glasses that make us see some things in a distorted fashion.
For me, that is why I think diversity of theology and background is critical. It is only when I wrestle with folk with differing opinions/blinders/ glasses/ understandings that my own blinders are exposed. Sometimes it strengthens my understanding. Sometimes it challenges it. Most often, I find myself growing because I have listened, considered, and learned from another.
“How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously
regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?”
He was talking about the impeding separation of the PSW region from the larger body of American Baptists. And he used the quote well... I found myself reading that quote and immediately wanting to point a finger... which of course is the point isn't it? Whenever one points a finger, they are immediately guilty of the judgmentalism that Jesus clearly condemns. I spend more time there than I would like.
Of course, the problem is that we must make judgments. But... we must also be aware of our own sin, our own blindness to our own sin, as well as cultural and theological glasses that make us see some things in a distorted fashion.
For me, that is why I think diversity of theology and background is critical. It is only when I wrestle with folk with differing opinions/blinders/ glasses/ understandings that my own blinders are exposed. Sometimes it strengthens my understanding. Sometimes it challenges it. Most often, I find myself growing because I have listened, considered, and learned from another.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
two evils - a final post on the code of ethics
I've continued to think about the Code of Ethics as it relates to the unfolding events in my denomination's region of the Pacific Southwest. I'm struck by a few things.
Many of those on the right are having a great deal of difficulty with this critique. Some refuse to allow that what they are doing is in conflict with a commitment/covenant that they signed in the Code of Ethics. To do so allows for shades of gray that cannot exist in much of evangelical thought. Things are right or wrong, moral or immoral... allowing for shades of gray or times when one must choose to do something that is "wrong" is not possible, therefore the Code cannot apply to this situation.
Some seem to be moving towards seeing the grays but in reality are not. Glenn Layne compares his situation to that of a military person being ordered to do something that is wrong and refusing... still, he overlooks the reality that the refusal is a breach of an oath taken. Any soldier refusing an order would expect to be taken to military court at the least and in current times would realistically expect court martial and jail. Refusal to follow an order may be justified, but it is still a broken promise and there are consequences. If I'm understanding Glenn correctly, he doesn't see any consequences for acts of "disobedience."
To deny that the code applies seems to me to be very much a matter of ignoring the log in one's own eye while complaining about the speck in another's. There may indeed be a speck, or even a log in the other's eye, but you better be able to see your own as well.
We see this same selective vision in the use of scripture. Those arguing for separation often quote scriptures regarding separation from sin but neglect those that speak of maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.
It also includes what is seen in the documents and history of the denomination.
The roots of the current controversy go back to a resolution by our General Board that said simply - We believe that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and was passed in October '92. The resolution was unusual in that it had no prescribed steps for implementation as do all other resolutions. From the very beginning that lack of implementation was problematic. Conservatives wanted teeth in the resolution.
But there is a second resolution that I have never heard cited by these same leaders. In early '93, a second resolution was passed. It followed the "normal" format of a resolution and included directions for implementation. Here's an excerpt from it:
Since our founding days, we American Baptists have heralded the Bible as central to our lives. Individuals have the right and responsibility to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the community of faith. We have also come together to seek the mind of Christ on contemporary issues, knowing that none of our corporate statements claims to speak for all of us. The time has come for our churches, Regions, National Boards, and the General Board of the American Baptist Churches, USA to consider prayerfully the mind of Christ regarding human sexuality.
Therefore, we call on American Baptists to:
1. Testify that Jesus Christ is the unifying presence in our denomination.
2. Explore the biblical and theological issues of human sexuality.
3. Consider using the resources identified and gathered by the ABC Commission on Resources on Human Sexuality.
4. Acknowledge that there exists a variety of understandings throughout our denomination on issues of human sexuality such as homosexuality and engage in dialogue concerning these issues.
5. Respect and defend the individual integrity of all persons within our denomination and their Christian commitment as we engage the issue of human sexuality.
6. Pray fervently that as we honestly address these concerns we may seek unity and avoid divisiveness as we grow in our common mission for Jesus Christ.
I have argued that this second resolution provided the implementation to the first - yes, the majority of American Baptists do believe that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching but we are not unanimous and our tradition leaves room for that diversity of thought, therefore we will... Even if my read is incorrect, the 2nd resolution still provides an additional perspective on the issue that calls for working together in spite of differences on substantive issues. Ignoring it is selective vision at best.
So what do I hope for with all of this? I guess I want to hear some conservatives say that their actions are in violation of the Code of Ethics but their conscience and sense of call compels them (and actually a few including Dennis McFadden have made similar statements) and that perhaps they should suffer the consequences of their actions whatever that might be. I want them to acknowledge their selective readings with a shrug that says, "yes, but the differences are so great that we still can't make it work." I want to see tears and broken hearts rather than feelings of victory. I want indications that these folk are feeling the same grief that I am as I look at this impending separation in the family I love.
Many of those on the right are having a great deal of difficulty with this critique. Some refuse to allow that what they are doing is in conflict with a commitment/covenant that they signed in the Code of Ethics. To do so allows for shades of gray that cannot exist in much of evangelical thought. Things are right or wrong, moral or immoral... allowing for shades of gray or times when one must choose to do something that is "wrong" is not possible, therefore the Code cannot apply to this situation.
Some seem to be moving towards seeing the grays but in reality are not. Glenn Layne compares his situation to that of a military person being ordered to do something that is wrong and refusing... still, he overlooks the reality that the refusal is a breach of an oath taken. Any soldier refusing an order would expect to be taken to military court at the least and in current times would realistically expect court martial and jail. Refusal to follow an order may be justified, but it is still a broken promise and there are consequences. If I'm understanding Glenn correctly, he doesn't see any consequences for acts of "disobedience."
To deny that the code applies seems to me to be very much a matter of ignoring the log in one's own eye while complaining about the speck in another's. There may indeed be a speck, or even a log in the other's eye, but you better be able to see your own as well.
We see this same selective vision in the use of scripture. Those arguing for separation often quote scriptures regarding separation from sin but neglect those that speak of maintaining unity in the Body of Christ.
It also includes what is seen in the documents and history of the denomination.
The roots of the current controversy go back to a resolution by our General Board that said simply - We believe that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and was passed in October '92. The resolution was unusual in that it had no prescribed steps for implementation as do all other resolutions. From the very beginning that lack of implementation was problematic. Conservatives wanted teeth in the resolution.
But there is a second resolution that I have never heard cited by these same leaders. In early '93, a second resolution was passed. It followed the "normal" format of a resolution and included directions for implementation. Here's an excerpt from it:
Since our founding days, we American Baptists have heralded the Bible as central to our lives. Individuals have the right and responsibility to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the community of faith. We have also come together to seek the mind of Christ on contemporary issues, knowing that none of our corporate statements claims to speak for all of us. The time has come for our churches, Regions, National Boards, and the General Board of the American Baptist Churches, USA to consider prayerfully the mind of Christ regarding human sexuality.
Therefore, we call on American Baptists to:
1. Testify that Jesus Christ is the unifying presence in our denomination.
2. Explore the biblical and theological issues of human sexuality.
3. Consider using the resources identified and gathered by the ABC Commission on Resources on Human Sexuality.
4. Acknowledge that there exists a variety of understandings throughout our denomination on issues of human sexuality such as homosexuality and engage in dialogue concerning these issues.
5. Respect and defend the individual integrity of all persons within our denomination and their Christian commitment as we engage the issue of human sexuality.
6. Pray fervently that as we honestly address these concerns we may seek unity and avoid divisiveness as we grow in our common mission for Jesus Christ.
I have argued that this second resolution provided the implementation to the first - yes, the majority of American Baptists do believe that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching but we are not unanimous and our tradition leaves room for that diversity of thought, therefore we will... Even if my read is incorrect, the 2nd resolution still provides an additional perspective on the issue that calls for working together in spite of differences on substantive issues. Ignoring it is selective vision at best.
So what do I hope for with all of this? I guess I want to hear some conservatives say that their actions are in violation of the Code of Ethics but their conscience and sense of call compels them (and actually a few including Dennis McFadden have made similar statements) and that perhaps they should suffer the consequences of their actions whatever that might be. I want them to acknowledge their selective readings with a shrug that says, "yes, but the differences are so great that we still can't make it work." I want to see tears and broken hearts rather than feelings of victory. I want indications that these folk are feeling the same grief that I am as I look at this impending separation in the family I love.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
the poor always have fewer options
I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. And I take that stand as a religious one.
The recent law passed in South Dakota has me thinking a good bit... will it stop abortions? Obviously not, if all one needs do is travel to a state where they are legal. So what will it accomplish?
It may force a show-down at the Supreme Court over abortion rights that could play out in any number of ways from overturning Roe V. Wade to a complete patchwork of laws which would differ from state to state to an affirmation of the status quo. It may lessen the number of South Dakota women who have abortions but not as expected.
Well off women always had access to abortions. They may have had to travel overseas, connect with a network that would direct them to a physician who would perform the procedure for cash under the table, or just go to another state, but they had options. Poor women who were desperate had fewer options. If they could not afford to travel or pay someone who really knew what they were doing, they did what they could where they were. It might have meant a predator in a back alley with a coat hanger. It may have meant, as it did for one young woman, having her boyfriend hit her it the stomach with a baseball bat in hopes of inducing a "spontaneous" abortion. Many times, it meant carrying a pregnancy to term regardless of the situation that caused it or the one that resulted.
Well off women had options. Poor ones did not. So what happens with bills like this one? Poor women have more problems while wealthy ones are inconvenienced.
So what would I hope can happen - notice I did say that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice? I would be thrilled if there was never another abortion performed in the US or anywhere but banning procedures that are as intimate as ending a pregnancy without walking in the shoes of the person making such a decision is going way too far. It seems that we should provide options from the very beginning - education, birth control, more education, economic possibilities, serious programs to help prevent unintended pregnancies... all of these are ways to lower the rate of abortions without stepping on a woman's right to determine her own future.
The recent law passed in South Dakota has me thinking a good bit... will it stop abortions? Obviously not, if all one needs do is travel to a state where they are legal. So what will it accomplish?
It may force a show-down at the Supreme Court over abortion rights that could play out in any number of ways from overturning Roe V. Wade to a complete patchwork of laws which would differ from state to state to an affirmation of the status quo. It may lessen the number of South Dakota women who have abortions but not as expected.
Well off women always had access to abortions. They may have had to travel overseas, connect with a network that would direct them to a physician who would perform the procedure for cash under the table, or just go to another state, but they had options. Poor women who were desperate had fewer options. If they could not afford to travel or pay someone who really knew what they were doing, they did what they could where they were. It might have meant a predator in a back alley with a coat hanger. It may have meant, as it did for one young woman, having her boyfriend hit her it the stomach with a baseball bat in hopes of inducing a "spontaneous" abortion. Many times, it meant carrying a pregnancy to term regardless of the situation that caused it or the one that resulted.
Well off women had options. Poor ones did not. So what happens with bills like this one? Poor women have more problems while wealthy ones are inconvenienced.
So what would I hope can happen - notice I did say that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice? I would be thrilled if there was never another abortion performed in the US or anywhere but banning procedures that are as intimate as ending a pregnancy without walking in the shoes of the person making such a decision is going way too far. It seems that we should provide options from the very beginning - education, birth control, more education, economic possibilities, serious programs to help prevent unintended pregnancies... all of these are ways to lower the rate of abortions without stepping on a woman's right to determine her own future.
Friday, March 03, 2006
what next
The other evening I was at another informational meeting sponsored by PSW and the executive minister said that some folk have expressed thanks to him that PSW has made the moves it has - this action has helped to get the denomination off the dime.
Well, I'm not sure about that, but one thing is very clear - the American Baptist denomination will be very different in 6 months than it is now. PSW will likely distance itself and there are some other regions that may as well. At least part of the theological diversity of ABC will be gone if much of the right leaves and a solid chunk of financial support will disappear (even if regions like PSW continue to support our ABC international ministries). There are folk advocating a change in our structure that would make things much more loose than they are now. It will not be an easy time for the folk in the bureaucracy.
So what next? It could be a time to radically look at ourselves and position ourselves for a future that is very different from the past. Or it could be a time of retrenchment that would certainly spell extinction. I think the Baptist tradition is the Christian tradition most suited for a post-modern world but at this time, as far as I can see, none of the Baptist groups are capitalizing like they can or should. I think that if we can really hold on to and hold up the traditional Baptist distinctives of soul freedom, local church autonomy, the associational principle, and the authority of scripture we will be in a good place to speak to a new world searching for faith.
Well, I'm not sure about that, but one thing is very clear - the American Baptist denomination will be very different in 6 months than it is now. PSW will likely distance itself and there are some other regions that may as well. At least part of the theological diversity of ABC will be gone if much of the right leaves and a solid chunk of financial support will disappear (even if regions like PSW continue to support our ABC international ministries). There are folk advocating a change in our structure that would make things much more loose than they are now. It will not be an easy time for the folk in the bureaucracy.
So what next? It could be a time to radically look at ourselves and position ourselves for a future that is very different from the past. Or it could be a time of retrenchment that would certainly spell extinction. I think the Baptist tradition is the Christian tradition most suited for a post-modern world but at this time, as far as I can see, none of the Baptist groups are capitalizing like they can or should. I think that if we can really hold on to and hold up the traditional Baptist distinctives of soul freedom, local church autonomy, the associational principle, and the authority of scripture we will be in a good place to speak to a new world searching for faith.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Stations of the Cross
In 2004 my daughter Alexis painted an abstract Stations of the Cross that she donated to the church. Walking the stations of the cross is a spiritual practice that lies far outside the Baptist tradition. This allowed her to take the tradition and morph it a bit to make it more meaningful for those of us unfamiliar with the practice. It has become and important part of my observance of Lent, beginning today with Ash Wednesday.
Here are a few of my favorite paintings from the stations along with the tradiional descriptor and the prayers Alexis wrote...
6th station
The 6th station is where Veronica wipes Jesus' face. The prayer that Alexis wrote to go with the station is: O Creator, remind me that though I am small, though I am insignificant in this vast universe, everything I do makes a difference. Show me that when I so much as smile to a person who is burdened, I can change the path of fate.
11th Station
The 11th station is where Jesus is nailed to the cross. Prayer: Peel my prejudice away and open my arms that I may embrace all of my family on this world. It is tempting for me to take my anger out on others. Grant me strength to love and not to lash out. Make my hands those of healing and not those of hate.
14th Station
The 14th Station is where Jesus is laid in the tomb. Prayer: When I want to keep my resources to myself, even though they would be used better elsewhere, drive me to give. Keep generosity at the foremost of my thoughts, the tip of my tongue and the ends of my fingers. Remind me that the gifts I give now come back one hundred-fold.
Traditionally the Stations end there... we include a 15th station as well - Resurrection! At Easter I'll add a post with that painting and the prayer.
Here are a few of my favorite paintings from the stations along with the tradiional descriptor and the prayers Alexis wrote...
6th stationThe 6th station is where Veronica wipes Jesus' face. The prayer that Alexis wrote to go with the station is: O Creator, remind me that though I am small, though I am insignificant in this vast universe, everything I do makes a difference. Show me that when I so much as smile to a person who is burdened, I can change the path of fate.
11th StationThe 11th station is where Jesus is nailed to the cross. Prayer: Peel my prejudice away and open my arms that I may embrace all of my family on this world. It is tempting for me to take my anger out on others. Grant me strength to love and not to lash out. Make my hands those of healing and not those of hate.
14th StationThe 14th Station is where Jesus is laid in the tomb. Prayer: When I want to keep my resources to myself, even though they would be used better elsewhere, drive me to give. Keep generosity at the foremost of my thoughts, the tip of my tongue and the ends of my fingers. Remind me that the gifts I give now come back one hundred-fold.
Traditionally the Stations end there... we include a 15th station as well - Resurrection! At Easter I'll add a post with that painting and the prayer.
ministerial ethics... again
As the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest continues its move towards withfdrawing from the covenant with the larger denomination, the question has been raised how the code of ethics signed by every clergy person in the region applies.
the code states: I will hold in trust the traditions and practices of our American Baptist Churches; I will not accept a position in the American Baptist family unless I am in accord with those traditions and practices; nor will I use my influence to alienate my congregation/constituents or any part thereof from its relationship and support of the denomination. If my convictions change, I will resign my position.
In the FAQ sent out by the regions office the question is framed as such: If the ABCPSW withdraws from the Covenant of Relationships of the ABCUSA, will its pastors be in violation of The Covenant and the Code of Ethics for Professional Church Leaders of The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.? The answer to this question is of course, "no." As the regions FAQ says, any body has the right to withdraw from the covenant at any time. That includes regions and individual churches. But the wording of the question makes it a straw man and misses the point of the critique. The code of ethics does not speak to the actions of the region or of the particular churches. It speaks to the actions of the individual church leader - pastor or regional staff person. And it provides a remedy for this current situation - when a church leader disagrees with ABCUSA, rather than using their position to influence their congregation/constituents to leave ABC, they will resign. Notice it does not only say congregations. This is clearly meant to include regional and national staff, missionaries, etc. and other ordained leaders in the denominational family.
One friend asked me whether the code of ethics trumps authority of scripture. Again, the question is a straw man. Nowhere does the code touch on that question. Indeed, if one believes that ABC has discarded authority of scripture as a core value, the code provides an out - resign. Move to another body that holds the same beliefs as you.
It is a question of integrity here. If a person has signed an ethics document - for all intents and purposes, a contract stating how they will behave in the larger family - and does not abide by it, they have no integrity.
So how does this all apply here? Yes, PSW can withdraw, but any staff person providing leadership or encouragement to do so is in violation of the code that he has signed. Yes, individual churches can withdraw from ABC. Any pastor providing leadership heading in that direction is in violation of the code that he or she has signed.
the code states: I will hold in trust the traditions and practices of our American Baptist Churches; I will not accept a position in the American Baptist family unless I am in accord with those traditions and practices; nor will I use my influence to alienate my congregation/constituents or any part thereof from its relationship and support of the denomination. If my convictions change, I will resign my position.
In the FAQ sent out by the regions office the question is framed as such: If the ABCPSW withdraws from the Covenant of Relationships of the ABCUSA, will its pastors be in violation of The Covenant and the Code of Ethics for Professional Church Leaders of The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.? The answer to this question is of course, "no." As the regions FAQ says, any body has the right to withdraw from the covenant at any time. That includes regions and individual churches. But the wording of the question makes it a straw man and misses the point of the critique. The code of ethics does not speak to the actions of the region or of the particular churches. It speaks to the actions of the individual church leader - pastor or regional staff person. And it provides a remedy for this current situation - when a church leader disagrees with ABCUSA, rather than using their position to influence their congregation/constituents to leave ABC, they will resign. Notice it does not only say congregations. This is clearly meant to include regional and national staff, missionaries, etc. and other ordained leaders in the denominational family.
One friend asked me whether the code of ethics trumps authority of scripture. Again, the question is a straw man. Nowhere does the code touch on that question. Indeed, if one believes that ABC has discarded authority of scripture as a core value, the code provides an out - resign. Move to another body that holds the same beliefs as you.
It is a question of integrity here. If a person has signed an ethics document - for all intents and purposes, a contract stating how they will behave in the larger family - and does not abide by it, they have no integrity.
So how does this all apply here? Yes, PSW can withdraw, but any staff person providing leadership or encouragement to do so is in violation of the code that he has signed. Yes, individual churches can withdraw from ABC. Any pastor providing leadership heading in that direction is in violation of the code that he or she has signed.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
something new
Boy it's been a long time since I've updated anything here...
Two Sunday's ago I preached a sermon that raised some interesting discussion at church. The text was Isaiah 43:18-25 with the key part being: "I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?"
And the topic was what new things I see God doing in the Church. It seems to me there are at least 5 movements of God from
- dogma to relationship (a check list of beliefs will be much less important than the web of relationships that hold us together as a people of faith)
- institution to community (the institutional side of any given church will disappear while its identity as a true community will grow stronger)
- culture to counter-culture (in our history, church was at the center of the culture... we are moving back to the margins where we began and where we can do the work God has called us to do)
- large to small (most/all of the futures I'm envisioning cannot work with numbers that are too large)
- low commitment to high commitment (likewise, high commitment will be needed to be the church in a changing world)
I truly believe that the Church as we know it will not exist in a relatively short time - perhaps a generation - and that God is beginning a reformation as important as any that have come in the past. What do you think?
Two Sunday's ago I preached a sermon that raised some interesting discussion at church. The text was Isaiah 43:18-25 with the key part being: "I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?"
And the topic was what new things I see God doing in the Church. It seems to me there are at least 5 movements of God from
- dogma to relationship (a check list of beliefs will be much less important than the web of relationships that hold us together as a people of faith)
- institution to community (the institutional side of any given church will disappear while its identity as a true community will grow stronger)
- culture to counter-culture (in our history, church was at the center of the culture... we are moving back to the margins where we began and where we can do the work God has called us to do)
- large to small (most/all of the futures I'm envisioning cannot work with numbers that are too large)
- low commitment to high commitment (likewise, high commitment will be needed to be the church in a changing world)
I truly believe that the Church as we know it will not exist in a relatively short time - perhaps a generation - and that God is beginning a reformation as important as any that have come in the past. What do you think?
Monday, February 20, 2006
the system is broken
yeah, I could be talking about any number of different parts of the system but I'm talking about a place that really should be made to work whatever the cost - foster care. An associated press article the other day underscored the disaster that foster care is - 4000 18 year olds leave foster care each year in California. Look at these numbers for them:
50% unemployment rate
22% homeless within one year
10% enroll in college
25% incarcerated within 2 years
The system doesn't work. We've seen it from the inside as we did foster care while we lived in NY and had 6 children come through our home. Church members at the Albany church had had as many as 50 children live with them through the years. We entered the system with the best of intentions as did our friends who kept foster children. I'm also sure that many/most of the case workers and other staff were there because they wanted to make a difference. For a few of the children, the difference was amazing. For far too many, the numbers above tell the story.
50% unemployment rate
22% homeless within one year
10% enroll in college
25% incarcerated within 2 years
The system doesn't work. We've seen it from the inside as we did foster care while we lived in NY and had 6 children come through our home. Church members at the Albany church had had as many as 50 children live with them through the years. We entered the system with the best of intentions as did our friends who kept foster children. I'm also sure that many/most of the case workers and other staff were there because they wanted to make a difference. For a few of the children, the difference was amazing. For far too many, the numbers above tell the story.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
star trek
I guess I have nothing better to do...
Your results:
You are
Will Riker
Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Test
Your results:
You are
Will Riker
| At times you are self-centered but you have many friends. You love many women, but the right woman could get you to settle down.  |
Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Test
superhero
hey at least I didn't end up as catwoman!
Your results:
You are
Spider-Man
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...
Your results:
You are
Spider-Man
| You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.  |
Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
politics
Let me begin with a disclaimer... I have only voted Republican once in my life and I am ashamed to have voted for that person (I'll give you a hint - he resigned in disgrace). I have voted for a number of third party candidates, but usually I have voted for Democrats.
Having made that disclaimer, let me comment on two Republicans. I'll begin with the positive comment to show that I'm only a little partisan.
In George Will's column today he talks about a Republican who [I]could[/I] inspire me to vote for a Republican sometime. Tom Coburn is a representative from Oklahoma. I don't know anything about his politics but I do respect his integrity. He was the one who proposed that the $223 million that was earmarked for Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" be diverted to New Orleans. He has tirelessly worked against pork barrel projects that do nothing to further the interests of the country as a whole. He champions that old fashioned Republican virtue of fiscal conservatism. He is willing to stand up against his own party when he believes they are wrong. We need more folk in government with similar spines.
Will has a great line in the column... "Civilization depends upon the ability to make even majorities blush..." which brings us to the second Republican.
One statement that keeps getting thrown around by those on the right regarding the domestic wire taping has been - "If you don't have something to hide, what are you worried about?" Well, the vice president had something to hide. While hunting for quail, he ignored the training that the NRA proposes and shot a friend. Then the white house took 24 hours to release the information. Now we know why. Cheney had a hunting license but did not have the required stamp to hunt quail. He was hunting illegally. After hiding the information, the administration made light of what happened. It seems to me that the event is a wonderful and terrible metaphor for this administration. He was reckless, careless, broke the law, hid the information, and then made light of the entire event. This administration has no shame. They have no respect for the law, for the people of our country, for traditional Republican policies, or for the constitution. They do not blush.
Having made that disclaimer, let me comment on two Republicans. I'll begin with the positive comment to show that I'm only a little partisan.
In George Will's column today he talks about a Republican who [I]could[/I] inspire me to vote for a Republican sometime. Tom Coburn is a representative from Oklahoma. I don't know anything about his politics but I do respect his integrity. He was the one who proposed that the $223 million that was earmarked for Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" be diverted to New Orleans. He has tirelessly worked against pork barrel projects that do nothing to further the interests of the country as a whole. He champions that old fashioned Republican virtue of fiscal conservatism. He is willing to stand up against his own party when he believes they are wrong. We need more folk in government with similar spines.
Will has a great line in the column... "Civilization depends upon the ability to make even majorities blush..." which brings us to the second Republican.
One statement that keeps getting thrown around by those on the right regarding the domestic wire taping has been - "If you don't have something to hide, what are you worried about?" Well, the vice president had something to hide. While hunting for quail, he ignored the training that the NRA proposes and shot a friend. Then the white house took 24 hours to release the information. Now we know why. Cheney had a hunting license but did not have the required stamp to hunt quail. He was hunting illegally. After hiding the information, the administration made light of what happened. It seems to me that the event is a wonderful and terrible metaphor for this administration. He was reckless, careless, broke the law, hid the information, and then made light of the entire event. This administration has no shame. They have no respect for the law, for the people of our country, for traditional Republican policies, or for the constitution. They do not blush.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Extravagance
Extravagance... it is one of my favorite words these days. God is amazingly extravagant! Extravagant love... extravagant beauty... and now extravagant wonder
Scientists have discovered a slew of new species and a few that were thought to be extinct in a remote section of the jungle in Indonesia. One of the species - long-beaked echidnas - at least in this region obviously has no history with human beings and wasn't afraid to allow the scientists to pick it up and carry it back to camp! Amazing
here's a slide show from the expedition including both animals and plants.
extravagant wonder!
Scientists have discovered a slew of new species and a few that were thought to be extinct in a remote section of the jungle in Indonesia. One of the species - long-beaked echidnas - at least in this region obviously has no history with human beings and wasn't afraid to allow the scientists to pick it up and carry it back to camp! Amazing
here's a slide show from the expedition including both animals and plants.
extravagant wonder!
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
his royal highness
Ok... I'm a big Prince fan. The man is a genius and an amazing player. Yeah, there is lots of filler material on most of his records but he still has an amazing body of work and his live performances are supposed to be astounding. I've never seen him live but if the tv performances that I've seen are any indication, there isn't a better show out there. If you didn't catch him on SNL this past Saturday you can see the clip. here!
Compare that performance with the drivel of the Rolling Stones at halftime on the superbowl. my, my, my
Compare that performance with the drivel of the Rolling Stones at halftime on the superbowl. my, my, my
Monday, February 06, 2006
a great sermon
Bono spoke at the president's prayer breakfast last week... the following are his words. powerful, powerful stuff.
If you're wondering what I'm doing here, at a prayer breakfast, well, so am I. I'm certainly not here as a man of the cloth, unless that cloth is leather. It's certainly not because I'm a rock star. Which leaves one possible explanation: I'm here because I've got a messianic complex.
Yes, it's true. And for anyone who knows me, it's hardly a revelation.
Well, I'm the first to admit that there's something unnatural...something unseemly...about rock stars mounting the pulpit and preaching at presidents, and then disappearing to their villas in the south of France. Talk about a fish out of water. It was weird enough when Jesse Helms showed up at a U2 concert...but this is really weird, isn't it?
You know, one of the things I love about this country is its separation of church and state. Although I have to say: in inviting me here, both church and state have been separated from something else completely: their mind.
Mr. President, are you sure about this?
It's very humbling and I will try to keep my homily brief. But be warned - I'm Irish.
I'd like to talk about the laws of man, here in this city where those laws are written. And I'd like to talk about higher laws. It would be great to assume that the one serves the other; that the laws of man serve these higher laws...but of course, they don't always. And I presume that, in a sense, is why you're here.
I presume the reason for this gathering is that all of us here - Muslims, Jews, Christians - all are searching our souls for how to better serve our family, our community, our nation, our God.
I know I am. Searching, I mean. And that, I suppose, is what led me here, too.
Yes, it's odd, having a rock star here - but maybe it's odder for me than for you. You see, I avoided religious people most of my life. Maybe it had something to do with having a father who was Protestant and a mother who was Catholic in a country where the line between the two was, quite literally, a battle line. Where the line between church and state was...well, a little blurry, and hard to see.
I remember how my mother would bring us to chapel on Sundays... and my father used to wait outside. One of the things that I picked up from my father and my mother was the sense that religion often gets in the way of God.
For me, at least, it got in the way. Seeing what religious people, in the name of God, did to my native land...and in this country, seeing God's second-hand car salesmen on the cable TV channels, offering indulgences for cash...in fact, all over the world, seeing the self-righteousness roll down like a mighty stream from certain corners of the religious establishment...
I must confess, I changed the channel. I wanted my MTV.
Even though I was a believer.
Perhaps because I was a believer.
I was cynical...not about God, but about God's politics. (There you are, Jim.)
Then, in 1997, a couple of eccentric, septuagenarian British Christians went and ruined my shtick - my reproachfulness. They did it by describing the millennium, the year 2000, as a Jubilee year, as an opportunity to cancel the chronic debts of the world's poorest people. They had the audacity to renew the Lord's call - and were joined by Pope John Paul II, who, from an Irish half-Catholic's point of view, may have had a more direct line to the Almighty.
'Jubilee' - why 'Jubilee'?
What was this year of Jubilee, this year of our Lord's favor?
I'd always read the scriptures, even the obscure stuff. There it was in Leviticus (25:35)...
'If your brother becomes poor,' the scriptures say, 'and cannot maintain himself...you shall maintain him.... You shall not lend him your money at interest, not give him your food for profit.'
It is such an important idea, Jubilee, that Jesus begins his ministry with this. Jesus is a young man, he's met with the rabbis, impressed everyone, people are talking. The elders say, he's a clever guy, this Jesus, but he hasn't done much...yet. He hasn't spoken in public before...
When he does, is first words are from Isaiah: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' he says, 'because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.' And Jesus proclaims the year of the Lord's favour, the year of Jubilee (Luke 4:18).
What he was really talking about was an era of grace - and we're still in it.
So fast-forward 2,000 years. That same thought, grace, was made incarnate - in a movement of all kinds of people. It wasn't a bless-me club... it wasn't a holy huddle. These religious guys were willing to get out in the streets, get their boots dirty, wave the placards, follow their convictions with actions...making it really hard for people like me to keep their distance. It was amazing. I almost started to like these church people.
But then my cynicism got another helping hand.
It was what Colin Powell, a five-star general, called the greatest W.M.D. of them all: a tiny little virus called AIDS. And the religious community, in large part, missed it. The ones that didn't miss it could only see it as divine retribution for bad behaviour. Even on children...even [though the] fastest growing group of HIV infections were married, faithful women.
Aha, there they go again! I thought to myself judgmentalism is back!
But in truth, I was wrong again. The church was slow but the church got busy on this the leprosy of our age.
Love was on the move.
Mercy was on the move.
God was on the move.
Moving people of all kinds to work with others they had never met, never would have cared to meet...conservative church groups hanging out with spokesmen for the gay community, all singing off the same hymn sheet on AIDS...soccer moms and quarterbacks...hip-hop stars and country stars. This is what happens when God gets on the move: crazy stuff happens!
Popes were seen wearing sunglasses!
Jesse Helms was seen with a ghetto blaster!
Crazy stuff. Evidence of the spirit.
It was breathtaking. Literally. It stopped the world in its tracks.
When churches started demonstrating on debt, governments listened - and acted. When churches starting organising, petitioning, and even - that most unholy of acts today, God forbid, lobbying...on AIDS and global health, governments listened - and acted.
I'm here today in all humility to say: you changed minds; you changed policy; you changed the world.
Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.
Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.
I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.
God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. "If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places."
It's not a coincidence that in the scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It's not an accident. That's a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. (You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.) 'As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me' (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.
Here's some good news for the president. After 9/11 we were told America would have no time for the world's poor. America would be taken up with its own problems of safety. And it's true these are dangerous times, but America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.
In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund - you and Congress - have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria.
Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud.
But here's the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There is much more to do. There's a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.
And finally, it's not about charity after all, is it? It's about justice.
Let me repeat that: It's not about charity, it's about justice.
And that's too bad.
Because you're good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can't afford it.
But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.
Sixty-five hundred Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about justice and equality.
Because there's no way we can look at what's happening in Africa and, if we're honest, conclude that deep down, we really accept that Africans are equal to us. Anywhere else in the world, we wouldn't accept it. Look at what happened in South East Asia with the tsunami. 150,000 lives lost to that misnomer of all misnomers, "mother nature." In Africa, 150,000 lives are lost every month. A tsunami every month. And it's a completely avoidable catastrophe.
It's annoying but justice and equality are mates. Aren't they? Justice always wants to hang out with equality. And equality is a real pain.
You know, think of those Jewish sheep-herders going to meet the Pharaoh, mud on their shoes, and the Pharaoh says, "Equal?" A preposterous idea: rich and poor are equal? And they say, "Yeah, 'equal,' that's what it says here in this book. We're all made in the image of God."
And eventually the Pharaoh says, "OK, I can accept that. I can accept the Jews - but not the blacks."
"Not the women. Not the gays. Not the Irish. No way, man."
So on we go with our journey of equality.
On we go in the pursuit of justice.
We hear that call in the ONE Campaign, a growing movement of more than 2 million Americans...Left and Right together... united in the belief that where you live should no longer determine whether you live.
We hear that call even more powerfully today, as we mourn the loss of Coretta Scott King - mother of a movement for equality, one that changed the world but is only just getting started. These issues are as alive as they ever were; they just change shape and cross the seas.
Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market...that's a justice issue. Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents...that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents...that's a justice issue.
And while the law is what we say it is, God is not silent on the subject.
That's why I say there's the law of the land. And then there is a higher standard. There's the law of the land, and we can hire experts to write them so they benefit us, so the laws say it's OK to protect our agriculture but it's not OK for African farmers to do the same, to earn a living?
As the laws of man are written, that's what they say.
God will not accept that.
Mine won't, at least. Will yours?
I close this morning on...very...thin...ice.
This is a dangerous idea I've put on the table: my God vs. your God, their God vs. our God...vs. no God. It is very easy, in these times, to see religion as a force for division rather than unity.
And this is a town - Washington - that knows something of division.
But the reason I am here, and the reason I keep coming back to Washington, is because this is a town that is proving it can come together on behalf of what the scriptures call the least of these.
This is not a Republican idea. It is not a Democratic idea. It is not even, with all due respect, an American idea. Nor it is unique to any one faith.
'Do to others as you would have them do to you' (Luke 6:30). Jesus says that.
'Righteousness is this: that one should...give away wealth out of love for him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for the emancipation of the captives.' The Koran says that (2.177).
Thus sayeth the Lord: 'Bring the homeless poor into the house, when you see the naked, cover him, then your light will break out like the dawn and your recovery will speedily spring fourth, then your Lord will be your rear guard.' The Jewish scripture says that. Isaiah 58 again.
That is a powerful incentive: 'The Lord will watch your back.' Sounds like a good deal to me, right now.
A number of years ago, I met a wise man who changed my life. In countless ways, large and small, I was always seeking the Lord's blessing. I was saying, you know, I have a new song, look after it. I have a family, please look after them. I have this crazy idea...
And this wise man said: stop.
He said, stop asking God to bless what you're doing.
Get involved in what God is doing - because it's already blessed.
Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe, is what God is doing.
And that is what he's calling us to do.
I was amazed when I first got to this country and I learned how much some churchgoers tithe. Up to 10% of the family budget. Well, how does that compare with the federal budget, the budget for the entire American family? How much of that goes to the poorest people in the world? Less than 1%.
Mr. President, Congress, people of faith, people of America:
I want to suggest to you today that you see the flow of effective foreign assistance as tithing.... Which, to be truly meaningful, will mean an additional 1% of the federal budget tithed to the poor.
What is 1%?
1% is not merely a number on a balance sheet.
1% is the girl in Africa who gets to go to school, thanks to you. 1% is the AIDS patient who gets her medicine, thanks to you. 1% is the African entrepreneur who can start a small family business thanks to you. 1% is not redecorating presidential palaces or money flowing down a rat hole. This 1% is digging waterholes to provide clean water.
1% is a new partnership with Africa, not paternalism toward Africa, where increased assistance flows toward improved governance and initiatives with proven track records and away from boondoggles and white elephants of every description.
America gives less than 1% now. We're asking for an extra 1% to change the world. to transform millions of lives - but not just that and I say this to the military men now - to transform the way that they see us.
1% is national security, enlightened economic self-interest, and a better, safer world rolled into one. Sounds to me that in this town of deals and compromises, 1% is the best bargain around.
These goals - clean water for all; school for every child; medicine for the afflicted, an end to extreme and senseless poverty - these are not just any goals; they are the Millennium Development goals, which this country supports. And they are more than that. They are the Beatitudes for a globalised world.
Now, I'm very lucky. I don't have to sit on any budget committees. And I certainly don't have to sit where you do, Mr. President. I don't have to make the tough choices.
But I can tell you this:
To give 1% more is right. It's smart. And it's blessed.
There is a continent - Africa - being consumed by flames.
I truly believe that when the history books are written, our age will be remembered for three things: the war on terror, the digital revolution, and what we did - or did not to - to put the fire out in Africa.
History, like God, is watching what we do.
Thank you. Thank you, America, and God bless you all.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Go Steelers
This week I realized that I last lived in Pittsburgh in 1973! Why is it that this place that I did not spend he majority of my life have such an impact on who I am? Obviously, I was formed there... and our formation is critical for our entire life.
So what were the pieces? growing up in a blue collar city in a blue collar family... hearing the news about Viet Namn on the news every evening... being faced with the struggle for civil rights in my neighborhood... knowing that the churches - and indirectly, God - cared because they reached out to us kids who very eaily could have been lost to the streets...
So the atmosphere in which we raise our children - the community, the church, our homes - will have an impact that will mark them for their entire lives...
Go Steelers!
So what were the pieces? growing up in a blue collar city in a blue collar family... hearing the news about Viet Namn on the news every evening... being faced with the struggle for civil rights in my neighborhood... knowing that the churches - and indirectly, God - cared because they reached out to us kids who very eaily could have been lost to the streets...
So the atmosphere in which we raise our children - the community, the church, our homes - will have an impact that will mark them for their entire lives...
Go Steelers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
