more about buildings

On June 17 I posted a blog - Context Is Everything, with an interesting video from David Byrne where he talks about architecture and music... I raised some questions regarding architecture and theology. Today we had an interesting experience of architecture and theology not working well together. We visited First Christian Church in Phoenix. It is a large, lively congregation, very involved in mission in its community and around the world. I don't think I would attend there (that is another post), but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the church to someone for whom it would fit.
Their building is a stunning place, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It is clearly one of his buildings - relatively low ceilings, heavy stone walls, beautiful stained glass used in a way that doesn't allow too much of the beastly hot Phoenix sun into the building. If you go to the website, you'll see that a pipe organ is integrated into the design of the worship space. It looks as if it was originally built for a wealthy mainline congregation (I believe they are Disciples of Christ although I couldn't find that information anywhere on their website). I think I saw a stone indicating the building was constructed in 1972.
The building is stunning and clearly represents the architect's idiosyncratic vision. There is an intellectual side to his buildings that pushes one outside of their comfort zones and calls you to think about space, its meaning, and its use. For those reasons, it felt to me like it wanted a formal, liturgical service. Or maybe a Taize style service. It screams that what happens in those walls is the center of the life of its congregation.
The service was a typical evangelical, big church style service - lots of use of media (notice in the photo on their website that two screens are shoe-horned in, probably in front of pipes of an organ that likely sits unused), a reasonably good band (although it wasn't as balanced or as loud as I would have liked), casual dress on those who led worship and a a friendly, informal style. There were lots of pointers to their community service and the central theme was to report back about a recent mission trip to Kenya. It felt as if the worship service was not at the center of their church life, that would be found in their mission and in small group life.
Finally, it was clear that First Christian Church is not allowing the building to impede its ministries... but it just didn't feel to me like the two fit together.

Firing Squad

Early last Friday morning, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Utah. Evidently Utah was the last state to do away with firing squads as a means of execution, going back to a Mormon theological idea that sin requires "blood atonement" for forgiveness to take place.

This is a perfect example of theology influencing behavior and even public policy. And it goes back to the earlier discussion regarding atonement, specifically penal substitutionary atonement. It is much easier to argue for such barbaric practices when one believes that God requires them.

context is everything

Ted has some fascinating presentations and it is always a worthwhile way for me to spend some time and get my imagination piqued. Yesterday I had a few minutes and listened to this talk by David Byrne. I've been a big fan of Talking Heads since their early days and thought it would be a fun listen. It was.



It got me thinking... if architecture influences music as profoundly as David Byrne thinks, does it also influence theology? And as with music, which direction does causation flow? Or does it flow both ways? Some years back an architect told me that a church should either completely remodel or move every 40 years because their building no longer fits their theology or ministry. I think that is true... but how much does the building shape both theology and ministry? And is it more than just impeding you from doing what you want? Does it also contribute in a positive or at least neutral way? What do you think?

spiritual but not religious

"spiritual but not religious" is a very popular descriptor people use these days when describing their spiritual lives. It even has been getting press from Lady Gaga describing herself as very religious while separating that from the church on Larry King to a CNN article on just that topic. My wife is a chaplain with a local hospice provider and seems to have many patients, perhaps even a majority, who would describe themselves that way.

So, no punches pulled... the descriptor doesn't impress me. I have to say that many people I know who use that descriptor are really just saying, "I know there is something more, something bigger than me, but I don't want to relate to that entity in any way that requires anything that requires commitment from me or calls me to a place where I'm not entirely comfortable."

I understand the bad feelings about organized religion. I know the failures of the institutional church as well as anyone and can recite the sins of organized religion's history. I have friends who have been deeply wounded by religious organizations and whose scars will never completely disappear. I've seen the pettiness, the lust for power, the self-righteousness, the easy answers to hard questions. I understand the reluctance to give anything to organized religion... BUT...

It seems to me that the organized part is absolutely and completely necessary for human beings to mature spiritually. Why? Because you can't do it alone. I'm a Baptist and I believe in soul liberty - the idea that each individual is responsible for his or her own faith before God (yes, that is a Baptist idea!) - but, the individual cannot spin it out of his or her own juices. You need a community of faith to give you a vocabulary to begin with. And then you need people to call you on the carpet when you've gone too far and to push you when you haven't gone far enough. To do this efficiently and consistently, you need organization. You need regular times to get together. You need some way to raise and wrestle with the important issues. You need structures. Virtually nothing of any importance happens without organization.

Here is my picture of "spiritual without religion..." - it is like when someone asks for a glass of water, you pour the water into their open hand without a glass. Yeah, they get a little water, but most of the water is spilled onto the ground. Now having a glass requires some effort. You have to wash it. You have to take care so you don't break it. But in the end... a container sure would have made things better.

So, given all of the failings of organized faith, what do we do? Dream dreams of what it should be and jump in. It won't be easy. Inertia is a powerful force, but change can come and the organizations can become more of what they're supposed to be.

Why Theology Is Important

One of my favorite children's books is Fables by Arnold Lobel. It is full of wonderful stories but one of my favorites is The Bad Kangaroo. In it, the child's teacher is visiting the bad kangaroo's parent to talk with them regarding the unruly behavior of their child. The teacher quickly learns that all of the child's behaviors were learned from watching the parents. While many of us would bristle at the thought, our behaviors are deeply influenced by our families of origin, sometimes because we don't want to be like them, but more often, and usually unconsciously, because we fall into long established patterns that we learned from them.

A few weeks ago, my friend Jon put a post u on his blog - Substitutionary Atonement - It's Just a Theory. I commented and said that our theory of the atonement is important because of the ways it effects our behaviors... our thoughts about discipline, child rearing, even crime and punishment. Jon asked me to follow up on that so here were are...

Let me propose that our views of and relationship to God are critical in shaping the way we live. If God is vengeful, then there is always a justification for vengeance. If God's love is always unconditional, then ours must be as well. And the list goes on. The crucifixion of Jesus is at the very center of the Christian story and how we interpret that event tells a tremendous amount regarding our image of God which, in turn, will influence the way we live our lives.

The most popular understanding among right of center American Christians is that of "substitutionary atonement," the idea that there must be a punishment for our sin and the only punishment adequate is death. So, in order that we don't have to suffer eternal death, Jesus who is without sin, dies a brutal and painful death in our place. He substitutes himself for our punishment. So what does this imply about God? God's forgiveness is overcome by the need for vengeance. God's love is never unconditional. It is OK when the innocent suffer for the guilty and that somebody has to suffer. We even have a strong argument for "the end justifies the means."

If that is our understanding of God and we learn how to behave by "watching" our heavenly Father, the results are obvious in every issue from corporal punishment of children to the death penalty to collateral damage in warfare.

But that is not my experience of God and indeed, it is not my experience either as a child or as a father. I would never makes such requirements of my children and my father never made them of me. If I truly believe, as I do, that God is a better parent than I am, that God is all loving, all forgiving, and as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor said in A Heretics Guide to Eternity, that there are free floaties for all, then I must find a different way to understand that central event in the Christian story. If Jesus did not die as a substitute for me required by God, then why did he die?

As I said in my comments, I much prefer the moral influence and expiation theories. The moral influence theory is just that, Jesus death is a way of influencing humankind to live more closely to God. He gave himself so we might learn how far God will go to show us what we can be... and so we will give ourselves. Expiation is a term used in the Orthodox churches. In it, the act of Jesus is not a legal act but a transformative one... we are changed because he gave himself.

Now, I think we can argue backwards here and ask first, who is God and how do I understand and experience the Holy One? Then, go from there and ask, what would this lead me to think about the death of Jesus? Whatever answer we come up with, theology matters because it gives us a foundation upon which we live.

experience?

On May 8 I posted a piece regarding planning a worship service that I called Constructing an Experience. As I've been listening to the Stephen Prothero book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't, I've been thinking a bit about that blog entry. Is constructing an experience what I'm really doing each week... or should it be?


Prothero goes through the history of religious literacy in the United States and presents a model with a clear shift from head to heart over the years. He says that in the early days of the United States, sermons were doctrinal, almost like theological lectures. Faith included a serious helping of knowledge. Almost all early colleges/universities in the US were founded as training schools for clergy and the common schools and Sundays schools of the time, both aimed at educating the population, all taught religious doctrine. Being a Christian meant knowing a significant amount of material. Prothero says that there was a growing anti-intellectualism that really took hold during the 2nd Great Awakening in the early 1800's where illiterate preachers moved to the forefront and many leading evangelists bragged at their lack of education. Christianity moved from the head to the heart and sermons became more story based, aimed at getting an emotional response.

I don't know enough about the history of that period to know how accurate Prothero's take on it is, but I suspect there is a lot of truth in it. For me, it raises the question, what are we doing on Sunday morning? Is it an event aimed at encouraging a mystical experience? Are we trying to get an emotional response? change the way people live their lives? increase their knowledge? Is it a cultic event where we re-enact rituals? a private communion between individuals and God? And finally is there something that only can happen in this communal gathering or is it just an appendage to a private spiritual life? What exactly are we doing and what is the role of the pastor/leader in planning and facilitating that time together?

What do you think?

acapella

a few years ago there was an acapella group at the local university called Naked Voices that we really enjoyed. Ever since I've enjoyed hearing some of the fun things that acapella groups can do. This video is really cool especially during the first minute and a half or so... enjoy

songcraft

I play guitar with a wonderful singer songwriter named Jamie Green who has entered one of her songs in a contest to perform at one of the Lilith Fair venues. The contest is set up in a neat way, 4 songs come up at a time and you order them from best to worst then the program uses some algorithm to rate the songs. You have to listen to at least 15 seconds of each of the songs in order to judge them.

To participate in the judging, go to Ourstage, click on "judge," choose the "Lilith Fair channels," and pick the city you want to judge (Jamie is in the San Francisco, LA, San Diego competition).

It is addicting and I have listened to snippets from well over 200 of the entries and I've been thinking a bit about songwriting. There are some great songs and great performances (Jamie's included) in the contest and some real bad stuff and it has led me to think about pop songs. There is an old saying among pop songwriters that goes something like - "Don't be a shnook, get to the hook. Please don't bore us, get to the chorus." In well over 1/3rd of the songs I have heard, nothing at all has happened in those 15 seconds. So I listen to the first 30 seconds and if nothing has hooked me, I go on to the next tune, knowing that I may have missed out on something wonderful, but why waste the time? If I listened to more of the songs, I might never get to the one that really is amazing. So, I skip ahead if that first 30 seconds doesn't catch my attention. There is wisdom in that silly saying.

I also have found that there are a lot of songs that sound very similar and a lot of artists who sound alike. Some are better than others, but there is a generic quality to many of them that gets tiring quickly. Then there are the ones that are trying very hard to be different. And some are... most not in a good way. There is a reason why the verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus out, works. When it is well done with material that is interesting and relevant, it has a way of getting past our defenses very quickly. Add a good production and a good performance and you have a great pop song that sticks with us. It may not be great art that will last for generations, but it speaks with an authentic voice and touches our hearts.

So, head over to ourstage, judge some tunes and see if you find a new favorite artist... and if Jamie pops up in one of your quartets, be sure to place her at the top of the heap.

religious literacy

I'm not a prodigious reader but I do usually have two or three books that I'm working through - some I finish and some I lose interest, most take a while, and one that I'm listening to on disk as I commute back and forth to Goleta.

It happens that I'm reading and listening to two books by the same author... and they are important books. The first is the audio book - Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't. In it, Prothero, who is a professor in the department of Religious Studies at Boston University argues that there is a civic reason for every American to be literate in religion. He says that in order to properly understand history and politics, one must understand the religious language and traditions of a people. Equally important, he argues that unless we understand the religions of a given culture, our foreign policy will miss many critical possibilities and pitfalls. For example, he says that had we had experts in the US government ho truly understood Islam as it is understood and practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan, our foreign policies in those countries would have taken very different shapes. He doesn't care whether you believe a articular religion or not, but feels it is critical in or world to understand them and to know the basic beliefs, practices, and narratives.


The second book is God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter. This book begins by arguing that all religions are not the same. They do not diagnose the problems of the human condition in the same way, their solutions differ, and the end result they hope for are not the same. The book is his answer to the problem set for in the earlier book. Here are thumbnail sketches of eight religions we should know about in today's world.

I find both of these books to be extremely important ones. Understanding the religious culture of a people is critical to understanding why they do what they do. Without that understanding, there is not possibility of working together to solve the problems we face. Likewise, arguing that every religion is really the same is both insulting to the various religions (the person making the statement always chooses something important to them as the common goal rather than letting the religion speak for itself) and keeps us from really understanding. If we go into the conversation expecting that we're all playing the same game, how will we be able to understand a completely different paradigm of the world.

Obviously there are problems. Trying to distill all of Islam into 40 pages requires oversimplification. Imagine trying to cover Christianity in 36 pages! Still, for most of us, those 40 pages on Islam leave us knowing more than we did when we started. Indeed, even in a country that is majority Christian, the 36 pages on Christianity will leave many folk knowing more than they knew before reading the chapter.

Bottom line, I highly recommend these two books. If you are interested in interfaith work, they provide a good place to start. If you want to be a good citizen of the world, you will be better prepared. If you want to get along better with your neighbors in this increasingly diverse religious mix called America, they are a good place to start.

Social networks

Social networks... or why I think it is impossible to be a follower of Jesus and not be part of a church... I found this a fascinating lecture.

constructing an experience

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

My friend Jon posted this on his blog the other day and I had to put it here for all of you as well... I laughed... but as Jon's wife said, "it is too close." BTW, Jon's blog is great! Do check it out.

First, I'll confess. My church doesn't look like this, but if we could, we likely would. We don't have the staff, expertise, equipment, etc. to pull this kind of a production off but if we did, we likely would head in more or less that direction (albeit with a different theology than most such churches).

As a pastor, every week I am charged with constructing an experience. In the best of weeks, the folk in the congregation have an encounter with the very presence of God. The problem is, I have no control over that. It depends upon the openness of their hearts and most of all, it depends upon God. I can do some things in the service that hopefully contribute a bit to their openness. I can do my best to put together a service that is consistent, centered, and has positive movement and a theme that is relevant to the lives of the members but beyond that I have no power. Some people will experience the presence of God and some will not and that will happen regardless of how well I have done my part. Hopefully, I can construct an experience that will help more people to find that experience than not... or I can manipulate their emotions into something that isn't quite right but sure feels good. and there is the problem. What is the line between manipulating folk and opening a door for them to enter through?

So what the video satirizes is just doing what we can, trying to construct an experience... but the more resources a church has, the more effective it can be at manipulation, at pushing people in a direction that may in fact, impede any real experience of God's presence by forcing an emotional experience on them. If we have the resources, that is actually the easy route. We know how to do that as per the video. Worse yet, in a consumer culture so centered around entertainment, it is all too easy to confuse the slickly produced mega-church worship service with a genuine experience of the presence of God. So for me, the video is a serious warning. We won't ever have a service like that one, but I still need to beware of manipulating my congregation and taking the easy way out - a slick experience vs. the very presence of God.

National Day of Prayer

I have to say that I have ambiguous feelings about a national day of prayer. I believe in prayer. I do it regularly even if without the degree of discipline I'd like. I pray for our government, our leaders, and the world. I think it is good when other people pray as well. Here's the problem for me, pray to whom and how?

As a Christian, I pray in the name of Jesus. I don't feel a particular need to force my theology on other people but if I am praying authentically, that is how I pray. So what do I do in an interfaith gathering? I know of some gatherings where each group prays as authentically as they can, where a Muslim might pray in Arabic, a Jew might recite a Hebrew prayer, etc. But if we go that way, eventually we get to a point that somebody can't cross. A Jew might be offended by a Christian's prayer, a Christian might see a sacrifice done by a Santeria priest as going too far... you get the point. More often then, the prayers are watered down and made generic so as to avoid offending anyone. I find that offensive.

In a recent talk to the Baptist Joint Committee, Martin Marty began with a quote from Montesquieu, who observed that the way "to attack a religion is by favor, not by what drives away, but by what makes men lukewarm." Watering down anybody's prayers makes them lukewarm and ineffectual. If I really feel that my government needs prayer, I want to do it with passion and commitment, not some watered down version meant not to offend anyone. Indeed, if I am praying what I truly believe, I'm going to offend someone.

Bottom line... I'm going to pray. And I'm going to pray for my government, but not because a President has asked me to. I'll be praying because he needs my prayers and because as a nation we have not filled full the promise of the vision of our founders. Part of that vision is a nation where faith is neither curtailed nor supported by the powers of government because government has no role in matters of faith.

Surprise & Delight

A week or so ago, a tweeter I follow pointed me to a blog post questioning the common wisdom that the way to get ahead in business is through innovation. The writer says that innovation for innovations sake is a waste of time and energy. Instead, a business seeking to be successful should aim at "awesomeness." The writer sees four pillars to awesomeness: 1. ethical production - things are always done with an eye to ethics, 2. Insanely great stuff - new isn't enough, it must be great. 3. Love - the high touch part of the equation, people must love what they do and must love their clientele. 4. Thick value - the value added to life is real, significant, and sustainable.

What if we embraced awesomeness in the church? A friend of mine who is an administrator at a Continuing Care Retirement Community came up with a motto for their workers - "surprise & delight." What if we embraced that motto in the church where people didn't just experience the new big thing but instead found surprise and delight in experiencing the awesome?

What Does It Mean to be "A Church?"

More than once I have told people only half jokingly that after 32 years as a pastor and two graduate degrees, I don't understand church. The roles and purposes of church have changed significantly over the last generation and there isn't a consensus as to what the new roles and purposes are. For some, church is a hospital we visit to find healing and strength to go back into the world. For some, it is a place to build social networks. For some it is a place to find spiritually inspiring entertainment. For some it is a base from which to launch various kinds of mission programs. For some it is a series of programs competing with kids soccer, men's therapy group, and women's drum circle. For many, it is completely irrelevant to daily life. Many of those who do attend church do so with the primary question being one of added value, "what value does this experience add to my life?" This question is even more important in a time when virtually all of the roles of the church can be fulfilled in some other way.

Let me share two illustrations that underscore my question, "what does it mean to be a church?" First... some years back I was attending a meeting and met a pastor from a Presbyterian church in Manhattan. As we talked I asked the pastor question - "How many do you have in worship?" It is a convenient metric and it says something even if I'm not sure what. She answered, "30." I was a pastor of a downtown church and the time and knew all of the struggles to keep one of those institutions going and all of the surrounding needs. Her congregation didn't have Sunday school or a youth program. If it were not for a significant endowment, it would have closed years prior. Then, she added, "but we have about 5000 people come through our building each week for 12 step meetings, feeding programs, neighborhood classes, etc. etc. etc." Almost none were "members" and likely a significant proportion would not have called themselves Christian. Almost all received services of one sort or another, consuming resources rather than giving them to the institution. What does it mean to be a church?

And watch this video which I first saw on my friend Bob Cornwall's blog.



Can you be a church in cyberspace? Can our need for human connection be met online and does that have anything to do with being "church?" What do our human networks have to do with our connectedness to the holy?

I have a couple of thoughts. I do not believe that a person can be a follower of Jesus alone. I truly believe it takes a community of accountability and challenge and support for us to follow Jesus. I believe that ministry/service/mission is not enough on its own to quality as a church. They are necessary traits, but there must also be activities that contribute to nurture and there must be experiences that lead to the holy, mystical experiences, for a group of people to be a church. Can it happen online? I'm not sure. I think for me, it has to have skin on it... but I don't know whether that is a more general rule. Does it require a traditional institutional expression? I pretty sure it doesn't, but I think some ind of organizational structure might be required just to make it happen.

So for you, what does it mean to be church? Does the UU church in Second Life qualify? Or even the Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.

the genesis of Arizona's law

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Undocumented people

Arizona. There are pieces of life there that really puzzle me. My daughter lives in Phoenix and we have visited a number of times. We ate breakfast at a Waffle House and there on the door was a sign, "No Hand Guns Allowed." I have to say I was more than taken aback that they needed to have a warning that handguns were not allowed at the Waffle House. I have to wonder what led to the warning... shootout at the Waffle House? The sheriff in Phoenix is more than a little... I'm not even sure what to say when you make male inmates at the county jail wear pink jumpsuits. Now this law that essentially requires law enforcement officers to stop people and check them for their citizenship documents if they suspect they may be here illegally. And we all know that the only folk who will be suspected will have brown skin. Lots of folk are rightly arguing that this is unconstitutional. More are rightly arguing that it is clearly immoral and sinful and counter to any understanding I have as to who we are as a culture. I'll not go over those arguments.

The sickness seems to be spreading as other states are discussing similar laws. The Republicans have already begun battling in California for their primary for the governorship and treatment of undocumented folk is high on the list of issues over which they're squaring off with each trying to prove that they are more draconian. Take it for granted that I think the plans they're floating are illegal, immoral, and sinful... they are also downright stupid for the health of California.

We depend upon undocumented workers in this state. Most of the vegetables, flowers, and wine grapes grown in the US are grown here and common wisdom says that many of the workers are undocumented. If you have ever watched the workers in a field of strawberries or peppers, you know how difficult it would be to get anybody else to do those jobs. Imagine if only 10% of the workers were undocumented and they were all removed tomorrow. Imagine every work day beginning with police officers gathered at the field, checking through every person's documents. Agriculture in California would grind to a halt. Produce would rot in the fields. Our already faltering economy would crash and food prices would skyrocket around the country. That doesn't begin to take into account the ripples in the service industry. These folk carry a significant portion of our economy on their backs. And then there is the impact this would have on law enforcement. Who is catching violent criminals when all of the officers are busy checking for birth certificates? And what happens when all undocumented folk refuse to cooperate with law enforcement for fear of being sent back to Mexico?

a few more random thoughts...

two media recommendations - TC Boyle's book The Tortilla Curtain and the film A Day without a Mexican. Check both out for a more accurate picture of what is going on.

I heard a pastor once say that rather than calling these men and women "illegal aliens," we should call them "good parents" as most are sending money back to Mexico to care for their families.

Many undocumented folk are in mixed families where some are citizens and some are not. Some children here without documents have never lived anywhere else and have all of their relationships and social networks here. Sending the undocumented family members back across a border destroys families and damages the entire fabric of communities.

And finally, we live in a world were goods and capital flow freely across borders but people cannot...

Tax Day

I mailed off all of my tax forms today and like most folk, have mixed feelings at best. We do have a refund... but I also have to make quarterly payments so one hand receives a check while the other writes one. All of it has been more immediate this year with all of the talk going on regarding the federal deficit and the impact it will have on future taxes.

I've been hearing commentators over the last few days say that with the huge deficit and the new health care bill, we will need to raise taxes or cut entitlement programs or both. As a general rule, I believe we should pay as we go. Yes there are some things for which borrowing is a logical plan, but generally, we should pay for the benefits we receive. And if you can't afford a Mercedes, drive a Kia. But here's the problem... we're being told to drive a Kia while nobody is questioning whether or not we really need a 14,000 square foot house with a pool and a tennis court. Huh? Let move away from the metaphor. The largest area of expense in the Federal budget is military spending. Now, the government figures say military spending is 20%, but that does not include costs for past military, interest on the debt incurred by military expenditures, or military costs that fall under other budget categories. The War Resisters League places the percentage of military spending at 54% with 36% going to the current military. In either case or somewhere in between, military spending is a huge piece of the pie. It needs to be a part of the discussion.

A budget is a reflection of values. Where your heart is... there is your money. The US spends more on the military than the next 15 nations combined, accounting for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending. Of the next 15 countries, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. So what does this massive spending say about us? Do we need to maintain military bases all around the world? Does that even make us safer? Or are the better ways to spend our money?

I don't mind paying more taxes. I benefit from living in the country in ways I cannot begin to express. It is my responsibility to contribute both to current needs and to the future. Even though I am a pacifist, I won't even complain about a reasonable amount going to the military. I do mind 1/2 of my taxes going to empirism. So let's talk seriously about the budget, about deficits, about the need to both cut spending and to raise taxes, but lets keep military spending on the table and realize that without cutting those expenditures, other changes will be inadequate to solve the problem without causing incredible hardship to our population. Imagine how many seniors would live in poverty if we drastically cut social security. Imagine what would happen to health care for seniors if we did away with medicare. We already have school districts talking about cutting a day from the school week to cut costs... imagine.

One of the primary pieces contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union was unsustainable military spending. Infrastructure suffered. Social programs suffered. Education and health care suffered while they continued to spend on the military until everything collapsed.

I Don't Want to Live in a Christian Nation

There is a lot of chatter these days among those on the far right that we live in a Christian nation... or that we used to live in a Christian nation until the Democrats began to push us away from our Christian moorings.

Well, that is at best revisionist history and at worst a complete misunderstanding of the genius that is the United States... but that is another post. Regardless of whether that interpretation is incorrect, I don't want to live in a "Christian" nation. If we were one (which again, is a misread of history), then good riddance. If we were not (now you've got it right), then let's keep it that way.

First, let me address the idea of separation of Church and State. It was not an idea that came from secularists. The deepest roots of those ideas came from the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Unitarians. Indeed, the phrase, "wall of separation" came from the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys. While many religious groups had experienced persecution under the state churches in Europe, those three groups had in common a belief that at its core, the soul must be free. They believed that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God and no outside body, including the state, has the right to dictate what that relationship must look like. At the simplest level, they knew that any time there was a state church, somebody would be unable to seek God as their hearts led them and somebody would be persecuted for not towing the line. Groups like the Puritans, for example, had experienced persecution for their faith but rather than seeing the Americas as an opportunity for freedom, they saw it as a place where they could impose their faith on others and often the persecuted become the persecutors.

The basic problem of living in a "Christian" state is whose version of Christianity are we talking about? Are we Roman Catholic? Or fundamentalist evangelical? Or staunch Calvinist? Or liberal mainline protestant? The early Baptists knew what it meant to be on the wrong end of those questions. Then, what force of the state will be used to enforce that particular understanding of faith? Prison? Using zoning or tax regulations to destroy organizations? The list could go on.

And finally, what happens if one is not a Christian at all? Do we use the power of the state to convert? To "train" children, taking away the freedom and responsibility of their parents?

I don't want to live in a country where any particular version of Christianity is imposed, even my own. I want even less to live in a country where the official state religion is some watered down, civil version of Christianity that has no teeth at all. I also don't want to live in a Muslim country, a Jewish nation, or a place with any other official religion you can name. Instead, I want to live in a place where the government has no say in matters of faith at all, where the government neither supports nor undermines religion. I want to live in a place where I am free to practice my faith or lack thereof as my conscience dictates and where you can do the same. It is only there that truth faith can flourish.

The whores of war

The Republican Party has worked for some time to privatize as many functions of government as possible. The one area I would have expected to be immune from this tampering was the military. Going back to Bush I, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been working to outsource tasks that have traditionally belonged to the military to private firms. In Iraq and Afghanistan, this trend has become frightening. Euphemistically called, "contractors," these folk are not carrying hammers and rulers but instead M4's and automatic weapons. They are guarding diplomats, facilities, and escorting convoys of supplies through war zones. There have even been instances where these mercenaries have commanded US military forces. To make it worse, at least in Iraq, they are not subject to military rules of engagement nor are they subject to civilian law... Yes, you read that correctly, they are essentially above any law while being in incredibly stressful situations and highly armed. Currently there are over 22,000 of them operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were even deployed under similar rules in New Orleans after Katrina.

Many of these mercenaries are former US special forces people but others, employed by the US government, were former members of Pinochet's henchmen, apartheid soldiers in South Africa, and the worst of the worst from other war torn places.

This industry has quickly grown to being worth billions of dollars.

Here are some of the pieces that really worry me...

They make war easier. As a nation we think twice about committing our sons and daughters in uniform to war. Mercenaries don't elicit the same concern. And the costs of war are not quite so clear. All of this makes it easier to go to war without the input and approval of the population or even our elected representatives.

We are encouraging private companies to build large, highly trained armies that are not accountable to anyone except the folk running those companies and their bottom lines. We are making our national security dependent upon companies over whom we have no control and who have no accountability to the government or the people of the United States.

What happens if their commercial interests or political ideologies differ from the nation as a whole? Or what if a bunch of crazy billionaires say, "Here is more money than you've ever imagined, let's overthrow the government and turn it into the utopia we envision." At the same time, because these mercenaries are paid so well, they are siphoning off many qualified people from our military and from the militaries of our allies.

As an industry, they benefit from conflict and suffer if there is none so they have significant impetus to be sure that conflict continues and to insure that the primary response to a political conflict is violence. Because it is such a huge industry, they have the ears of many in Washington, on Wall Street, and in other places f influence around the world.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky in the House (H.R. 4650) and Bernie Sanders in the Senate (S. 3023), have introduced bills that would prohibit hiring private mercenaries to perform tasks traditionally done by the military. This is essential to our national security. This is essential to our future. Contact your congress people and encourage them to support these bills.

Easter - Stations of the Cross

Resurrection!



When I am in the darkest night, remind me of the coming dawn. Creator, the one who made everything, remind me that you have transformative power. In your compassionate arms, evil is made good, ugly made beautiful, weak made strong, dead made to live. Allow me to receive your compassion so that I may transform lives around me.

Hear my earnest prayer O God.