Which Side Are You On?

Just bought the new Ani DiFranco album, Which Side Are You On?, this week. It's amazing--it's hard to choose which song cuts the deepest. For starters, track 1 gives a first person narrative in a homeless woman's voice, who laments--or rejoices?--"every time I open my mouth, I take off my clothes." But there's a line in the following song which strikes me every time as just right:

"Trust: women will still take you to their breast. Trust: women will always do their best."

It's a political song, about a lot of political issues concerning women--but for me, this is what they all come to. Trust. Trust us. Trust us as human beings. Trust us as grown-ups. As citizens. As moral agents. As bearers of the imago dei, twice over. Trust that the decisions we make for ourselves and our children are the best decisions we can make, and that we understand--understand in a way no one else can--what they are and what they mean. Trust: women will still take you to their breast. Trust: women will always do their best.



"amendment" by Ani DiFranco



wouldn't it be nice if

we had an amendment

to give civil rights to

women

to once and for all just

really lay it down from

a point of view of

women



I know what you're thinking

that's just redundant

chicks got it good now

they can almost be president

but worker against worker

time and time again

as the rich use certain issues as a tool

and when I said we need the ....? cause I'm a fool

it's cause without it nobody can get away

with anything cruel



you don't need to go far like

just over to Canada

to feel the height and sense of

live and let live

what is it about Americans

like so many pitbulls

trained to attack them

to never give



we gotta come down abortion

put it down in the books for good

as central to the civil rights of women

make diversity acceptable

make it finally understood

through the civil rights of women



and if you don't like abortion

don't have an abortion

teach your children

how they can avoid them

but don't treat all women

like they are your children

compassion has many faces

many names

and if men can kill

and be decorated instead of blamed

when a woman called onto mother

can choose to refrain



and contrary to aeons

of oldtime religion

your body is your only true dominion

nature is not here to serve you

or at any cost to preserve you

that's just some preacherman's oldtime opinion



life is sacred

life is all so profane

a woman's life

it must be hers to name

let an amendment

put this brutal game to rest

trust women will still take you to their breast

trust women will always do their best

trust that our differences make us stronger, not less



in this amendment

family structure shall be free

to be the right to civil union

if we take unions of all kinds

unions of hearts and minds

to give society communion

let's do more than tolerate

let gay and straight resonate

and emanate all things human

with equal rights and

equal protection

intolerance finally ruined



and then there's the kids rights

they'll naturally be on board

a funnel through which

womens' lives are poured

our family is so big and we're all so very small

let a web of relationship be laid over it all

over the strata of power piled up into the sky

over the illusion of autonomy on which it relies

over any absolute that nature does not supply


...and the birds say woman shall regain her place
in the circle of women, ina sacred space
 turn off the machine, put away them knives
this amendment shall deliver from bondage, midwives

#ows

Too busy now for my own words. Am borrowing from Elizabeth Johnson's Quest for the Living God, from chapter 4, "Liberating God of Life," which we are covering in class for this week:

"Idolatry entails putting alien gods before the true God of the Bible, worshiping something which is not divine. In the Latin American situation these gods are money, the comforts it brings, and the power necessary to make and keep it. Starting with the conquistadores and continuing for five centuries through successive ruling systems up to multinational corporations today, greed has divinized money and its trappings, that is, turned them into an absolute. Core transgressions against the first commandment have set up a belief system so compelling that it might be called moneytheism, in contrast to monotheism.
Like all false gods, money and its trappings require the sacrifice of victims. Whether the poor are offered up indirectly through the economic conditions necessary to produce profit, or directly through the violence necessary to sustain those conditions, their lives are the sacrifice. What is most insidious is the way traditional preaching and theology put a superficial veneer of Christian  belief over the face of these idols...Neutral in the face of injustice, the racist, sexist, classist image of God perverts the actual contours of the living God in the service of moneyed interests" (79-80).

It won't fit on a sign. But it is to the point. I don't know if Jesus would #ows, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Sister Elizabeth there.

in defense of Planned Parenthood, because every child should be a choice

"It's not a choice, it's a child."

Every roadtrip I've taken in that last decade and a half, I've seen that bumper sticker on the Covenant Transport trucks while I pass on the left. And over that decade and a half I've gone from a single college kid, far from marriage and motherhood, nodding in knee-jerk agreement, to a mom of two who grimaces in philosophical pain at the simple-minded misdirection of this ubiquitous bumper sticker slogan. (But hey, at least all the words are spelled correctly, and there's no Hitler mustache--which is more than you can expect from most slogan-toting peeps these days.)

I would like to see some bumper stickers that say, "Every child should be a choice." That's the goal, right? That every child conceived is a child whose conception is desired, whose growth in the womb is deliberately nurtured by both mother and community, whose birth is welcomed with the kind of joy that only comes after a ridiculous long period of anticipation? Isn't that what we want? Isn't it a measure of the brokenness of the world that this isn't, in fact, how it often happens?

So why is it that we separate these things, as if they were an either/or? Why don't we, instead, acknowledge the basic biological reality that a child is in fact a choice? And then get busy with making sure that people can in fact choose their children?

I don't mean the "you chose to have sex, so you chose the consequence" line, either. I mean, bringing a child into the world is not just a single choice, much less is it simply the statistically-more-or-less-likely sperm-meets-egg consequence of a single sex act. Bringing a child into the world is a series of choices: a series of choices which begin as soon as you realize that you're not just coming down with the flu because the flu doesn't make your boobs sore, and go to the store to get yourself a package of pee sticks. I don't just mean abortion here--although that is the starkest and most obvious form that this existential choosing can take. Choosing to nurture a life in your womb is a series of choices, one that has a definite starting point but no foreseeable ending point. It starts with prenatal vitamins and yoga and cloth diapers and escalates into something so large and complicated it encompasses the entirety of your life. It's on you: the health and well-being of a completely helpless human being. It's on you: the health and well-being of an increasingly independent little person. Everything from the food they eat to the answers they get to the impossible questions they ask, it's on you. Choosing to nurture life does not have an end. It just keeps going.

We forget--or do we just willfully ignore the obvious?--that women who face down that stark, inevitable, existential choice, do I nurture this life?, aren't answering a question about pregnancy. Pregnancy is the easy part. They're facing down the question about the cascading, unending, exponentially multiplying, choice of nurturing that life, for the rest of their lives.

If you're a fortunate and blessed woman, like I am, then your choice has already been made prior to the pee sticks, because you know that you want this to happen and when it does, your answer is ready: yes. Maybe you've already stocked the cupboard with prenatals and bought a copy of What to Expect (though, for my money, Smart Woman's Guide to Better Birth is a better purchase), you're so ready to say yes to this tiny life. Because you've already chosen this child.

In a different life, I might not be one of the fortunate, blessed ones whose children are predetermined choices. Brent and I were married six years before Clare. (Those, we refer to as "BC.") Not to get too personal about it, but believe me, there was plenty of opportunity for sperm-meets-egg in those years. (FTR, we're doing fine now too, no worries.) For those years--really, for the first full decade of our married lives--we were students, living off of loans and scholarships and part-time jobs of all sorts (between us, we've waited tables, sold orthopedic shoes, sold books, babysat, substituted in public schools and bank-tellered)--that is to say, we were permanently officially broke. And busy. And not interested in or able to even seriously ponder parenthood, except to watch the parents we knew with incomprehension and wide eyes at the amount of sheer energy and time that went into it, and think--no. Not yet. We cannot possibly do that.

So thank God for Planned Parenthood. I re-upped my pills through them the whole time we lived in Abilene, and stocked up there for the year we were overseas in Changsha. And since it turns out that I'm 'Fertile Myrtle' and Brent's 'Virile Cyril' (both times we've gotten pregnant within two months of tossing contraceptives), it's a helluva good thing we weren't left on our own. (Can't say that I see six years of married abstinence in the name of pursuit of theological scholarship as a real option. The world of academia still seems to largely operate on the assumption that scholars are celibate medieval monks--but in the real world, we've all got bodies and sexual drives attached to these putatively floating heads.)

Clare knows that she is chosen; it is another way of saying that she is and has always been loved. Baby Z will know that she is chosen, too. They'll know this because we'll tell them, and because we'll keep choosing them for the rest of their lives, in all those uncountable ways that you choose to nurture and love a kid every single day.

Every kid should know this. It should be the basic expectation with which kids grow up and experience their world. Every child should know that they were chosen--know it in a way that makes asking the question impossible. It should be the tacit foundation for life, that unspoken assurance that you are chosen, wanted, desired, loved.

Supporting Planned Parenthood ought to be a no-brainer. Instead we've let things get to a point where the health of women and children are potentially at risk because no one can think past the word "abortion." This is not about abortions. This is about doing the concrete, practical things that will get us closer to a world where every child born will be a child who is wanted: about enabling women and men, no matter who they are, to make childbearing and childrearing something they can choose to undertake gladly and readily. Every child should be a choice.

vampires, cyborgs, Christians

So, Anne Rice quits, because people suck? What did she expect, anyway?

That was my first gut-check response to the statement she made this week on Facebook, subsequently picked up by Huffington Post: 'I Quit Being a Christian.'  Why? Well, like I said, people suck--and apparently Christian people are the suckiest: "It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else. ...I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Okay, granted: Christian people really are the suckiest, if only because they suck just as bad as everyone else and claim to be doing God's will or loving Jesus the whole time they suck. And I hate just as much as anyone the fact that goofy Ted Haggards and odious Fred Phelpses and you-name-hims are the media face of Christianity. In fact, I hate it so much I refuse to accept it. Which is exactly NOT what giving up and publicly quitting being a Christian does. I get that she wants to indict these sucky Christians for their suckiness. But in the meantime, she grants that this is what Christianity really is, and must be, and all right-minded people must quit it because it will only ever be a religion of haters and that's what Jesus would do.

Actually I think Jesus stuck around and got crucified for it, but hey, that's a theological quibble for another day, right.

On my own Facebook page I groused, "why sell out and let the haters define Christianity? all she's doing is legitimizing the perception that this is in fact what Xny has to be. Lame."

Maybe that was a bit harsh. Susan Campbell's reaction is better: "Come sit by me, Sis. Anne. One can be a Christian and cling to none of those antis, I believe." (Amen and amen and amen!) Usually, I'm much more level-headed; I stick it out in my little corner of Christendom, but I have said (so often now it's practically become a mantra) that we need some people to go and some people to stay, and everyone should do what they do loudly. Well, you can't beat an Anne Rice Facebook statement picked up by HuffPo as a megaphone, so it seems like I am actually pissed off at someone conforming to my own advice. Which puts me in a bind. Mea culpa. So why is it that I still feel like what she is doing is misguided in some fundamental way? Why am I still pissed about it?

What makes Susan's reaction better and different from mine is that, I got pissed off at the idea of quitting--because I have chosen to not quit, despite the fact that I too feel very much an outsider in my own Christian tradition. I've decided not to quit because I am an outsider. It's the outsiders--the vampires and the cyborgs if you will--within the church that have the prophetic potential for changing the antis into pros. It's not so much that I'm angry that Anne Rice wants to publicly indict Christians for the unforgiveable anti-stances that have been so publicly and politically taken up by a very vocal some. I agree. It's that her chosen response to it indicts my chosen response to it as wrong: useless, hopeless, and worse, complicit rather than prophetic. As she sees it, her conscience cannot allow association with the horrors she sees perpetrated by those claiming Christianity. But me--I'm just not that interested in preserving the purity of my conscience. I'd rather spend my time trying to preserve other things.

Susan seems to agree with me that it's hasty generalization to conclude that all of Christianity is defined by the haters, but instead of getting pissed off and calling Anne "lame," she says "come sit by me." That's ever so much better.

[So, pssst, Sis. Anne, have you heard of The Episcopal Church? It officially welcomes you. Also, should you ever find yourself in Brooklyn, why not check out this awesome pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-birth control (well, except for that one couple that doesn't seem to bother, and yeah, you know who I'm talkin bout, but hey, you make great babies), pro-Democrat, pro-secular-humanist, pro-science, pro-life church, CCfB...]

But in the meantime, use your megaphone while you exit--because we need this witness too. But I hope you decide to stick around. And, sorry for calling you "lame."

tea party jesus

be afraid, be very afraid.

Now, look. I'm not paranoid, nor prone to conspiracy theories, nor into theological anthropologies of human depravity.

But I'm freaked out at the moment, and here's why.

Card-carrying crazy-talking pacifist feminist Obama-supporting political liberal that I am, and you know it's all true, I have received a Facebook invite to this group: Now The End Begins. Now, I chuckled at the Tea Party Express III invite, which I still haven't RSVP'd to because it makes me oddly happy to see it on my Facebook page. But "Now the End Begins" is something else--it's exactly what you might think: there, you'll learn everything you need to know about "Understanding Today's Political Events Through Bible Prophecy," and then, you can move on to the "Conspiracy Theory: 101" where you learn that the Health Care Bill was really about Obama establishing a private army so he can put us all into FEMA-run Death Camps.

And yesterday at 5:01 p.m., Now the End Begins posted this message on their Facebook fan page: "This militia group was right about one thing - the upcoming battle with the Antichrist. And ask yourself this - today this group was raided, how long before owning a Bible becomes a crime? How long before Obama makes naming the name of Jesus a crime? How long before our Muslim President makes being a Christian a crime?"


Okay, so I get it--there are crazies out there. But I thought they were far away, way more than six degrees away, way way far away in rural MI with their bitterness and guns and Bibles.


But apparently I am only one degree away from this insanity.


So I'm freaked out.


And wondering if maybe--ironically--this is some horrible portent that the end really is near because sure as hell it seems like these people are willing enough to make it happen.

yay for hrothgar

Raise a glass with Garrison Keillor to "for a landmark bill, achieved through the messy, maddening processes of representative democracy."

Dear Pat Robertson

To Pat, from Satan (by way of Lily Coyle, Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.

Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.

You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

To Pat, from his God (as I imagine it)

Dear Pat Robertson,

I recently viewed the correspondence between yourself and Satan from my omniscient perch up in the clouds--though that pesky beard everyone insists I keep got in the way every time I leaned down for a better look--and I have to say, in my omniscience, I'm not surprised. But it is a little disappointing, since after all, you do seem to think I've called upon you to represent Me to all of my people down there on earth.

You've read Job, haven't you, Pat? You remember how at the beginning I make this deal with Satan to test my servant Job to see how faithful he really is to Me? Has it occurred to you that perhaps you don't know all the details of my infinitely wise Plan as I obsessively micromanage everything from parking spots to hurricanes and earthquakes?

I also happened to catch that bit on the Daily Show--love that guy Jon Stewart, after all he's one of My Chosen People, even if he does curse too much on TV--and I have to say, it sounds like he's read my Words a little more thoroughly than you have. May I suggest a review course of My Book focusing specifically on the theme of Divine Compassion? For after all, if I choose to smite folks--for inscrutable reasons that I choose to keep to Myself, and by the way, I'd prefer for you to stop speculating on them in public--I also like to hang around for the aftermath to show My compassion.

Finally, Pat, if you thought what you signed in blood awhile back was a contract with Me, I hate to tell ya, but Satan's been working on that impersonation for all of eternity, and he's really starting to get My booming voice down...he's tricksy like that.

God

WTF ACU

Once he got into office, however, Hitler, like Mussolini proceeded to destroy the democratic system he used to win the office. He pushed through the Reichstag an “Enabling Act” that gave him four years of executive power without needing to get the backing of the Legislature. In other words, Hitler used democracy to destroy democracy. One is reminded of Lenin’s quip: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

Would you believe that something alarmingly analogous is about to happen in our country?

Um, no. I wouldn't.

If I posted the by line "Rush Limbaugh" under this I'm sure no one would be surprised. Probably not even Rush. But it would be wrong, because the byline is:

Arlie J. Hoover is a professor of history at Abilene Christian University.

I don't know Professor Hoover. And I'm not going to argue with him. But I do want to post just a few of the comments that this article has spawned on the Abilene Reporter News site, which take note of Prof. Hoover's institutional affiliation, explicitly mentioned in his byline.

*Arlie I will never send any child to ACU. Any school that supports the type of history you apparantly teach can be up to no good at all.

*Is this smuck really a professor? Now I see why my college age students laughed when I asked them to stay in town to finish their education. Can you imagine what he preach if he were a minister....

*ACU must be proud. Thank God I took my classes at HSU.

*Its easy to see where this man is coming from.
ACU+Professor= The Far Right. I know you folks have to be smart enough to see that this "Professor" is nothing more than a far right bible wielding Limbaugh loving Foxx watching Republican.
geez

*Remember back before the election when Sadler used to post regularly? Sadler=ACU + Professor=Left winger.

So your Hoover=ACU + Professor=Right wing does not work. You really cannot assume that all professors at ACU think alike.

What I take from these two examples is that ACU + Professor=Academic Freedom and Diversity of thought.

Note that the one not-negative comment referencing ACU, the last one, is a rather weak defense that not every professor is a paranoid right wing pigeon from outer space. Every other comment characterizes the institution on the basis of its representation here by the good professor.

Should Dr. Hoover have not written his op-ed at all? No--I shoot my mouth off irresponsibly here on my little blog all the time, so it's not like I can seriously start telling people they should shut the hell up for their own good or because it's smart or prudent or whatever. What pisses me off is that ACU--an institution I love and am proud to affiliated with--is being represented by this article. Professor Hoover, print your wacky half-baked historical analogies in any venue that will take them (and Abilene Reporter News, you might re-think your publication-of-crap policy, BTW) but please, leave my alma mater out of it. You're not speaking for ACU. So sign your name. Use your title if you want to feel cool. But leave my school alone.

Bev's blog

from Bev's blog:

Does religion cause the violation of women's rights?

As I read through the Bible this year I am taking note of the story of men, women, and God as it unfolds. I have already noted that though men are definitely the power brokers, at least the women were not circumcised in Genesis. Okay, so a virgin daughter or two are offered to crowds of men in lieu of offering male house guests—virtual strangers for—sex. Okay, so Abraham gives his wife with benefits to several men to avoid being killed.

Observe, I still, even after reading more than twenty chapters in Genesis, hold out hope for a good story to unfold for women.

Also note, I made a decision when I was about 24 years old to keep my mouth shut about woman’s role in the church. I convinced myself that I would not have any credibility in the Church of Christ unless I could prove that I could be a good wife and mother. I would have to hold my tongue on my the view that women are marginalized in church practice due to a misappropriation of a few select verses written by the good bachelor Apostle Paul—until I was 50.

Well, I would not approach the issue with such reasoning today—now that I am well over 50. Certainly titles, offices, and power are not what Jesus sought. He did, however, come to “preach good tidings to the poor...proclaim the release of the captives...to set at liberty them that are bruised.” Throughout the world, women fall into these categories day in and day out.

Juxtapose the above proclamation of Jesus with a comment I heard many times through the years in women’s Bible studies in Churches of Christ, "Remember, in Christ, we have no rights.”

Did you ever hear this? How would you have responded? Sometimes people would say it in response to the hymn in Phillipians 2 in which Jesus did not claim his equality with God, but made himself a servant. However, how damaging is it to re-write this and tell women they should not claim rights?

New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, in his January 9 piece entitled, "Religion and Women" challenges leaders in world religions, those who devote their lives to their faith, to take steps to stop the oppression of women. He says, “Today, when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior.”

I have a thought, and I wonder if you agree. Many leaders in Churches of Christ agree that women can speak in the regular assembly—as they do in Sunday school classes, small groups, and after the “closing prayer,” but they do not make it a practice in their churches for fear of offending some—in particular, the more conservative women. When will those male leaders in our churches stand up for the women of the church whose gifts are stymied and marginalized while they enjoy using their talents in full employ?

I think most of the church leader fellows I know are nice guys thinking they do not want to rock the boat for the more conservative members of their congregation. I wonder if they ever consider that they may be part of a very big global problem?

What do you think?

Conclusion: Cyborgs for Earthly Survival

CONCLUSION

CYBORGS FOR EARTHLY SURVIVAL

The concluding scene of the SciFi Channel’s revival of the short-lived 70’s TV series Battlestar Galactica shows a line of defeated but indomitable human beings, shouldering packs and trudging slowly but determinedly into a wilderness, away from their spaceships, their computers, their technologies. The scene visually tropes an earlier one, in which these spacefaring refugees from a nuked planet observe a primitive hominid family group moving single file across the plain in much the same way, unknowingly the objects of a technologically mediated, curious vision of alien kindred.

What could prompt such a dramatic and counterintuitive conclusion to a narrative of remnant humanity’s exodus from ruin, led by a faithless Moses and a dying Miriam, whose existence had depended so intimately for so long on the technologies now being decisively repudiated? What message lies in this conclusion for us, as we ponder the various possibilities, both frightening and liberatory, of the posthuman future?

The complexity of the narrative universe of Battlestar Galactica belies such a simplistic ending. For these human beings, the posthuman future has already arrived, and with a vengeance—literally. The opening scene of the series gives us a question posed by a sexy blonde machine to a middle aged, befuddled soldier/diplomat: “are you alive?” she asks. Yes, is the stuttered answer, but the machine doesn’t care, or perhaps, does not believe this answer—after all, this must have been the very question put to it, in the years that sowed the seeds of the conflict that would shortly destroy not only this man, but his whole civilization as well, in a retributive genocidal impulse.

The problem goes far beyond the pragmatic difficulties caused by the fact that “the Cylons look like us now.” The problem, in short, is that the Cylons are us: down to our very blood. And not just “us” in biological facsimile, but in nature. Violent, retributive, obsessive, sinful, human nature.

This is where the story begins: with an ontological confusion, a question of humanness not simply in terms of status but fundamental nature, and a question of what constitutes the difference between person and machine, when machines can also think and feel. The only difference seems to be, frankly, that the machines are determined to kill the humans. One can only speculate why; but, after all, machines made in imago hominis are likely to be pretty dangerously untrustworthy.

Things get more complicated when it turns out you can have sex with those machines, and get them pregnant. Beyond begging the question of the definition of species, interbreeding produces a more obvious hybrid, a child who is simultaneously threat and promise. Named for a goddess and literally a savior, this miracle child becomes blood sisters with the dying Miriam and saves the prophet’s life; revived, the leader of the human remnant rescinds the savior’s imminent execution but fakes a death to remove her from her Cylon mother’s care—machines can’t be trusted.

Things get more complicated still when it turns out that the Cylons themselves are a stratified society: Cylon fighters are bred like animals, “toasters” take orders from “skin jobs,” and everyone alike is conveyed through space by sentient ships piloted by those whom the Cylons themselves refer to as hybrids—human brains hardwired into their ships, simultaneously pilot and vehicle.

But things only get really weird when it turns out that there really are angels walking among us.

How to make sense of this strange, unsystematic, non-taxonomy of unclassifiable creatures, none of them natural, and all of them, somehow, kin? There’s no certain path through this wilderness, no telos, no heaven, and no real Earth; the only thing certain, in this narrative, is that it has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The final, looming question is, simply, will it happen the same way? Or will we, somehow, construct a path through the wilderness that aims toward making that new world a liveable world, in which anthropoids, humans, Cylons, hybrids, and angels alike, dwell?

real health care

Here's an article about the work that my sister and others at Mission Lazarus are doing to provide real health care for people who need it and don't have it. What they're doing is amazing.

I can't help but think of the difference between the Christian principles being lived out by Mission Lazarus folk and the outcry against healthcare reform in our own country--an outcry which, in its myopic focus on the bottom line (and that's skipping the idiocy of unfounded clinging to false rumors about ridiculous things like "death panels"--I mean, really? hey, did you know the Metal Ones are also coming for you? anytime now, and they'll be funded by Obama's health care death panel) forgets that the bottom line is not money, it's sick people. I can't help but wonder if some of the same people who support Mission Lazarus and efforts like it are protesting health care reform for the American poor, even while they applaud my sister and her coworkers for taking care of the poor and the sick--somewhere else. I can't help but wonder if pointing out the irony will force a reconsideration of the Christian principles at stake here.

But then, not that many people read this blog. And those that do probably aren't afraid of the Metal Ones anymore. :)

commentary: which whos are Whos

received a political email forward today which contained at least one statement I do in fact wholeheartedly agree with:

"But the meaning of marriage – how it is defined and who defines it – is tremendously important for our entire society, because it has implications that go well beyond the desires of two consenting adults."

The italics are mine, because that is indeed what I see to be the central struggle: how it is defined, and who defines it.

The power of defining is, as this statement suggests, a political one. And in this country, which at least attempts to place political power in the hands of a broad constituency rather than concentrated in the hands of a few (rich white male) persons, the power of defining ideally belongs to everyone--more accurately, all citizens (leave aside who has the power to define "citizen," although that question truly gets at the heart of the difficulty of inclusive democracy, and the immigration issue in this country puts that front and center, yes?).

Which means that "the power to define marriage" is (again, ideally) a collective power shared by all citizens. And as long as you're honest enough to admit that there are in fact gay people who are American citizens, then you ought to be honest enough to recognize that they too are (ought to be) included in the "who" who gets to define things. Including marriage, which as this statement at least implicitly grants, is a social and political institution in addition to being whatever else you might believe it is.

Or, you're claiming they're not a "who." They're a They.

And as Horton would remind you: "a person is a person, no matter how small; a person is a person is a person, after all."

a prayer

A few days ago, Joe emailed to see if I would be willing to lead a prayer specifically about the change our country will undergo with the election of Obama as President. I let things simmer on the mental back burner until Sunday, when I scribbled out what I thought I wanted to say to God about this past week on behalf of the community at CCfB. It's kind of an awesome thing to pray communally, especially in a tradition where you don't necessarily have the resources of a Book of Common Prayer to reach for when you need words. I often go to the BCP when working on prayers for CCfB, but this time--regarding this momentous occasion--I wanted words of my own, to speak from the heart (though not, clearly, from the hip, so to speak. Heh heh.)

Here it is.

God in Heaven:

We know that you are with us, throughout our lives and in the turning points of history. We thank you for this determination to be continually present with us in these moments, and we pray that we will always be aware of and responsive to your gracious presence.

We pray now for the future of this country and for the world: for your creation, and your creatures within it. We pray that the leaders newly elected and appointed will govern with wisdom.

But even more than for President-Elect Obama and the newly elected leaders in Congress, we pray for ourselves, the people of this nation: those born here and all those who live here. We pray that we will lose the vocabulary of victory in our conversations with one another, knowing that all human achievements, even the most stirring, are transient and imperfect; true victory, and true justice, remain in your hands. Give us humility.

And while we rejoice in the symbolism of electing our first African-American president, we pray that we will not be satisfied with symbolism only, but that we will be energized, empowered, and determined to break down the boundaries between us that should never have been drawn. May we transgress those boundaries joyfully, and without fear.

We pray these things in the name of Him through whom all things are possible, your son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Pulpit Initiative and Matthew 25 Network: what's the difference?

FotF's response (see post below) included this little zinger at the end:

"On a final note, organizational endorsements of political candidates wed groups to their candidate in a way that may not lend itself to an honest critique of that individual’s weaknesses. As you’re likely aware, the group behind the Matthew 25 Web site endorsed Senator Obama for president."

Ah, the partisan charge. I've used my brain to make my best judgment about needful action (and come out differently than you) and so clearly my prejudices have precluded the possibility of "honest critique." I suppose the FotF endorsement of McCain is different.

But the issue raised--despite the obvious though amazingly unacknowledged hypocrisy--actually bears scrutiny, if you're talking about the religion and politics question, and when/how/how much a religious organization can get involved in the political process. Can a religious organization endorse a candidate, or is that going too far? Can a church--congregation or denomination--endorse a candidate? Can a preacher endorse a candidate with a yard sign? Can a preacher endorse a candidate from the pulpit?

Specifically, what's the difference between "The Pulpit Initiative" and the Matthew 25 Network? (I mean, apart from the obvious ideological one.) Does it make a significant difference that one is an organized effort to mobilize through congregations, using the pulpit on Sunday morning to endorse a candidate for political office, while the other is organized as a PAC (political action group), with an explicit appeal to religious, even biblical, reasoning for its endorsement of a candidate?

There is too much on my plate today, the day before I fly out for Chicago to present my AAR paper, to follow through on this as I'd like to. Beyond trying desperately to identify some professional-ish clothing that I can stuff my oversized butt into (a problem), planning for my weekend absence to make things as easy as possible for Brent and Clare, there's looking over that paper I'm presenting that I haven't thought about for the last 3 weeks. So I'll just have to leave it at the questions. You tell me: what's the difference?

FotF response to responses

You can read the letter here. Below is the response. I find the tone to be quite measured, rational, and not overly-defensive--although faintly condescending as the basic premise seems to be that I need to read the letter again as I obviously didn't understand it properly the first time. It did not change my estimation of the 2012 letter in the least. But I was, honestly, surprised to receive acknowledgment at all, and I figure it's fair to publicize this as well. Make your own judgment about the accuracy and the goals of the 2012 letter, if you bother to read it (frankly my recommendation is that you don't bother, but my 'partisan' leanings are hanging all out there, aren't they?) and in making your judgment, include the information from the response below, as it's relevant.

All I will say in response is that the unexamined assumption that it's impossible to be a real Christian and "liberal" is at the heart of the divisive nature of this letter as well as FotF's larger cultural agenda. I am indeed a Christian. And as I concluded in my letter, I truly believe that the redemptive grace of God is enough to cover all of us. Let's preach that, shall we?

If you feel motivated to send FotF your own response, you can go through the Matthew 25 Network.

Subject
Re: Letter from 2012 from Jennifer Thweatt-Bates in Summit, NJ
Discussion Thread
Response (Jonathan Bartha)	10/29/2008 02:48 PM
Thanks for your e-mail. It was good of you to offer your candid reaction to Focus on the Family Action’s "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America." We’ve heard from many people who found this resource helpful; some, like you, have disagreed with our approach. While critics of this document accuse us of engaging in "sensationalist fiction," it’s vital to underscore that we are not claiming to make definitive predictions on what a Barack Obama presidency would produce. However, as the "Letter from 2012" makes evident, every scenario outlined in this piece is plausible based on recent documented events, court rulings, the Democratic Party’s stated agenda, and Senator Obama’s voting record and campaign promises. We invite you to re-read the introduction of the letter [http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf] which clearly states that we are neither employing unfounded "fear tactics" nor speaking out with mean-spirited intent. On the contrary, we’ve posted a reasonable projection of what *could* occur with a Senator Obama presidency and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Of course, we hope and pray that none of the possible outcomes described in "Letter from 2012" come to pass. It might be beneficial to provide some additional background on our mission to help you better understand our reasons for engaging in the public policy realm. We have no interest in partisan politics; rather, we care deeply about the sanctity of human life, the value of marriage, and the preservation of religious freedom. Dr. Dobson has espoused these crucial issues since he launched Focus on the Family in 1977 and has always encouraged people to consider them at the ballot box. Despite what the Matthew 25 Network and other pro-Obama action groups may say, we contend that Senator Obama’s record *significantly* differs from the pro-life and pro-family policies that many Christians hold dear. Some may label this "fearmongering" -- we call it a sobering, rational assessment based on actual events documented in the letter. It might be helpful for you to read a concise summary of four key points that motivate us in our actions: 1) Senator Barack Obama’s record is well outside the mainstream. For example, he was rated the most liberal United States senator by the _National Journal_ in 2007 [http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/]. 2) A Democratic president, House and Senate has significant implications for pro-family policies. _The Wall Street Journal_ has stated that this election will usher in "one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history" if the Democrats control the White House and possess congressional majorities, including a filibuster-proof Senate [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html]. This type of unchecked power, not seen since 1965, demands that voters critically examine the policies advocated by the Democratic Party. 3) Senator Obama’s commitment to causes championed by extreme liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), both of which have endorsed him, are a source of great concern. Earlier this year, Senator Obama pledged that if elected president, he would advocate for and sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would repeal virtually every federal and state law regulating or limiting abortion -- including parental involvement laws for teenagers, late-term abortion bans, and limits on public funding of abortion. He has also indicated that he will make it a priority to repeal the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. In addition, he backs other HRC-supported initiatives including the passage of "hate crimes" legislation and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" [http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=20935]. Similar legislation has penalized Christians who hold a biblical view of sexuality. 4) Senator Obama’s stated appreciation of United States Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter -- along with his votes against the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- indicate he would appoint judges with a judicial philosophy detrimental to pro-family causes. On a final note, organizational endorsements of political candidates wed groups to their candidate in a way that may not lend itself to an honest critique of that individual’s weaknesses. As you’re likely aware, the group behind the Matthew 25 Web site endorsed Senator Obama for president. Again, thanks for writing. We hope this response has helped clarify our perspective and explained why we feel the Matthew 25 Network’s version of "choosing hope" without a sober look at the troubling elements of Senator Obama’s candidacy is misguided. Grace and peace to you. Jonathan Bartha Focus on the Family Action