The View from This Seat

Remember the Maine

2012-02-15T06:04:00.002-06:00

“Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain!” That was a war cry widely heard in the Unites States after the sinking of the USS Maine 114 years ago today, on February 15, 1898. Even though to this day the cause of that sinking is unclear, popular opinion in the U.S. in the weeks following that tragedy blamed Spain.

That popular opinion was formed partly by the use of the slogan Remember the Maine! by William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. (Three days after the 2/15 explosion the Journal became the first newspaper in history to sell over one million copies.) That slogan, and Hearst’s use of it, thus helped spur the U.S. into the Spanish-American War, which started on April 25 and lasted less than four months (although it didn’t formally end until April 1899).

Hostilities with Spain developed over U.S. concern for how the Cubans were being treated by Spain, which claimed Cuba after Columbus first landed there in 1492 and considered Cuba its possession for the next four centuries.

In 1895 the Cubans began a war of independence from Spain, a struggle which was favored by the U.S. even though they did not become directly involved until three years later. As a result of the Spanish-American War of 1898, Cuba became an independent nation in 1902, although in 1903 Guantanamo Bay was leased in perpetuity to the United States.

The United States profited from the 1898 war in additional ways: at the close of that war Spain ceded the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam for the sum of $20 million. In spite of considerable efforts of the Anti-Imperialist League, there was a considerable expansion of U.S. territorial possessions.

But why write about all this now? I am writing about this issue because I am gravely concerned that some incident in the very near future, real or imagined, will trigger a U.S. attack on Iran. There seems to be a growing likelihood that there will be some sort of military strike by Israel, perhaps jointly with the U.S., in an attempt to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Some “incident” could easily light the fuse for such a strike.

In addition to “Remember the Maine!” helping to spur the Spanish-American War, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, which escalated the War in Vietnam, was based on claims of attacks on American warships that didn’t actually happen. (Actually, there were two separate confrontations with the North Vietnamese, one actual and one now recognized as non-existent.)

“Let there be no doubt,” President Obama declared in his 2012 State of the Union address, “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

There are some politicians who are quite vocal about the possible need to engage in preemptive military action against Iran. If there were to be some incident in which American, or Israeli, civilian or military forces were attacked, or even thought to be attacked, by Iranians, that could easily become an excuse for beginning military activities against Iran. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I am fearful it might.

In the same January 24 State of the Union address, the President declared that “a peaceful resolution of this issue [Iran getting a nuclear weapon] is still possible.” Let us pray that he and Congress will make every possible effort to find such a resolution of the problem.

Does the End Justify the Means?

2012-02-10T05:56:00.004-06:00

A simple question: is it right or wrong, ethical or unethical, to slit open someone’s abdomen?

Some might quickly say, No, of course not! But those who are more discerning are likely to say, Well, it depends on why such a thing is done. Precisely!

Consider three scenarios: (1) In a squabble with a person you don’t like, you become angry, grab a knife, lunge at him and slit open his abdomen. Can such a violent act be justified? Probably not.

(2) A crazed killer/rapist has entered your house intent on doing harm to your wife/family. In an attempt to protect them, you grab a knife and in the ensuing struggle you manage to stop his evil intentions by slitting open his abdomen. Can such a violent act be justified? Perhaps. Or, maybe, probably.

(3) You are an obstetric surgeon, and a woman in hard labor but unable to give birth vaginally is brought to you. It is right/ethical for you to slice open her abdomen in order to perform a Cesarean operation. Certainly.

So here is the next question: does the end justify the means? The answer, of course, depends on what end you are talking about. In the three scenarios given above, the same “means” was used. But the ends were much different.

Thus, as Saul Alinsky wrote in his much maligned (by conservatives) book Rules for Radicals, “Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, ‘Does the End justify the Means?’ but always has been ‘Does this particular end justify this particular means?” (p. 47; this is the final paragraph of the chapter titled “Of Means and Ends”).

(If you want to read a good article about Saul Alinsky, in addition to my January 30^th posting[!], check out “Saul Alinsky, Who?” by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship at this link.)

So what about violence? Does Alinsky advocate using violent means in order to attain desirable ends? Maybe in some situations. But don’t most people? As he correctly points out, “in war the end justifies almost any means” (p. 29). How else has this nation, or any nation, justified participation in war?

But what about violence done by the poor and oppressed people of any country? Criticism of the “end justifies the means” argument is most often used by those who oppose those who use violent means against those in power and/or with wealth. This is one of the perennial criticisms of liberation theology in Latin America.

It is quite revealing to consider how so often those with wealth and/or power complain about (and seek to counteract, often by violent means) violence done by the “radicals” seeking social justice but how so seldom the same people show much concern for the great violence being done to the poor and underprivileged people in society.

Alinsky also contends that “means-and-ends moralists” are “non-doers” who “always wind up on their ends without any means” (p. 25).

And make no mistake about it: there is, in our country and in countries around the world, a great deal of structural violence embedded in society and many people have suffered greatly because of that violence.

I advocate seeking to find and to use non-violent means to combat that structural violence. But I find it difficult to be too critical of those who are so desperate that they resort to violent means to attain ends that are necessary to their, or their children’s, very survival.

In Memory of the 26 Martyrs

2012-02-05T06:01:00.005-06:00

It was 415 years ago today, on February 5, 1597, that 26 Christians in Japan were crucified on Nishizaki Hill in Nagasaki. This column is written in memory of those men (and boys) who suffered such cruel deaths.

Christianity was first introduced in Japan by Francis Xavier and two fellow Jesuits, who landed on the southernmost island of Kyushu in 1549. Over the next few decades Christianity spread rapidly in southwestern Japan—so much so that it came to be considered a threat by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, better known as Taikosama, the absolute ruler of Japan from 1585 until his death in 1598.

By the 1580s there were some 250,000 Christians in Japan. That was still fewer than 2% of the population, but perhaps a fear of the “foreign” nature of Christianity and its possible link to Western imperialism motivated Hideyoshi to issue a decree that banned Christianity and expelled all missionaries in 1587. Because that decree proved to be ineffective, the crucifixions of 1597 were a sign that government opposition to Christianity was going to become more severe, which it did.

The 26 martyrs included six Franciscan missionaries, three Japanese Jesuits, and seventeen Japanese laymen including three boys (ages 12, 13, and 14). Twenty-four of them were arrested in Kyoto. Beginning on January 9 they were forced to walk, sometimes barefoot through the snow, to Nagasaki, arriving there on the day they were crucified.

The 26 martyrs were canonized (made saints of the Roman Catholic Church) in 1862, and on the 100^th anniversary of that occasion the Twenty-Six Martyrs Monument was constructed in 1962 on Nishizaki Hill. (The picture below shows that monument, which I have visited several times.) Shortly thereafter, a museum was built adjacent to the monument and both remain popular tourist attractions in Nagasaki City.

There is little indication that Hideyoshi acted as he did for religious reasons. It was almost completely for political reasons and out of the fear that his rule might be threatened.

Religious persecution is carried out far more often for political purposes than because of religious belief. And the same is true for violence done in the name of religion.

Religion is often denounced because of its link to violence—the Crusades are a perennial example. But violence done primarily because of religious belief is small, indeed, compared to that done because of political power and the desire to maintain or extend that power.

In the 1930s the militarists in Japan increasingly used Shinto, the traditional religion in Japan, in order to stir up feelings of Japanese exceptionalism. Greater emphasis was placed on February 11 as the anniversary of the “founding” of Japan in 660 B.C. by the first Emperor, a direct descendant of the sun goddess. On February 11, 1940, showy ceremonies throughout Japan celebrated the 2600^th anniversary of the nation’s mythical beginning.

Soon after the end of WWII, the 2/11 holiday was abolished. But then in 1966 it was re-established as National Foundation Day, in spite of considerable opposition that has continued until the present. Many Christians throughout Japan protest that holiday and in its place celebrate February 11 as “Protecting Religious Freedom Day.” So on this coming Saturday, gatherings emphasizing that theme will be held in many cities across Japan.

Protecting religious freedom continues to be important in this country, too. And, like in Japan, it is primarily the freedom of the minority religions (or the minority who do not embrace a religion) that needs to be protected most actively.

Is Saul Alinsky a Bogeyman?

2012-01-30T06:03:00.002-06:00

In his jubilant victory speech after winning the primary in South Carolina on January 21, Newt Gingrich made three references to Saul Alinsky. Some who heard Gingrich’s speech no doubt knew who Alinsky was, but perhaps many people wondered, “Who is Saul Alinsky and why is Gingrich mentioning him?”

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972)

Alinsky was born 103 years ago today, on January 30, 1909. The son of Russian-Jewish immigrants living in Chicago, he grew up in the midst of poverty. The suffering and injustice he witnessed prompted him into social activism, and he became one of the original pioneers of grassroots organizing.

Alinsky died forty years ago this summer, in June 1972, but his influence continues—even among people who have not known his name, at least until some heard Gingrich resurrect it. Two days after his victory speech in South Carolina, Bloomberg.com published an article titled “Saul Alinsky Rides Again as Gingrich Makes Him 2012 Bogeyman.”

Alinsky’s best known book is Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971). In the first chapter’s opening paragraph, he writes, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky goes on to amplify his “radical” vision: “to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment . . .” Why in the world is Gingrich against goals such as those?

In her speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008, Michelle Obama told her impressions of Barack before they were married. She said, “Barack . . . spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is’ and ‘The world as it should be.’ And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is—even when it doesn’t reflect our values and aspirations.”

Political opponents soon pounced on those words, linked them to Alinsky, and labeled Obama as dangerous—a view that Gingrich apparently holds still. For some of us, though, they seem to be consistent with the prayer, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

It is quite noteworthy that Alinsky was the recipient of the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award in 1969, the sixth year it was given. That prize is awarded annually in commemoration of the 1963 encyclical letter “Pacem in Terris” (Peace on Earth) of Pope John XXIII. It is given “to honor a person for their achievements in peace and justice, not only in their country but in the world.”

The Pacem in Terris award was bestowed upon Alinsky four years after it was given to Martin Luther King Jr. and before it was given to Dorothy Day (1972), Mother Teresa (1976), and Archbishop Tutu (1987).

That’s not an award that you would expect to be given to a bogeyman.

A Good Word for Paul

2012-01-25T06:22:00.005-06:00

Several of my blog postings over the past months have been about politics or politicians. This time I am writing about Paul—but it is the Apostle Paul who is the subject of this article, not presidential hopeful Ron Paul or his son Senator Rand Paul.

Today, January 25, is the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, celebrated by the Catholic, Anglican, and other churches. This Feast is also the final day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, an ecumenical observance observed by some churches since 1908.

Most of you who read this blog know well the biblical narrative about Paul’s dramatic conversion as he was on the road to Damascus for the purpose of apprehending and arresting followers of Jesus. He had a blinding vision of and encounter with the resurrected Jesus.

That life-changing event is depicted, with stark realism, in “The Conversion of St. Paul” by the prominent Italian painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610). (I find Caravaggio’s painting much more appealing than “The Conversion of Saul” by Michelangelo, 1475-1564, for whom he was named.)

The main matter I call to your attention here is the relation of Paul to Jesus and the question of whether Paul is a faithful proponent of the teachings of Jesus. There are now many Christians, and others, who see Paul more as one who perverted the message of Jesus rather than a faithful proclaimer of that message.

The current tendency among many is to downplay Paul. This is reflected in a new book by the young scholar/professor J. R. Daniel Kirk: the title of his book is Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul? (2012).

Kirk (Ph.D., Duke, 2004) says that his book “is, in part, for folks who at times find themselves resonating with the statement, ‘Jesus have I loved, but Paul have I hated’” (Kindle ed., 100). That has especially been the position of many “liberal” Christians.

There are of course exceptions, past and present, but for a long time conservative Protestant Christians (evangelicals) have emphasized Paul’s teaching about Jesus far more than the teachings of Jesus. Those of us who have grown up in that tradition know well the significance of what is sometimes called the “Romans road” to salvation.

But among most non-conservative Christians, Paul’s emphasis on Jesus’ sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection have been downplayed and focus on Jesus’ teaching about working for the Kingdom of God now has become commonplace.

They also see Paul’s teaching about Jesus being exclusivistic, whereas the trend now is emphasis on an inclusive or pluralistic message. The teachings of Jesus can best be utilized for the latter.

Moreover, Paul is often seen as a supporter of slavery, patriarchalism, and anti-homosexual ideas and practices. Certainly writings in the New Testament attributed to Paul have been, and in some circles continue to be, interpreted in that way.

But Kirk rightly argues that Paul can, and should, be seen in a different way, in a liberating way. He makes much of the important words of Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, but all are one in Christ.”

That same verse is also seen as the key to interpreting Paul in the first chapter of another new book, C. K. Robertson's A Dangerous Dozen: 12 Christians Who Threatened the Status Quo but Taught Us to Live Like Jesus (2011). Paul is the first of those twelve, and the author contends that “at the heart of Paul’s message was a complete breakdown of all the boundaries and social divisions that he himself had previous guarded” (p. 4).

The conversion of Paul, and his subsequent life and activities, is certainly worth celebrating today, and I am pleased to have this means to put in a good word for Paul.

A Bad Supreme Court Decision

2012-01-20T05:52:00.003-06:00

In January of 2010, the Supreme Court made one of its worst decisions in years, if not decades, and maybe even the worst since the Dred Scott case in 1857. In a 5-4 split decision, the Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization who had sued the Federal Election Commission.

That landmark decision by the Supreme Court means that it is now unlawful for the government to ban political spending by corporations in elections. Thus, as a consequence of Citizens United, corporations and unions are now free to use their financial resources to air ads explicitly calling for the election or defeat of federal or state candidates for political office.

The justices in the majority ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government cannot stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

But a majority of the people of this country does not believe that corporations are people, in spite of what the Supreme Court has ruled.

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. Among other things, he lamented that the Court “voted to overturn over 100 years of legal precedent by giving corporations the same status as individuals,” and by removing “legal barriers in place to protect the electoral process from corporate and legislative corruption, which is what the laws for the past 100 years were in place to do.”

Just a few days after the Court’s decision in 2010, President Obama gave the annual State of the Union message. In that talk the President averred, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign companies—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”

Justice Stevens and the President were right: the Supreme Court made a bad decision.

That is why last November six U.S. Senators introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Citizens United ruling and restore the ability of Congress to properly regulate the campaign finance system. That proposal is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (You can read more about that proposed amendment here.)

That is why Common Cause, the highly regarded nonpartisan advocacy organization, and other similar groups, are working diligently to reverse Citizens United.

And that is also why today’s “Occupy the Courts” activity is so commendable. Today, January 20, is a national day of protest linking the Occupy Wall Street movement with the activities of the Move to Amend organization. This is a (part of) one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in protest of the Court’s Citizens United ruling.

(Here in the Kansas City area, the Occupy the Courts protesters will be at the federal courthouse at 400 E. 9^th St. from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. There will also be a “post-protest celebration” Saturday evening at the All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, 4501 Walnut St., KCMO.)

The "Corporations are not People" slogan is one that needs to be taken seriously by all of us who are U.S. citizens. For the sake of our democracy, the bad Supreme Court decision of 2010 needs to be opposed--and reversed.

"Free at Last!"

2012-01-15T06:39:00.001-06:00

Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C., is well-known by every USAmerican adult as that is the place where President Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865.

Last week when I attended the annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics in a hotel not far from Ford’s Theater, and I visited there for the first time. I expected to see only the inside of the theater and the balcony where Lincoln was sitting when he was tragically shot.

It was a pleasant surprise to find that there is a small, but excellent, museum under the theater, focusing, of course, on Lincoln’s life and work. While I was there I bought Who Was Abraham Lincoln? for my soon to be eight-year-old granddaughter Naomi.

Naomi’s new book naturally mentions the Emancipation Proclamation, which was announced by Lincoln 150 years ago this year, in September 1862, and which went into effect on January 1, 1863. That famous proclamation did not free all slaves though; it applied only to those in the Confederate states.

And, of course, there was no way to enforce the emancipation of slaves until the Union won the war. As Naomi’s book says, “Just because the proclamation told Southerners to free their slaves, it didn’t mean they would. Lincoln knew this. He said he felt like someone trying to make a law to change the behavior of a comet” (pp. 69-70).

Even with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery remained legal in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, for those four slave states stayed with the Union. Even though I was born and schooled through college in Missouri, I did not know (or remember?) until last year that Missouri, and some other States, also issued an emancipation proclamation.

On January 11, 1865, Governor Thomas Fletcher, nine days after assuming office, issued the proclamation freeing all the slaves in Missouri. Even though he was raised in a slave-owning family, he became an ardent abolitionist in his boyhood.

(Fletcher was born in 1827 just south of St. Louis in Herculaneum, and he became the first Missouri governor to be born in the state. He was a delegate to the 1860 Republican National Convention, where he supported the nomination of Lincoln for the presidency. Fletcher also served as a colonel for the Union army from 1862 to 1864.)

But, as everyone recognizes, in spite of slaves being emancipated in the Confederate states in 1863, in Missouri and elsewhere by proclamations in 1865, and then nationally by the ratification of the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution on December 6, 1865, much prejudice and discrimination toward former slaves and their descendants continued for more than a century and has not yet been fully eradicated.

It took the dream, as well as the life, of Martin Luther King, Jr., to further realize the full freedom of African-Americans. As we celebrate his birthday today and tomorrow, let us join in praying for and working for that day “when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’"

Combating Racism/Sexism

2012-01-10T09:07:00.001-06:00

The Society of Christian Ethics (SCE) held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last week, and I was happy to be able to attend it again, as I did last year in New Orleans.

One of the enjoyable things about going to academic meetings such as the SCE is seeing old friends and acquaintances, even though since I spent most of my career in Japan I don’t know very many of the people at such gatherings here in the U.S.

Two of the people I did enjoy seeing again this year were graduate school friends and colleagues of my daughter Karen. Miguel De La Torre and Stacey Floyd-Thomas were in the Ph.D. program with her at Temple University, and both of them were speakers in the same session I attended last Friday.

Miguel De La Torre

Miguel is a Cuban-American, and he talked at some length about the prejudice and mistreatment of Cubans-Americans (and Latinos/as in general) in the U.S. Stacey is African-American, and she talked, also at some length, about the prejudice and mistreatment of African-Americans in general and especially of African-American women. But in spite of the odds against them, Miguel and Stacey have become two of the most prominent members of the SCE.

Those who attended the SCE meeting this year, as every year, were perhaps close to 80% white American males. But Miguel, who is a professor at Illif Theological Seminary, was elected president of the SCE for the coming year. And Stacey, a professor of Vanderbilt Divinity School, is currently serving as the Executive Director of the SCE.

In spite of their minority status Miguel and Stacey are in positions that by far most of the “privileged” white males will never find themselves in. And they are certainly deserving of the positions they hold in the SCE, for they are outstanding scholars—and outstanding human beings.

Thus, it is obvious that some people can and do rise above the discriminatory structures of society. Miguel and Stacey are prime examples of that. Miguel shared some about the struggles of his mother, an illiterate Cuban woman, in this country. But he has become a widely respected scholar and ethicist, attested to by the fact that he is now the SCE president.

I certainly agree, though, with Miguel and Stacey in what they say about the entrenched prejudice against people of color, against people of recent immigrant families, and against women. And I appreciate the work they are doing to combat that prejudice.

In spite of people such as Miguel and Stacey, why are a disproportionate number of the homeless, unemployed, and financially struggling people in this country people who in race, gender, and ethnicity are the same as these outstanding scholars? The lingering deep-seated prejudice toward Blacks, Hispanics, and women is, no doubt, one of the foremost reasons.

Can only a very select few, people with outstanding intellect and character traits such as are evident in Miguel and Stacey, overcome the odds against them? Perhaps. That is why we need to join them and other like-minded people in continuing to work against the entrenched racism and sexism in a society that continues to be characterized by white (and male) privilege.

Hope in the New Year

2012-01-05T05:14:00.001-06:00

Hope “is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.” Those are memorable words of Václav Havel, who died last month.

Havel also contends that hope is “a state of mind, not a state of the world. . . . It is a dimension of the soul; it’s not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation. Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart.”

(The above quotations are from Havel’s book Disturbing the Peace, 1990, and also found on page 82 of “Orientation of the Heart,” a chapter of excerpts from Havel’s book in Paul Loeb, The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen’s Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, 2004.)

Václav Havel (1936-2011)

Havel, born in Prague in 1936, was a playwright, poet, and politician. He was the last president of Czechoslovakia (1989–1992) and the first President of the Czech Republic (1993–2003). He was also nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1977, Havel co-founded an organization dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democracy in the face of Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. Two years later, his human rights activism earned him a four-year sentence to a labor camp for “subversion.” Undeterred, he was instrumental in the Velvet Revolution, as the peaceful uprising in 1989 that overthrew the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia was called.

It was hope that kept Havel going while he was in labor camp. That was also true for Nelson Mandela during the 27 years (!) he was in prison. After he was released and elected president of South Africa, Mandela said in his inaugural address in 1994, “We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of the millions of our people.”

These two political leaders both embraced hope and inspired hope—far different from Kim Jong-Il, the supreme leader of North Korea from 1994 until his death last month, on the day before Havel died.

Havel, Mandela, and Kim were all in power for several years at the same time—but what a difference in those three men! Perhaps it was hope, and the lack of it, that was the primary difference.

Havel emphasized that hope “is definitely not the same thing as optimism.” That is something I first heard stressed by German theologian Jürgen Moltmann back in the 1960s and have accepted as true.

Optimism is sometimes “Pollyannaish,” out of touch with reality. Thus, optimism can easily end up in disappointment, discouragement, and even disillusionment. But, as Havel says, hope is an “orientation of the heart.” Consequently, hope keeps us cheerful in spite of adversity, forward-looking in spite of setbacks, and positively active in spite of discouragements.

So in this new year, one that will likely be filled with many challenges, both personal and collective, I pray that we all may be able to nurture hope as the orientation of our hearts and to act with the vitality that hope produces.

If You Want Peace . . .

2011-12-31T10:15:00.001-06:00

Forty years ago, in his World Day for Peace message on January 1, 1972, Pope Paul VI declared, “If you want Peace, work for Justice.” Those were very significant words that, for good reason, have often been quoted throughout the last four decades.

Pope Paul’s peace proclamation was based partly on Isaiah 32:17 (“justice will produce lasting peace and security,” CEV). It also reflected the sentiments expressed in “Justice in the World,” a 1971 document drafted by World Synod of Catholic Bishops.

In that document the bishops pointed out how Jesus “proclaimed the fatherhood of God towards all people and the intervention of God’s justice on behalf of the needy and the oppressed.” They went on to declare, “Christian love of neighbor and justice cannot be separated. For love implies an absolute demand for justice, namely a recognition of the dignity and rights of one’s neighbor.”

Since 1968 the Catholic Church has designated the first day of every year as “World Day of Peace.” Pope Benedict XVI has chosen “Educating Young People in Justice and Peace” for the 2012 theme. In his 1/1/12 message, already made public, Pope Benedict declares, “Peace for all is the fruit of justice for all,” words resembling those of Pope Paul VI forty years before.

Not everyone likes the Church’s stress on justice, though. Back in March 2010, Glenn Beck, the well-known ultra-conservative political commentator, publicly criticized that emphasis. On his daily (at that time) TV and radio program, Beck even urged his listeners to leave churches which preach social or economic justice.

Since just before the presidential election in 2008, Barack Obama has been much criticized by some (mostly Republicans) for his supposed support for “redistribution of the wealth” in this country. Glenn Beck said that those words, as well as “economic justice,” were a part of the philosophy of both the Communists and the Nazis.

But Pope Benedict has just used those same words, “redistribution of the wealth”—and the Catholic Church has certainly never been a supporter of Communist or Nazi ideologies.

In his January 1 message the Pope stresses “the importance of seeking adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.” Those words were in the paragraph just before the one declaring that “peace is the fruit of justice for all.”

I am not a Catholic, but I wholeheartedly agree with the words of the popes cited above. I am quite sure that there will be no lasting peace in the world as long as there is widespread injustice, such as that seen in attitudes and actions of discrimination (of any kind), oppression, or marked inequality. The latter includes economic inequality, especially when that is caused by exploitation, which is often the case.

Both domestically as well as internationally, creating a more nearly just society is the only way to peace. Thus, all of us who truly want peace in the world must be active in working for justice.

I earnestly pray that you, your loved ones, and people around the world will have a Peaceful New Year.

"The Work of Christmas"

2011-12-26T08:04:00.002-06:00

Howard Thurman was an outstanding theologian, educator, and civil rights leader. On this day after Christmas, we would do well to read and ponder one of his poems.

Howard Thurman (1899-1981)

Thurman was listed in Ebony Magazine as one of the 50 most important figures in African-American history. Among his twenty books is Jesus and the Disinherited (1949), which greatly influenced Martin Luther King, Jr. (Thurman was the Dean of Marsh Chapel at Boston University, the first black person to be named tenured Dean of Chapel at a majority-white university, during the time King was a graduate student there).

Thurman’s poem “The Work of Christmas” was published in his book titled The Mood of Christmas (1985). You may have heard this poem previously, as it is very fitting in the days following the celebration of Christmas. It is a wonderful poem, and I invite you to give attention to it again:

So much of the Christmas season is shaped by commercialism, hedonism, and sentimentalism. But the true significance of Christmas is more than a sweet story of the miraculous birth of a baby who was immediately worshipped by rough shepherds and then by majestic magi.

As Thurman suggests, though, we have not properly celebrated Christmas unless we have committed ourselves afresh to feed the hungry, to do what we can to bring peace among all peoples, and to radiate the light of Christ in all our words and actions.

So now that Advent has been observed and Christmas has been celebrated, in both secular and religious ways for most of us, let’s get on with the work of Christmas. Then we will have truly celebrated the birth of Jesus.

Demythologizing Santa (and Christmas?)

2011-12-20T08:27:00.003-06:00

Naomi, my seven-year-old granddaughter, believes in Santa Claus, as do many children her age. My son Ken, wonders what to say to Naomi about Santa. Other members of the Seat family have shared ideas and insights about the Santa Claus “myth.”

Marian, my twenty-six-year-old granddaughter shared the “Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus” webpage from Newseum. Back in 1897, eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon asked about the reality of Santa in a letter to the editor of The Sun, a New York City newspaper (published from 1833-1950).

The response to Virginia’s letter, printed as an unsigned editorial, was written by veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church. It has become the most reprinted newspaper editorial in history.

In his response Church wrote, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.”

We adults know that the popular belief, like Naomi’s, in Santa Claus is a type of myth. And we recognize that Church’s editorial was a type of demythologization of the Santa story. (Actually, he was somewhat misleading and not entirely truthful in what he wrote to Virginia.)

But what about it? Is the Christmas story about the birth of Jesus much the same as what children are told about Santa? To hear some scholars tell it, there is not much more truth in one story than the other.

Many New Testament scholars agree that Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem. Nor was the visit of the Magi factual either, so, obviously, there was no actual guiding star. For a long time, “enlightened” people have also rejected the literal story of the Virgin Birth.

And now some theologians are rejecting the idea of God as an “objective” Being, so all the talk about Jesus being sent by God or being Immanuel, God with us, is not literally true either.

Further, with the growing emphasis on religious pluralism, the idea of Jesus being divine, a Savior for all the world, is being increasingly rejected also.

So, according to these “enlightened” ones, the stories that have been told about Christmas are all only mythical. The Christmas Christ “exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist,” but no more as a real person than Santa Claus.

(Of course, there really was a historical person in the fourth century who came to be known as Saint Nicholas. So, too, most will acknowledge that there was a real person named Jesus of Nazareth. But both, it is claimed, are far different from the stories told about them now.)

But what does all this say about being intellectually honest? Are people being duplicitous in telling the Christmas stories—to their children or to themselves—while knowing all along that they are only mythical and not factual?

I am currently working on a book, whose subtitle will likely be Christian Faith and Intellectual Honesty. The first emphasis is that Christians (as well as others) should be as intellectually honest as possible. Lying, duplicity, or pretending myths or outright falsehoods are factual are practices that should be opposed and rejected as much as possible.

But while acknowledge there are, no doubt, mythical aspects to the traditional Christmas story, I believe it is really true that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world” to God and to one another.

That is why I believe Christmas can be celebrated honestly. And that is why I can also truthfully wish each of you a Merry Christmas!

Commemorating the Bill of Rights

2011-12-15T06:10:00.001-06:00

December 15, 1791, is an important date in the history of this country. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were officially added on that day, exactly 220 years ago. Collectively, those ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

Even though the Constitution, which was ratified in June 1788, is still hailed as a masterpiece, at the time of its adoption some people thought there was something lacking. Mainly, they believed that the Constitution did not contain adequate guarantees of the essential rights and liberties of individual citizens.

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was in Kansas City, and I was able to hear his enjoyable talk at the public library. (Justice Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994; I was surprised to learn that he and I were both born on 8/15/38.)

Justice Breyer was here partly to promote his new book Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View (2010). Early in his book he explains how James Madison, who later became President, “pointed out that the Bill of Rights would protect individuals from abuse by a majority” (p. 6). Similarly, he begins the thirteenth chapter with these words:

“The Constitution expressly protects the liberty of individuals through the Bill of Rights.” He used the First Amendment as the first example of how that is so.

I find it rather ironic that some conservative Christians in this country complain about how their religious freedom is being stifled by the government—such as by not being able, for example, to have public displays of the Ten Commandments or Christmas creches.

Christianity is, of course, overwhelmingly the majority religion in this country. But as Madison pointed out, the Bill of Rights, beginning with the First Amendment, was put into place in order to protect the rights of minorities from abuse by the majority.

In the 1780s, Baptists were a minority group in Virginia, and some Baptist ministers were even imprisoned because of their unwillingness to abide by the religious beliefs and practices of the majority. Accordingly, John Leland, a Baptist pastor, put pressure on Madison to push for the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There is a marker on “Constitution Highway,” five miles east of Orange, VA, commemorating the spot where in 1788, Leland and Madison, often called “the father of the American Constitution,” held a significant discussion which resulted in the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, partly through the support of the Baptists.

Keeping his part of the bargain, Madison, a member of Congress from Orange, presented the First Amendment to the Constitution, by which religious liberty, free speech, and the freedom of assembly are guaranteed. That is the kind of freedom, and constitutional protection, Leland and other Baptists greatly wanted.

Now the religious minorities in our country are people who believe in Buddhism, Islam, or other non-Christians religions. There is a sizable minority of atheists and non-religious people also. The Bill of Rights is important for protecting the religious freedom of those minorities.

As a Baptist, I have been proud of how Baptists in the past were advocates of religious freedom and were strong supporters of the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment. I think it is shameful how now that they are in the majority, some Baptists and other conservative Christians complain about the guarding of religious liberty for minority groups in American society today.

In Memory of Thomas Merton

2011-12-10T06:10:00.002-06:00

His death 43 years ago today, on December 10, 1968, was a tragic one. I am speaking of the accidental death of Thomas Merton, the famous Trappist monk.

Merton (b. 1915) had gone to Thailand for an interfaith conference between Catholic and non-Christian monks, a meeting held in a Red Cross Conference Center in a suburb of Bangkok. While stepping out of his bath in the cottage where he was staying, Merton reached out to adjust an electric fan, apparently touching an exposed wire, and was accidentally electrocuted. A tragic loss of life!

Merton died 27 years to the day after entering the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky, south of Louisville. That was just three days after, but not directly related to, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He became well known through his bestselling autobiography, which is mostly about his life before entering the Trappist monastery.

The Seven Storey Mountain, Merton’s story of his early life, was first published in 1948, when he was only 33 years old. By May 1949, 100,000 copies were in print, and that year it became the first religious book to make the New York Times bestseller list. The cover of the 1978 edition I just finished reading proclaims that over one million copies have been sold—and that was 33 years ago.

25 Books Every Christian Should Read: A Guide to the Essential Spiritual Classics was published earlier this year, and Merton’s autobiography was the 23^rd of those 25 books. It was followed by C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity (1952) and Henri Nouwen’s The Return of the Prodigal Son (1992).

In much of The Seven Storey Mountain Merton describes his rather unhappy childhood and young manhood. He narrates how he lived a rather undisciplined life, mainly seeking pleasure. But he didn’t find peace and contentment. After a year a Cambridge University he wrote, “. . . all my dreams of fantastic pleasures and delights were crazy and absurd, and . . . everything I had reached out for had turned to ashes in my hands, and that I myself . . . had turned out to be an extremely unpleasant sort of person—vain, self-centered, dissolute, weak, irresolute, undisciplined, sensual, obscene and proud” (p. 132).

From this confession we see that Merton’s story is similar in some ways to that of Augustine. Accordingly, his autobiography is often compared to Augustine’s Confessions, the second work listed in 25 Books mentioned above.

To be honest, I enjoyed reading Daniel Berrigan’s autobiography, To Dwell in Peace, much more than Merton’s The Twelve Storey Mountain. That was mainly, I think, because Berrigan was exactly twice as old as Merton when he wrote his autobiography and included much about his many experiences as a peace activist. How I wish Merton had lived to write another autobiography in 1981, when he would have been 66 years old!

Beginning on January 1, I plan to start reading Through the Years with Thomas Merton: Daily Meditations from His Writings (1983). At some point one of those meditations will surely be Merton’s words that I have often quoted:

“If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed—but hate these things in yourself, not in another” (New Seeds of Contemplation, 1961, 2007; p. 122).

Days of Infamy

2011-12-05T06:05:00.008-06:00

President Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, “a date which will live in infamy.” He was referring, of course, to how Pearl Harbor “was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

And he was right. Now, seventy years later, Americans remember that date well and December 7 does live in infamy.

As it turned out, though, the war with the U.S. initiated on 12/7/41 was a day of infamy for Japan also. In my thirty-eight years in Japan, I never heard Japanese people speak of the attack on Pearl Harbor except in embarrassment, with shame, and, often, with resentment toward the Japanese militarists who (mis)led their nation into war.

The loss of around 3,000 American lives at Pearl Harbor on that fateful Sunday morning was tragic, indeed. And, of course, a vastly greater number of U.S. servicemen (and perhaps some servicewomen) were killed in the ensuing war. The number of Japanese, though, who died as the result of the war begun on that day of infamy was considerably larger.

In one of the biggest understatements in history, the Japanese Emperor said in his surrender speech on August 15, 1945, “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.” That surrender came after what can legitimately be called other days of infamy earlier that year.

“All’s fair in love and war” is an expression sometimes heard. But international ethicists believe that there are legitimate rules of war, and the wanton killing of civilians is against those rules. In September 1938 the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution for “protection of civilian populations against bombing from the air in case of war.” That resolution was clear and direct: “The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal.”

Thus, March 10, 1945, could also be considered a day of infamy. On that day the U.S. Air Force firebombed Tokyo. Some 100,000 people were killed, most of them civilians! Then in August the terrible war ended soon after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And again, most of the causalities were civilians. Two more days of infamy!

In this country September 11, 2001, can be considered a day of infamy worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were on American soil, and almost all the causalities, about the same number as those killed on 12/7/41, were civilians.

And then there is good reason to consider March 19, 2003, a day of infamy also. That was the day the preemptive U.S. war on Iraq began. In the eight and a half years since then, more U.S. soldiers have been killed than the number of people killed by the attack on Pearl Harbor.

But even more, 3/19/03 is a day of infamy because the war initiated on that day has taken the lives of at least 100,000 civilian Iraqis, and perhaps considerably more than that.

Military and terrorists attacks, the wanton bombing of civilians, and the launching of preemptive wars are all days of infamy. And they are the very opposite of the Christmas vision of “peace on earth,” God’s dream for the world, about which I plan to write later this month.

P.S. I had not heard of others calling 3/19/03 a day of infamy, but after I posted the above TF Phil Rhoads sent me this picture:

Freedom's Orator

2011-11-30T06:54:00.003-06:00

Freedom's Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s (2009) is the title of a book by New York University professor Richard Cohen (b. 1955). I have not read Cohen’s large tome (more than 540 pp.), but I am interested in its subject.

Mario Savio (1942-96), was the brilliant leader of Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, the largest and most disruptive student rebellion in American history. He risked his life to register black voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer of 1964 and did more than anyone to bring daring forms of non-violent protest from the civil rights movement to the struggle for free speech and academic freedom on American campuses.

Savio is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially his “put your bodies upon the gears” address given in front of Sproul Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, on December 2, 1964. That day after giving his speech in front of 4,000 people, he and 800 others were arrested.

In his 12/2/64 speech, Savio said, “There’s a time when the operation of the machine [of corporate society] becomes so odious . . . that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

On 12/2/97, less than 13 months after Savio’s death, the steps in front of Sproul Hall were named the Mario Savio Steps. A Memorial Lecture Fund was also set up to honor Savio after his death. The first lecture was given by Howard Zinn in 1997, and other speakers include Cornel West (2001), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2008), and Elizabeth Warren (2010).

Robert Reich, 11/15/11

This year the Mario Savio lecture was given by Robert Reich, the Berkeley public policy professor who was Secretary of Labor (1993-97) under President Clinton. Reich (b. 1946) gave the lecture entitled “Class Warfare in America,” which can be heard at this link .

Reich, declaring that “the days of apathy are over,” linked the activities and interests of Savio in the 1960s to the Occupy Wall Street movement going on now. He praised the Occupy Cal protesters for their “moral outrage,” and said democracy depends upon “the ability of people to join together and make their voices heard.”

Not long before the 11/15/11 assembly on and around the Mario Savio Steps, Rachel Maddow had an 18-minute segment on her program comparing the OWS movement to the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. She included clips of Savio’s speech as well as an interview with Reich. If you haven’t seen that segment, it is well worth watching (available at various websites including here).

Right-wing radio hosts and even potential Republican presidential candidates continue to badmouth the OWS movement. A Fox News host recently referred to the OWS protesters as “domestic terrorists.”

Peaceful protests and “speaking the truth to power,” though, are terrifying only to the powerful and those who seek to maintain the status quo for their own benefit. Just as the country needed to hear the message of “freedom’s orator” in the 1960s it needs now to listen attentively to the pleas of the protesters in the OWS movement.

”The Only Real Pluralism”

2011-11-25T07:33:00.000-06:00

Skeptics and Believers: Religious Debate in the Western Intellectual Tradition is an excellent series of lectures by Dr. Tyler Roberts, professor at Grinnell College in Iowa.

Roberts (b. 1962), who has a Th.D. degree from Harvard University, gives 36 lectures in the DVD series produced by The Teaching Company. I have heard only about a fourth of them to this point, but I have been impressed with him and his lectures.

A few days ago I watched and listened to “Pluralism—Religious and Secular,” his 35^th lecture in the series. In it Roberts identifies and discusses five possible contemporary models for thinking about religious diversity.

He begins with a discussion of the usual three: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, the tripartite analysis presented by Alan Race in 1983, although he doesn’t mention Race. (I wrote about Race and my dissatisfaction with his threefold division in my blog posting on 8/10/10, which can be accessed here.)

Roberts goes on to suggest two more possibilities: “postmodern confession” and “secularism.” I plan to write more about secularism soon, but now I want to think more about the fourth position, which I found pregnant with meaning.

Postmodern confession is an idea developed by John Milbank, a British theologian best known as a leader of the “Radical Orthodoxy” movement.

I have not read Milbank sufficiently, but according to Roberts he (Milbank) argues that there is really no such thing as pluralism. The idea of religious diversity or religious pluralism, he says, is a concept that developed in the modern West.

In reflecting upon the world religions, I think Milbank is correct on that point. Certainly Judaism has never been pluralistic, except for some modern (liberal) expressions of that ancient faith in the U.S. And Islam does not recognize pluralism, with maybe, again, a few exceptions of liberal Muslims in the U.S.

Hinduism and Buddhism may well be considered inclusive religions, but it would be a push to call the position of traditional or most contemporary Hinduism or Buddhism pluralistic. Milbank seems to be right: religious pluralism is a Western idea that has been developed mostly by liberal (or cultural) Christians.

Roberts summarizes Milbank’s position: “Christian exclusivism is the only real pluralism because it is the only real respecter of difference.” He makes that contention because of the centrality of love to (true) Christianity.

This sort of Christian exclusivism is, as Milbank suggests, paradoxically, “the only real pluralism,” for, properly understood and practiced, it is the position which respects differences and enables people of any or all religious traditions to flourish.

Milbank’s ideas resonate with what I have been thinking recently: I respect adherents of other religious traditions not because of their faith (that is, not because I have thoroughly examined them and judged them worthy of respect) but because of my faith in Jesus Christ.

Since Christ taught, and exemplified, love for all people, I respect (love) others with different religious faiths or worldviews because that is the demand of love. Accordingly, I accept and affirm the freedom of all others to believe and to practice whatever they think is right and good, so long as it is not injurious to others.

Shameful Coaches and Obscene Salaries

2011-11-20T06:17:00.002-06:00

University football coaches have been much in the news recently, and it hasn’t been good news. In fact, it has been downright shameful.

The most widely publicized, of course, is the child-abuse by an assistant coach at Penn State University. The problem, as you know, was not just the abuse of young boys but the lack of preventive or punitive action by the head coach and by the university. Shameful!

And then here in Missouri the arrest of the Missouri University football coach on DUI charges. While certainly not nearly as serious, for a man who is supposed to be a mentor of the young men on his team as well as the larger community to be arrested is a shameful thing also.

But I also find it obscene how most coaches at the major universities are paid such extravagant salaries. A front-page story in the 11/17 USA Today was “Coaches’ pay soars again: Average salary at top schools tops $1.47M.”

In six seasons the average pay for top coaches has increased by nearly 55%—and that in a time of a severe economic recession in society as a whole. The Florida State coach got a raise of around $950,000 last year, after just his first season there. His salary is now $2,750,000.

Thirteen coaches are bringing in salaries of more than three million dollars a year, the highest being the coach at Texas University whose salary is more than $5,000,000!

Part of the problem I see with these exorbitant salaries, is that they are 20-25 times more than the salaries of most university professors, who are doing what a university is supposed to do: teaching students who entered the university to get an education.

I know, a winning sports program not only brings in a lot of money for the university, it also produces a lot of positive publicity for the university. Still . . . .

Speaking of high salaries, many people are now complaining about the high pay for U.S. Congresspersons—and that is probably a legitimate concern. There are now said to be 250 millionaires in Congress, close to 50%. But the salaries of those in Congress don’t come close to being as much as that of football coaches in the major universities across the country.

The pay and long-term benefits of Senators and Representatives may, certainly, be too high. But they are surely not as outrageous as the pay of football coaches. And the men and women in Congress have vastly more important things to make decisions about than, say, whether to go for it on fourth and one. (You football fans will know what that means.)

And those who think Congresspeople trusted with making decisions affecting the well-being of all the citizens of the country as well as the future of the nation are too high surely realize that their pay-scale is modest compared not only to football coaches but also professional athletes, movie stars, TV personalities, and others. (Oprah’s yearly salary is said to be $350M, Dr. Phil’s, $80M, and David Letterman’s, $40M.)

Perhaps it is high time for the USAmerican public to reconsider its priorities. And surely adding a surtax to the income tax of football coaches and other overpaid people in our society is not an outrageous idea.

Where's the Middle?

2011-11-15T06:54:00.006-06:00

The cover story of the November 5 issue of The Economist is about “America’s missing middle.” The cover picture shows Uncle Sam looking at a large hamburger bun with nothing in the middle between the top and bottom of the bun.

Currently, in the country as a whole, and particularly in the U.S. Congress, it seems as though the political position of the population is far more like a “well-shaped curve” than the traditional bell-shaped curve. In the latter, the peak includes far more people than those on the far right or the far left. But in the former, those in middle are far fewer than the number on the far right and the far left.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what is developing in the Christian/theological world as well. Even though in the last chapter of my book The Limits of Liberalism I call for support of and identification with the “radiant center,” I sense that that is not descriptive of where most Christians are now.

Back in 1923, J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism was published. Machen (1881-1937) was a New Testament professor at Princeton Seminary between 1915 and 1929, but then led a conservative revolt against the modernist theology at Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary as a more orthodox alternative.

In his book, Machen refers to liberalism as a religion “entirely different” (p. 6) or “totally different” (p. 79) from Christianity. He makes that assertion by comparing liberalism’s views of God, human beings (sin), the Bible, Christ, salvation, etc. with that of traditional Christianity (as he understood it).

From the time I first read Machen’s book years ago (although I didn’t read it when it first came out!), I thought he was overstating the case. Now I am not so sure.

Recently I have been reading Marcus Borg’s new book Speaking Christian (2011). In the Introduction, Borg (b. 1942) says that “Christians in this country (and elsewhere) are deeply divided by different understandings of a shared language” (p. 1). In fact, he goes on to assert, “The differences are so sharp that they virtually produce two different religions, both using the same Bible and the same language: (p. 2).

I am beginning to think that Machen and Borg may be right and that the hope for a strong “radiant center” may be just a pipe dream.

Earlier this month June and I went with our daughter Kathy and her family to their strongly evangelical church. Even though the sermon was based on 2 Chronicles, it stressed the atoning death of Jesus on the cross, consistent with their statement of faith confessing that Jesus “died for the redemption of man’s sin.”

It dawned on me that it had been a long time since I had heard that kind of emphasis in a sermon. Moreover, that emphasis is completely different from Borg’s ideas set forth in “The Death of Jesus,” his eighth chapter. Borg clearly rejects the idea of Jesus’ death being “substitutionary atonement” for sinful human beings.

It seems that most Christians now tend to agree either with the evangelical viewpoint (similar to that of Machen’s in 1923) or with the viewpoint of Borg and expressed by many contemporary liberal theologians/churches. Still, I would like to find, to enlarge, and to enjoy being a part of the radiant center, maybe wide enough to include the middle third, emphasizing both/and rather than either/or.

A Fiery, and Futile, Protest

2011-11-10T06:26:00.000-06:00

Roger LaPorte may be a name you never remember hearing. And you may not even remember the tragic incident associated with him. Just like me until a few weeks ago.

I write this, though, in memory of Roger, who died of burns, self-inflicted. He poured gasoline over himself in front of the United Nations Building in New York City and set himself afire. He died the next day, on November 10, 1965.

Why in the world would a young, 22-year-old man engage in self-immolation? In his case it was in protest over the Vietnam War, in which the U.S. was becoming increasingly involved.

Roger LaPorte, a former seminarian, was a volunteer worker with the Catholic Worker community in New York. He had also met and talked briefly with Daniel Berrigan, about whom I posted recently.

Father Berrigan was asked to officiate at a memorial service for Roger, and he did so in spite of being advised by his Catholic superiors not to do so. Shortly afterwards, Berrigan’s Jesuit superior and New York’s Cardinal Spellman ordered him to leave the country at once. He was exiled to Latin America, unable to return to the U.S. for several months.

Among other things, Berrigan questioned whether Roger’s act was a suicide. Rather, he suggested the young man’s fiery protest should perhaps be seen as an act of “misguided heroism,” the giving of life rather than the taking of life. Shortly before he died, Roger reportedly had said, “I’m against war, all wars. I did this as a religious action.”

Roger’s self-sacrifice in opposition to the Vietnam War was actually the third which occurred in the U.S., all in 1965. Earlier that year an 82-year-old woman died by self-immolation in Detroit. And just one week before Roger’s deadly protest, Norman Morrison, a 31-year-old Quaker, had set himself on fire right below Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s Pentagon office.

Unfortunately, these drastic protests failed to bring the war to a halt.

And so, three years later the shameful My Lai Massacre occurred. Five years later (in 1970) the U.S. began the questionable invasion of Cambodia. And then in 1972 Kim Phuc, “the girl in the picture” about whom I posted in July was napalmed.

Finally, eight years after Roger’s extreme protest, the war officially ended, although it was not until April 1975 that the last U.S. soldier was killed in Vietnam and the last troops left that country--largely with a loss of face for the United States. There was almost nothing positive to show for the war being prolonged all those years after the fiery protest of Robert LaPorte. What a tragic waste of lives and resources!

Now there are few protests about the U.S. war activities, which by next month will (we hope!) be only in Afghanistan. But there are significant protests continuing in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

So in addition to the war on terrorism that continues in south Asia, domestically we now see what some call “class warfare.” (And the upper class clearly seems to be winning.)

Let us hope and pray that the protests now occurring will be heeded before there is an escalation of violence, and before some protesters resort to more extreme measures.

The Hurting 80%

2011-11-05T06:32:00.002-05:00

The Occupy Wall Street protesters dividethe country into two groups: the wealthiest 1% and all the rest, the 99%. Iquestion whether that simply bifurcation is the best way to analyze the currentfinancial situation of the people in the U.S. (or any other country).

Incriticism of the OWS activities and public appeals, an opposition movement hasbeen started and promoted by fiscal and political conservatives (Tea Partytypes). Theycall themselves the 53%—as in the 53% of Americans who pay federal incometaxes. And they are making their voices heard on Twitter, Facebook, andelsewhere as they tout personal responsibility and the work ethic.

I have seriousquestions about the rhetoric of the 53% people, who speak mainly in oppositionto the 47% of the USAmericans who do not pay any income tax. They stress thatthey, the 53%, are the “righteous” ones, those who are paying the taxes thatsupport the government assistance received by many of the OWS protesters.

As you have probablyseen, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in “Trends in the Distribution ofHousehold Income Between 1979 and 2007,” a document released last month, indicates that “after-taxincome for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any othergroup.” That information was hardly a surprise.

(The CBO is a federalagency within the legislative branch of the U.S. government that provideseconomic data to Congress. It was created as a nonpartisan agency in 1974).

CBO finds that,between 1979 and 2007, income in the U.S. grew by:
   * 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
   * 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
   * Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
   * 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The abovesummary shows a considerable difference between the top 1% and the next 19%.But still, the latter aren’t hurting all that much. In a previous posting Imentioned the fact that the top 1% possesses 42% ofthe financial wealth of the nation and the bottom 80% has only 7%. But thatmeans that those who in the 2%-20% bracket hold 51% of the financial wealth onthe U.S. So they should be making it all right financially.

(The statisticsgiven above are based primarily on the work of Dr. G. William Domhoff, aresearch professor at the University of California. Domhoff first published Who Rules America? in 1967, and he hasupdated that bestselling book several times. Domhoff also presents his updatedresearch on financial power in the U.S. on his website. )

Itseems to me our main concern ought not to be directed toward the 99% inopposition to the wealthiest 1%. Rather, if we have any compassion for hurtingpeople, shouldn't we be most concerned for the 80%, including the vast majority ofthe 47% whose income is so low paying taxes is not required? They arethe people in our society who are hurting the most, and people who need helprather than criticism.

7 Billion and Counting

2011-10-30T06:07:00.004-05:00

Accordingto the United Nations Population Fund, onOctober 31, tomorrow, the population of the world will become seven billionpersons. That is remarkable!

When I wasborn in 1938, the global human population was under 2.3 billion. So in my lifetimethe population of the world has tripled, and then some!

PopulationAction International has an app on their website that calculates the worldpopulation on any given day in the past. You can put in your birth date and quicklyget the estimate of “your number,” the population of the world on yourbirthday. The link for “What’s Your Number?” is here.(I am 2,267,750,937.)

It isestimated that the world's population didn’t reach the one billion mark until1804, just a little over 200 years ago. By 1927, 123 years later, thepopulation of the world became two billion. Then in just 33 years, in 1960, thenumber of people on earth climbed to three billion.

Since February1967, world population has doubled to reach the seven billion mark. (Actually,the U.S. Census Bureau says that seven billion won’t be reached until February,2012.) What will it be like, though, if the population doubles again in the same lengthof time? That is unlikely to happen; estimates now indicate that even the nine billionmark will probably not be reached until 2045 or later. Still, that is a numberfraught with problems.

How manypeople can the earth sustain? It can be argued that the earth is not adequatelysustaining its seven billion people now. But the problem is largely a matter ofdistribution, not resources. There is enough food for everyone, but some(particularly many Americans) eat far too much, and hundreds of millions,mostly in south Asia and Africa, have far too little to eat.

With thegrowth of the population, there is a strain on other resources, too. And,again, the U.S. with only 5% of the world population uses an extraordinarilylarge share of the world’s natural resources.

As thepopulation continues to rise above seven billion, there will doubtlessly bemore and more struggle for limited resources: fresh water, food, oil, and thelike. As resources become scarcer, prices rise and more people face financialproblems. More troubling, in a world of shortages violence also becomes moreprevalent as nations, or smaller groups, seek to provide for their own.

Populationpressures and need for additional food and natural resources have been part ofthe cause of wars, large and small, through the centuries, and the likelihoodof warfare increases as the population continues to increase. In addition, thegap between the wealthy countries and the poor countries, or between thewealthy and the poor within countries, leads to various acts of revolutionaryviolence.

So thefact that the world population is now 7,000,000,000 and counting is not goodnews. But that is the situation we are in. And it is a matter about which weall need to be concerned, supporting ideas and programs for dealing with theproblem in constructive ways.

What about the OWS Movement?

2011-10-25T06:47:00.004-05:00

The Occupy Wall Streetmovement startedmore than five weeks ago, on September 17. Beginning in “Liberty Square” inManhattan’s Financial District, it has now spread to over 200 cities in theUnited States and to over 1,500 cities worldwide where similar actions aretaking place.

Not surprisingly, there have been diverse evaluations of the OWSmovement. In general, many Republicans and most conservatives are critical ofit; many Democrats and most liberals are supportive.

In talking with one caller early this month, for example, RushLimbaugh called the people demonstrating with OWS “crazy,” “stupid,” “abjecttools,” and “idiots.” Many people on the right would not go that far inmaligning those involved in the OWS movement, but they are quite negative aboutthe whole thing.

On the other hand, liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and Nation ofChange are highly supportive of the OWS movement and are helping to supply thingsthey need.

Herman Cain seems to be the most outspokenRepublican presidential candidate on this issue. About three weeks after the movementstarted, Cain declaredthat the Occupy Wall Street protesters are un-American and against capitalism.He also said the protesters shouldn’t rally against Wall Street bankers orbrokers because “they’re the ones who create the jobs.”

On Sunday afternoon June and I stopped by the lively Occupy Kansas City group. Ironically, the protesters' meeting/camping spot isjust a couple of minutes’ walk from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,where Cain was the chairman of the Board in the mid-1990s.

We talked with several of the people working with Occupy KansasCity. They didn’t seem to fit the description Limbaugh used for people inthe OWS movement at all. At the information table we talked with a level-headedyoung woman who is a professor at the Kansas City Art Institute. At the sametable was Melissa, a bright-eyed student from nearby Penn Valley CommunityCollege.

At a table close by was Dr. Fred Whitehead (b. 1944), formerprofessor at the University of Kansas School of Medicine and editor of Freethought on the Frontier (1992).

Occupy Kansas City was sponsoring the “Day of Learning” on Sunday.When we were there, two groups, most seated on the ground, were listening totalks about common concerns. The “lectures” were low-key, sounding like whatyou would hear in a college classroom. They were anything but rabble-rousing.

As seems to be true for the OWS movement nationwide, there is notyet a clear focus concerning the goals of Occupy Kansas City. Some of thepeople we talked with, such as the semi-homeless woman with three children, were there out of frustration. She has tried hard for years,but is having a hard time finding work that pays a living wage.

At the very least, it seems that the majority of the peopleparticipating in the OWS movement want “economic justice,” which includes someadjustment in the current economic structure of the country that allows the top1% of the population to possess 43% of the financial wealth of the nation andthe bottom 80% to have only 7%.

Because of that disparity, and the continuing high rate ofunemployment and personal debt, the OWS movement is probably going to be aroundfor quite some time. And the people involved in the movement need support and understanding far more than criticism.

And, then, there is this poster to consider:

In Praise of Daniel Berrigan

2011-10-20T07:09:00.001-05:00

Daniel Berrigan, the anti-war Jesuit priest who turned 90 in May ofthis year, has been a fervent advocate of peace for decades. As I have been thinkingabout him recently, I am writing this as another posting of my “in praiseof” series. (Click on “praise” in the label column on the right to see otherspostings in this series.)

Especially you who are 60 orolder doubtlessly know something about Berrigan, who first became widely knownin the late 1960s. He and his brother Philip (1923-2002) became highly visibleanti-war/peace activists during the Vietnam War. After that war ended, theycontinued to oppose nuclear weapons.

Some of you may harbor afairly negative image of Daniel and Philip Berrigan. For several years up tothe end of the war in Vietnam they were greatly criticized by the media as wellas by many within the Catholic Church. (Like his older brother, Philip was alsoa priest.)

The Berrigan brothers, with afew others, engaged in numerous acts of civil disobedience to protest what theybelieved to be an unjust war. They were two of the “Cantonville Nine,” ninepeople who in May 1968 went to the draft board in a Baltimore suburb, took 378draft files, brought them to the parking lot in wire baskets, dumped them out,poured homemade napalm over them, and set them on fire.

They were arrested, of course,and after a few months as a fugitive, Daniel was in prison from August 1970 toFebruary1972. Earlier, in 1967, he had been the first priest in U.S. history tobe arrested for a protest against war. He was in jail only five days thattime.

Then in September 1980 theBerrigan brothers and a few others began the Plowshares Movement. Theyillegally trespassed onto a nuclear missile facility in Pennsylvania, wherethey damaged nuclear warhead nosecones and poured their own blood ontodocuments and files.

Earlier this month I finishedreading Daniel’s autobiography, To Dwellin Peace (1987), and I was much impressed by his life story and especiallyby his dedication to peace and justice. (I was also impressed by the splendidprose in which the book is written.)

In the book, says that when thechurch yields “before the politics of the virtuous versus the ‘kingdom ofevil,’ we become, willy-nilly, the spiritual arm of ever-renewed violence” (p.156). Unfortunately, that seems to have been the case often, and is seen in theU.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I amnow reading Daniel Berrigan: EssentialWritings (2009), selected with an introduction by John Dear, who wasmentored by Berrigan. Dear (b. 1959) is also a Jesuit priest and an avidanti-war/peace activist; he has been arrested more than 75 times.

Dearwrites that Berrigan “remains a beacon of hope to peace-loving peopleeverywhere” (p. 24). For that reason I am happy to post these few words inpraise of Daniel Berrigan, who for far more than half his ninety years has been an extraordinaryprophet and peacemaker.

Is Mormonism a Cult?

2011-10-15T06:35:00.000-05:00

“Mormonism is acult.” So declared Dr. Robert Jeffress, theSenior Pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, when interviewed afterintroducing Gov. Rick Perry to the Value Voters Summit (VVS) held last weekendin Washington, D.C.

The VVS was sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, LibertyUniversity, and other groups noted for their conservative religious andpolitical stance. The flier advertising the event quotes Sean Hannity sayingthat the VVS is “the premier conservative event now in the country.”

All of the major Republican presidential candidates were there,as well as some sitting U.S. Senators and Representatives (all Republicans).But it was Rev. Jeffress’ statement about Mormonism which got the most presscoverage as he puffed Mr. Perry and cast aspersions on Mr. Romney.

The next day a Thinking Friend sent me a link to “MormonismTakes Center Stage,” an article by Rachel Weiner in the October 7 Washington Post. And he posed thisquestion, “Is Mormonism a cult?”

Of course the answer depends largely on how the word cult is defined. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary definescult as “asystem of religious beliefs and ritual.” In that sense, of course Mormonism isa cult, as is every other denomination or religion.

But the samedictionary also gives this definition: “a religion regarded as unorthodox orspurious.” This is most likely the view of Mormonism that Rev. Jeffress had inmind.

It is clear thatMormonism is not one of the historic, “mainstream” Christian denominations. Itwas organized in 1830, based upon special revelation received by Joseph Smith,who translated The Book of Mormon andbegan the first meetings that grew into The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints, the official name of what we usually call the Mormon Church.

It is looking more and more as if Mr. Romney will be theRepublican candidate for President next year. But does it make any differenceif he is a Mormon, even if Mormonism could be accurately described as a cult ina negative sense? I think not.

There are no legal religious requirements for public officein the United States, and for good reason. Religious freedom is a longstanding,and important, principle of national life.

Al Smith was defeated in the 1928 presidential electionpartly because he was a Catholic. But as most people came to see after theelection of JFK, it didn’t make any real difference in public policy for thePresident to be a Catholic.

And the same sort of thing would most likely be true if Mr.Romney should be elected President next year.

If Mr. Romney does become the Republican candidate for President,though, I won’t vote for him. (In fact, I am not likely to vote for anyRepublican candidate any time soon.) But it won’t be because he is a member ofa “cult.”

I won’t vote for Mr. Romney because of his political ideasand the platform of the party on which he stands. And I hope that all voterswill cast their ballots on the basis of political conviction and not because ofreligious, or any other type of, prejudice.

The China Conundrum

2011-10-10T06:18:00.001-05:00

Today is “DoubleTen,” a very special day for some of theChinese who live on the island of Taiwan, and to a lesser degree for allChinese.

The Chinese Revolution began on October 10, 1911. Itresulted in the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), the last imperialdynasty, and the establishing of the Republic of China (ROC), which was formedon January 1, 1912.

So today is the centennial celebration of Double Ten Day, thenational day for the ROC.

A symbol often seen during Double Ten Day (it is the combination of two characters for "10" (十)

Long called Formosa (“beautiful island”) Taiwan is the nameof an island off the east coast of China, home to about 23,000,000 people. Whilemost of the people of Taiwan are Chinese (only about 2% are aboriginal people,like the Native Americans in this country), only about 15% of them are from themainland. And they are the ones who lead the celebration of Double Ten.

Several memories linger from the first time I visited Taiwanmany years ago—such as being surprised at seeing beautiful poinsettia trees,many over ten feet tall. I hadn’t known poinsettias grew so tall.

I also remember the feeling of incongruity when I wasvisiting an old shrine erected in veneration of Confucius—and at the same time seeingTaiwanese Air Force jets screaming overhead.

One other memory: seeing many portraits of Sun Yat Sen, thefirst President of the Republic of China. Actually, he was only ProvisionalPresident and served less than three months, but still he was, and is, widelycelebrated at the founder of the Republic of China (ROC).

In 1949, however, the Communists under Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)overthrew the ROC and established the People’s Republic of China, which isstill the name of the nation on mainland China.

On March 1, 1950, ROC President Chiang Kai-shek moved thegovernment of China to Taiwan, and formally resumed duties as President. And,sixty-one years later, the U.S. is still supporting Taiwan. Should that supportcontinue? Or should the U.S. recognize that the People’s Republic of China (PRC)is the only legitimate government for the country, including the island of Taiwan?

That is a difficult question.

Just last month, the Obama administration approved a $5.8billion arms deal to Taiwan, including upgrades to the island’s fleet of old F-16fighter jets. Not surprisingly, that did not set well with the government ofthe PRC. In fact, Beijing warned that U.S.-Chinese relations would suffer“severe obstacles” as a result of that action.

On the other hand, Republican critics accused the Obamaadministration of bowing to Chinese pressure with its decision only to upgradeaging Taiwanese warplanes rather than sell the island the later generationfighters it had requested.

According to CBS News, GOP presidential aspirant Mitt Romneysaid, “President Obama’s refusal to sell Taiwan new military jets is yetanother example of his weak leadership in foreign policy.”

In light of the vital American economic and financialrelationships with the PRC, what should the U.S. stance toward Taiwan be? That’sa difficult question, and one that I’m glad I don’t have to decide how toanswer.

Is the “Fair Tax” Fair?

2011-10-05T05:57:00.000-05:00

Herman Cain, the presidentialcandidate, was interviewed October 2 on “Fox News Sunday” and on “This Week.”Asis widely known, Cain (b. 1945) was formerly chairman and CEO of Godfather’sPizza (1986-96). From 1995 to 1996 he was also chairman of the board ofdirectors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Candidate Cain,somewhat surprisingly, won the Republican presidential straw poll in Floridalast month and according to the new CBS News poll, he is nowtied with Mr. Romney for first among the Republican candidates.

In both of Sunday’stelevision interviews, Mr. Cain was asked about his 9-9-9 tax plan, a bold proposalto replace the current federal income tax with a 9percent sales tax, a 9 percent income tax, and a 9 percent corporate tax.

Mr. Cain has indicated that he sees the 9-9-9 plan as aprecursor to the “fair tax,” which would be a national sales (consumption) taxthat would take the place of the federal income tax. He is only one of a numberof people actively promoting the “fair tax”idea.

But would the “fairtax” be fair? I think not.

The advocates of thisnew tax plan consider it fair, because “the more you spend the more you pay.”In addition, it is fair, they say, because everyone is taxed at the same rate.

However, it seemsclear to me that the fair tax proposal, as well as the 9-9-9 plan, would taxthe lower and middle classes more severely than at present, even with a“prebate.” In addition, unless the wealthy are already avoiding taxes throughvarious loopholes, as many are, it means a huge tax break for them.

(The rathercomplicated plan for prebates is explained at www.FairTax.org.)

Take, for example, acouple with an annual income of $25,000. Most of that income would of coursehave to be spent on necessities, even though they might receive some prebate.Thus in all likelihood almost all of their income would be subject to the sales(consumption) tax.

But consider a couplewith an annual income of, say, $250,000. They no doubt would pay far moretaxes, for they would, most surely, spend far more than the first couple. Butin all likelihood they would also put a sizable proportion of their incomeinto savings, buying stocks and bonds or making other investments which wouldmost probably increase their wealth in the future.

Thus, the latterwould pay a far smaller percentage of their income for taxes while increasingtheir wealth in years to come. In most cases, the greater one’s income, thesmaller the percentage of that income would be used for taxes.

So, the so-called fairtax cannot be called fair for low income people struggling to get byfinancially. Conversely, it would unfairly favor those with above averageincomes.

Is God in the Land-granting Business?

2011-09-30T06:50:00.000-05:00

ConservativeChristians are avid supporters ofIsrael, and in the vanguard of lobbying efforts for the U.S. rejection ofPalestine’s bid to become an internationally recognized country.

The formal request for Palestinian statehood was submittedto the U.N. Security Council on September 23 by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. That request wasconsidered this week—and then sent to a special committee for further study.

The U.S., perhaps largely because of the Jewish lobby andthe outspoken voices of the Religious Right, has said that it will vetoPalestine’s request if it comes to a vote in the Security Council. And that, Ithink, is a shame.

When I attended the Faith & Freedom Coalition conferencein June, I expected to hear the strong support of the anti-abortion andanti-gay statements made there by the Republican politicians who spoke. But Iwas not prepared for the even stronger support given to the pro-Israel/anti-Palestineissue.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel of the American Center forLaw and Justice (ACLJ). (The ACLJ was founded by Pat Robertson in 1990; Sekulowearned his Ph.D. degree at Regents University, also founded by Pat Robertson.)At the Faith & Freedom meeting, I heard Sekulow say in two differentsessions, “God is in the land-granting business”—meaning that the currentnation of Israel is occupying land granted that nation by God.

The same strong position was taken by Southern BaptistRichard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Atthe same conference I heard him declare supports for Israel because he “believesthe Bible,” specifically Genesis 12 and 17.

Land also said that President Truman approved the creationof the nation of Israel in 1948 because he had grown up studying the Bible in aBaptist Sunday School. (Truman made the decision to recognize the establishmentof the State of Israel over the objections of Secretary of State GeorgeMarshall.)

Further, Land referred to President Obama as “the worstPresident of the United States that Israel has ever had,” and he said toIsrael, “Help is on the way!” At the time I thought he meant that a Republicanpresident was going to be elected in 2012, but, as we now see, perhaps he justmeant that so much pressure was going to be put on the President that he wouldsupport Israel against Palestine in 2011!

But this position, called “Christian Zionism” by some, iswrong-headed, in my opinion. And I was happy that on September 19 my friends Dr.Glen Stassen and Dr. David Gushee issued “An Open Letter to America’s ChristianZionists,” a strong statement opposing the idea that God is in theland-granting business and therefore Christians should support Israel and opposePalestine’s bid for statehood. (The link to that statement is here.)

The current issue of TheEconomist also got it right: Israel has the right to exist. But thePalestinians also “deserve a state of their own.” And, “These two beliefs areentirely compatible.” Thus, “In blocking any Palestinian aspirations at the UN,America is helping extremists on both sides.”

“Crazy for God”

2011-09-25T06:14:00.002-05:00

Frank Schaeffer is the only son of FrancisSchaeffer, who was a household name, for many conservative Christians at least,in the 1970s and early 1980s. The elder Schaeffer (1912-84) is still well knownfor establishing the influential L’Abri Community in Switzerland (in 1955) andfor books such as The God Who Is There(1968) and He Is There and He Is NotSilent (1972).

Francis Schaeffer is also the author of How Should We Then Live?:The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (1976), which was madeinto a ten-partdocumentary film series the next year, and AChristian Manifesto (1981), both of which encouraged Christians to be moreactively engaged in politics.

Congresswoman Michele Backmann has citedSchaeffer’s film series as having a “profound influence” on her life and thatof her husband Marcus. And much earlier, Jerry Falwell said, “If it were notfor Francis Schaeffer, we would never have gotten into politics.”

Formany years Frank worked “hand in glove” with his father. For example, he directedthe film series mentioned above. But things changed. In 2007 Frank publishedan autobiography under the title Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One of theElect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All (or Almost All)of It Back.

Earlier this year, Frank published anothermemoir: Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible’s Strange Take on Sex Led to CrazyPolitics—and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway. (Frank seems to like long and catchysubtitles!)

In this latest bookFrank Schaeffer discusses growing up with his parents and their role in therise of the American Religious Right, arguing, among other things, that theroot of the “insanity and corruption” of that force in U.S. politics, andspecifically of the religious right’s position on abortion, is a fear of femalesexuality.

In his theological/religious books,humility is one of the primary themes that Frank emphasizes. The lack ofhumility is one of the main problems with fundamentalists who are “crazy forGod.” But he also is critical of the contemporary atheists who also show aserious lack of humility.

In Sex,Mom, and God, Schaeffer writes about being “adrift in an ocean ofuncertainty.” But, he goes on to say that “perhaps that’s the only honest placeto be. No one ever blew up a mosque, church, or abortion clinic after yelling,‘I could be wrong’” (p. 73).

Frank Schaeffer is still a Christian, butno longer an evangelical. Since 1990 he has been a member of the Greek OrthodoxChurch.

And Schaeffer is no longer “crazy for God.”In fact, after reading Sex, Mom, and God,I remarked to June, “Franky thinks highly of sex and his mom, but not so highlyof God—at least the way God is understood by most conservative Christians.”

His main criticismis of both conservative preachers and politicians who seek to use God, orGod-talk, to boost their own finances, prestige, and power. That is an importantcriticism we need to pay attention to, for there are such preachers andpoliticians among us now, some looking hungrily toward 2012.

Invitationto those who live in the Kansas City area:

Schaeffer will be speaking at the downtownbranch of the Kansas City Public Library at 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 27 (Tues.), atan informal luncheon at William Jewell College at noon on Sept. 28 (Wed.), andat the Uptown Theater in Kansas City on Sept. 28, also at 6:30. All threeevents are open to the public and free of charge, except for $5 for lunch atWJC.

“Get the Government Off Our Backs!”

2011-09-20T06:29:00.000-05:00

The separation of church and state is a long-standing and much-appreciated(by many, including me) principle in the United States. To be sure, there aresome who criticize that principle, often because they don’t understand its truemeaning.

Recently Ilearned that there are also people who advocate the separation of economics andstate. Just as the principle of separation of church and state means, amongother things, that the state should have no control over religious institutions and activities, the separationof economics and state means primarily that the state should have no control over economic/financial activities.

This seems to be the position of the people in our society, most clearly represented by the TeaParty, who keep exclaiming “get the government off our backs!” It is mainlythe federal government they are talking about, and their specific opposition isto taxes and government controls/regulations on anything related to economic matters.

The call forseparation of economics and state was a strongly-held position ofRussian-American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, who has gained a remarkablenumber of followers through the years. Her name has been heard often this year.

Rand is wellknown partly because of her two bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and AtlasShrugged (1957) and for the philosophical system she called Objectivism.

I have to admitthat I have not read Rand’s novels, and I certainly have not taken the time tolisten to the 63-hour (!) “audible audio edition” of her 1957 novel.

But I have readenough about them, and her philosophy, to know her key ideas. And recently Juneand I watched the movie “The Fountainhead” (1949), for which Rand wrote thescreenplay. The next evening we watched the biographical documentary “Ayn Rand:In Her Own Words” (2011).

And then wewatched the movie “The Passion of Ayn Rand”(1999), featuring Helen Mirren asRand and based on the book by Barbara Branden, wife of the young man with whomRand had a lengthy affair.

The Ayn RandCenter (ARC) is the public policy and outreach division of the Ayn RandInstitute. According to their website, “The Center’s mission is to advanceindividual rights (the rights of each person to life, liberty, property, andthe pursuit of happiness) as the moral basis for a fully free, laissez-fairecapitalist society.”

This idea of “afully free, laissez-faire capitalist society” necessitates the separation ofeconomics and the state (government). Such separation may be good (financiallybeneficial) for people in business and for those who have money(capital). It is not so good for people who are poor, needing help insecuring the basic necessities of life.

Since Ayn Rand wasan outspoken advocate of selfishness and opponent of altruism, it isdisheartening to see how now there are so many, including some top politicians(Congresspersons), who openly advocate her philosophy.

For example, RepresentativePaul Ryan reportedly requires his staffers to read Atlas Shruggedand calls Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”

Doesn’t thatkind of thinking lead not only to the separation of economics and state butalso, sadly, to the separation of compassion and state?

The Purpose of Remembering

2011-09-15T06:37:00.000-05:00

“September 11, 2001 Never Forget!” Those are the words of theopening slide of a YouTube presentation of 9/11 photos declassified in 2009 andwidely circulated last week around the tenth anniversary of that terribletragedy. (For those of you who haven’t seen those sobering photos, the link ishere.)

This past weekend there wasrepeated emphasis on remembering the terrorist attacks. But for what reason?What is the purpose of remembering?

One important reason toremember past catastrophes, of course, is in honor of the many people who were victimsof the attacks. Remembering the deceased, as well as remembering and offeringcondolences to their families, is certainly a commendable thing to do.

To remember for the sakeof preventing similar tragedies in the future is also of great importance. Workingto prevent future atrocities is perhaps as important as binding up the wounds frompast acts of violence.

Eric Freed, a Catholicpriest who teaches at Humboldt State University in California, wrote “Purposeof Remembering,” which was published in The Japan Times in August 2009. Fr. Freed said, “My understanding of theJapanese response to Hiroshima is that it is remembered in order to understandthe profoundness of the tragedy and to prevent the tragedy from ever happeningagain.”

In an e-mail from Dr. E.Glenn Hinson, one of my Thinking Friends I hear from most often, wrote, “If weremembered in the same way the horrors such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I thinkthe world would become a better place. We don't need memories to rev up ournational hubris.”

Fr. Freed went on to writeabout the appropriateness of remembering on the part of those involved with theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Then he says, “As Americans we have frequentlyremembered in order to get vindication. ‘Remember the Alamo,’ ‘Remember theMaine,’ ‘Remember Pearl Harbor,’ ‘Remember 9/11.’ These are the slogans that wehave taken to wars.” Indeed.

This past Sunday morning Ihad the privilege of hearing Dr. Miroslav Volf speak. He is a theologyprofessor at Yale Divinity School, and his lecture was based largely on hisbook The End of Memory: RememberingRightly in a Violent World (2006).

In his book, Dr. Volfmentions the possibility of remembering sadistically, “guided by a vindictivedesire to repay evil for evil” (p. 11). In “Memory: A Shield and a Sword,” thesecond chapter, he reminds us that “the protective shield of memory” can easily“morph into a sword of violence” (p. 33).

But Dr. Volf encourages usto remember “rightly” in order that “memory may become a bridge betweenadversaries instead of a deep and dark ravine that separates them” (p. 35).

Ironically, Dr. Volf wasspeaking in New York City on reconciliation at the very time of the terroristattacks on the morning of 9/11/01. With this, and other atrocities in mind, inthe Afterword of his book he contends that “the proper goal of the memory of wrong suffered – its appropriate end – is the formation of the communionof love between all people, including victim and perpetrators” (p. 232).

Amen.

Remembering 9/11 – 1973

2011-09-10T06:37:00.000-05:00

In recent days, and continuing through tomorrow,there have been numerous newspaper articles and radio & TV programs aboutthe terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Since there is already so much in the mediathis week about the tenth anniversary of those attacks, I decided to writeabout events on 9/11 twenty-eight years earlier, in 1973.

As horrific as9/11/01 was, and with respect for the victims’ families, I am writing about9/11/73 partly to help us realize that we in this country are not the only onesto have been victims of terror.

Salvadore Allende (b.1908) was elected president of the South American country of Chile in 1970.That was an attention-grabbingoccurrence,for he was the firstdemocratically elected Marxist to become president of a country in theAmericas.

Allende’s electionwas of grave concern to U.S. political leaders—and to the many U. S. companies(especially IT&T and the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies) withheavy investments in Chile.

The U.S. government,as well as the U.S. companies, spent millions of dollars trying to keep Allendefrom being elected. Having failed to prevent his election, they began to workfor his overthrow. President Nixon reportedly told Richard Helms, the Directorof the CIA, to do whatever was necessary “to get rid of” Allende.

Although it wasdenied for years, it became clear, especially after certain documents weredeclassified in 1998, that the CIA and U.S. companies were involved behind thescenes in the overthrow of the Allende government on 9/11/73 and that theydirectly supported the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet(1915-2006), who led the coup d’etat.

President Allendeapparently died by suicide on that 9/11, choosing that means of death ratherthan the imprisonment, torture, and likely execution that would have occurredwhen his government was overthrown by military violence.

There were around3,000 deaths caused by the terrorists on 9/11/01. The events in Chile on9/11/73 began a period of terror for many Chileans (as well as for some North Americansand other foreigners living in Chile) that resulted in an even greater numberof deaths there.

As late as 2000, aBBC newscast said, “According to an official report, more than 3,000 peoplewere killed under General Pinochet’s regime and more than 1,000 are stillunaccounted for.”

A few days ago (forat least the third time) I watched Missing,the 1982 movie starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. That sad movie is basedon the true story of Charles Horman (1942-1973), an American journalist who wasone of the victims of the 9/11/73 coup in Chile.

Not only werethousands of Chileans killed by the ruthless military junta and government ledby Pinochet, at least three North Americans “disappeared” (were executed) aswell. Horman was one of those, killed eight days after the coup, even thoughhis death was not acknowledged until weeks later.

So, today andtomorrow as we once again grieve the death and destruction caused by theterrorist attacks of 9/11/01, let us also remember the many Chilean, as well assome American, families who still grieve their loss because of the events ofanother 9/11.

“Charter for Compassion”

2011-09-05T07:50:00.003-05:00

Karen Armstrong, an Englishwoman who was once a Roman Catholic nun, first rose toprominence in 1993 with her book, A History ofGod: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, aninternational best seller. She has written several widely-read books sincethen.

In 2008 Armstrong(b. 1944) received the $100,000 TED Prize. She used that windfall to call forthe creation of a Charter for Compassion,which was unveiled the following year. (TED,Technology Entertainment and Design, is a global set of conferencesowned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, formed to disseminate“ideas worth spreading.”)

The Charter forCompassion was created online by the general public and crafted by leadingthinkers in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. In November2009 it was signed by a thousand religious and secular leaders—and now by over75,000 more people, including me. The charter has been translated into morethan thirty languages.

The Charter’s first(of four) paragraph states:

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of allreligious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat allothers as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to worktirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethroneourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honor theinviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, withoutexception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

That statement, and the paragraphs that follow it,express noble sentiments, indeed. (You can read the whole charter by clickingon this link.)

Armstrong’s mostrecent book is Twelve Steps to aCompassionate Life (2010). On the first page of the Preface, she declares, “Oneof the chief tasks of our time must surely be to build a global community inwhich all peoples can live together in mutual respect.” I certainly agree.

But I also wonderwhy no mention is made of the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, about which Iposted last time. (Did she need to “re-invent the wheel”?)

Unfortunately, somein our society don’t seem to be much in favor of compassion, including somepolitical leaders. Gov. Perry, for example, criticizes liberals who seek to advance“a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion” (Fed Up! p. 13). Later in the same book he strongly criticizesPresident Bush’s (W’s) “Compassionate Conservatism” (p. 143).

Ayn Rand, thedarling of some prominent politicians today, was no supporter of compassion.And back in 2004, the president of the Ayn Rand Center of Individual Rights,railed against the Bush Administration's war in Iraq for embracing compassion(You can read the article here.)

Armstrong, though, contendsthat “to wish for your enemy’s well-being and happiness” is “the supreme testof compassion” (p. 185). Loving one’s enemies as one loves oneself sounds likesomething I have heard somewhere else.

Do those words notapply to nations or to politicians?

Note:For you in the D.C. area, Dr. Armstrong will lead a forum on compassion atWashington National Cathedral on the morning of September 11. For you who livein the (north) Kansas City area, the Vital Conversations book discussion groupwill be discussing the last half of Dr. Armstrong’s book at their regularmonthly meeting (at the Mid-Continent Public Library in Gladstone), from 1:00to 2:30 on Wednesday, September 14.

“Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”

2011-08-30T07:22:00.000-05:00

Can the religionsof the world work together for the good of all people, or do they often fight,sometimes even violently, against each other. The answer is Yes.

Throughout thehistory of the world, including very recent times, there have been clashesbetween people of different religions. (When analyzed carefully, though, mostof those conflicts have been more political and ethnic battles than religious clashesas such.)

But for a long timenow, some leaders of the world religions have worked together for betterunderstanding and the good of society as a whole. One of the firstinternational meetings for interreligious discussion was the World’s Parliamentof Religions in 1893. That meeting was held in Chicago as part of the World’sColumbian Exposition, a World’s Fair to celebrate the 400^thanniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the New World in 1492.

Leaders from the ten great religions of that time spoke. Their addresses and many other talks were published in The Dawn of Religions Pluralism: Voices from the World's Parliament of Religions, 1893 (1993). Much of that lengthy book is available at this link.

The Parliament of the World’s Religions, a centennial commemorative meeting,was held in 1993 and it was also in Chicago. Over 8,000 people from all overthe world and from many diverse religions gathered to celebrate, discuss andexplore how religious traditions can work together on the critical issues whichconfront the world.

The idea of aglobal ethic was the main theme of the 1993 gathering, and at the close of thatmeeting, on September 4, the “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic” was signed bymany of the religious and spiritual leaders present. (The complete 15-page textof the Declaration can be found here.)

Mainly drafted by Hans Küng,the German theologian, the Declaration identifies four essential affirmationsas shared principles essential to a global ethic.

Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
Commitment to aculture of equal rights and partnership between men and women

Those are fourhighly desirable commitments.

But how has theworld done in living by the global ethic since 1993? Not very well, I’m afraid.Just eight years later, led largely by militant Muslims, terrorists tragicallyattacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And the U.S. retaliated bythe war on terrorism in Afghanistan, which continues to this day.

In March 2003, lessthan ten years later, the U.S., supported in part by (can we say) militantChristians, began the preemptive war on Iraq. In contrast to the 3,000 killedby the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there have been over 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003!

Still, theDeclaration Toward a Global Ethic points to worthy goals, which should be warmlyembraced, widely advocated, and implemented as fully as possible. And there aresigns of hope, such as in the numerous, mostly non-violent (from the side ofthe protesters) Arab Spring activities, for example.

But progress is slow.How much closer, one wonders, will the world be toward living by a global ethiceven in 2093?

The Challenge of the Classroom

2011-08-25T06:05:00.004-05:00

The new academic year began last week for primary and secondary schools in this part of the world, and most colleges/universities in the area began classes this week. Once again both teachers and students face the challenge of the classroom.

After nearly three months of “freedom,” young students face the restrictions required for classroom decorum and the necessity of having to concentrate on doing their schoolwork. Teachers have to struggle with the problem of discipline in the classroom and getting the students engaged in the learning process. That always has been quite a challenge, but perhaps even more so now than in the past.

Even though they face various challenges, teachers, both good teachers and those who aren’t so good, have a lasting impact on their students. I still remember, mostly with fondness and gratitude, all of my grade school teachers.

On the Internet I was able to find the birth and death dates as well as the burial places for each of my grade school teachers from the third grade, my first year in Worth County (MO), through the eighth grade. I was surprised to discover that even though, with one exception, I thought they were quite old when I was in their classrooms, that wasn’t the case at all!

I probably don’t remember all of my high school teachers and would not be able to find out information about each of them, for some of them were not from Worth County and did not remain in the area. But I do remember most of them, and I am also grateful for the influence they had on my life.

The same is true, of course, for my college and seminary professors. And I am very pleased that a couple of them are regular readers of this blog. I am also happy that a number of my former students also read this blog.

My experience as a teacher is all on the college and seminary level, which is quite different from primary and secondary education. Still, the college classroom has its unique challenges for both students and professors.

Except for my first full year of “retirement,” I have taught college or seminary courses every year since 1968. And there certainly have been challenges, especially when I started teaching and had to lecture completely in Japanese!

But I enjoyed my years of teaching in Japan, especially after making it through those difficult first five years or so. And it was a pleasure to teach (in English!) in three different schools in Missouri during “furloughs” from Japan.

Since the fall of 2006 I have greatly enjoyed teaching one course each semester at Rockhurst University in Kansas City. I teach one section of the required course Christianity II: Development. This semester I will be using a different textbook than I have used in the previous five years. It is Mark Ellingsen’s Reclaiming Our Roots: An Inclusive Introduction to Church History; Volume II: From Martin Luther to Martin Luther King, Jr. (1999).

I can’t wait to get to my classroom this evening, the first class of the new semester, and once again confront the challenge of the classroom.

Is Compromise a Dirty Word?

2011-08-20T07:57:00.000-05:00

Compromise is “a rather complex issue that deserves serious thought.” So I wrote in an August 5 comment following that day’s blog posting inwhich I cited Max Weber’s oft-quoted statement, “politics is the art of compromise.”

In March of this year, speaking to a small group of collegestudents, President Obama candidly and openly emphasized the importance ofcompromise. Part of that conversation is included in an article by DavidPlouffe, a Senior Advisor to the President (available for viewing/readinghere.)

Plouffe’s brief article closes with these words: “Compromise isn’t a dirty word—in fact, it’sthe only way our democracy can get big things done.”

The President made similar statements about compromise severaltimes in July. And earlier this week,speaking in Iowa, President Obama reiterated, “Congress has to getthe message that compromise isn’t a dirty word.”

But last Sunday, on a CNN interview, Rep. Michele Bachmanndeclared, “On big issues, I don’tcompromise my core sets of principles.”

In some ways that is a commendable attitude. I think peopleought to stand up for their principles—but only when they are they are the onlyones affected by that resolute stance. It is different for politicians orothers acting in the public arena.

One of Rep. Bachmann’s core principles seems to be notraising taxes on anybody and not raising the debt ceiling, which was necessary inorder for the U.S. to make its payments on money already borrowed. So she votedNo on the compromise debt ceiling bill.

But there were a number of liberals who also voted No on thesame compromise bill. They, for good reason, did not want to pass the bill thatprovided no additional revenue.

For Rep. Bachmann and those on the political far right,compromise is evidently thought to be a dirty word. The same is true for thoseon the political far left.

“Emphasis on Not Compromising” isone subsection of my book Fed Up withFundamentalism (pp. 68-72). Unwillingness to compromise is one of the most commoncharacteristics of fundamentalists. That is true for “fundamentalist liberals”also.

Often the choice is not betweengood and bad. Sometimes the choice is between the good (not the best) andsomething worse. Or often it is a choice between options, neither of which is“good.” But if our only choice, as sometimes is the case, is between two“evils,” is not choosing the lesser of two evils good?

If we are making choices only forourselves and the course of action we will take, a course that does notdirectly affect others, we can be idealistic and stay true to our principlesand refuse to compromise. Such action is, I believe, virtuous.

But when we are in a groupsetting, and especially if we are in a position of leadership orresponsibility, the matter is different. We have to consider the good of thewhole group, not just our personal commitments.

In a group setting, it is a bitarrogant to say, by word or by deed (vote), My way or no way.

The “purists” are loath tocompromise, but in the public arena they sometimes cause the good to failbecause it wasn’t what they considered to be the best.

Individually, we should alwaysbeware of the good becoming an enemy of the best. But sometimes, especially in thepublic arena, stubbornly seeking the best can become an enemy of the good.

Atomic Bombs and Balloon Bombs

2011-08-15T06:09:00.004-05:00

Sixty-six years ago today, on August 15, 1945, the long andbloody war with Japan finally came to an end. By a nationwide radio broadcast alittle after noon (JapanStandard Time)on that day, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s acceptance of the terms of thePotsdam Declaration.

VJ Day and the end ofWorld War II came when it did largely because of the U.S. dropping two atomicbombs: on Hiroshima on August 6 and on Nagasaki three days later.

Although there wereactually more causalities from the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945,than from the bombing of Nagasaki, the instantaneous deaths and devastationcaused by “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, the two atomic bombs, is trulymind-boggling.

Just this year I havelearned about the balloon bombs made by the Japanese and sent by wind currentstoward the United States, bombs strikingly different from atomic bombs.

You may have knownabout this before, but I was surprised to learn that in May 1945 a pregnantwoman and five children on a church picnic were killed by one of the over 9,000balloon bombs launched by Japan in 1944-45.

Elsye Mitchell (26)and the five Sunday School students (ages 11-14) from the church in Bly,Oregon, where Elsye’s husband, Archie, was the pastor were the only WWIIcausalities of U.S. citizens on American soil. (In 1941 when Pearl Harbor wasattacked, Hawaii was not yet a part of the United States.)

Elsye and thechildren got out of the car in a park on Gearheart Mountain, while Archie droveon to find a parking spot. As they were looking for a good picnic spot, theysaw a strange balloon lying on the ground. As the group approached the balloon,a bomb attached to it exploded and Elsye and all five children were killed.

Earlier this summer Iread An Ocean Between Us (1994), amost interesting book about the relationship between Japan and a small area inthe state of Washington. Evelyn Iritani, the author, is an American woman bornto a Japanese-American father and a Japanese mother. In her book she relatesfour encounters between Japanese and people living in or around Port Angeles,Washington.

One of those storiesis about Elyse (Winters) Mitchell, who was from Port Angeles.

Iritani also writesabout Reiko Okada, a Japanese girl about the same age as the older childrenkilled in the bomb explosion in Oregon. Reiko worked in a balloon bomb“factory” during the war. Iritani tells movingly about the Japanesepeople who through the years have expressed sorrow for the deaths caused by theballoon bomb.

There is now aMitchell Monument erected near the spot of the Oregon tragedy, and severalcherry trees have been planted around the monument as a symbol of peace.

Whether it is thedeaths of tens of thousands caused by two atomic bombs or the death of just afew by a lone balloon bomb—or whether it is the deaths of people in Japan orOregon in 1945 or in Afghanistan or Iraq in 2011—the loss of life, andespecially of non-combatants, in war is tragic indeed.

Will we humans neverlearn to co-exist in peace?

Remembering Nagasaki

2011-08-10T06:00:00.004-05:00

Itwas on August 9 sixty-six years ago thatFat Man, the second atomic bomb to be used in war, was dropped on the city ofNagasaki.

Through theyears I have been to Nagasaki many times, and two or three times on 8/9.One of the most memorable times was in 1982, when my family and I went toNagasaki just three days after I had been stabbed (and which I wrote abouthere).

(There werethose who thought I should have stayed home to nurse my wounds, but I am nevermuch inclined to change plans. We put many of the get-well-soon flowersreceived from Japanese friends in the refrigerator and set out for Nagasaki todo what we had planned.)

Late Sundayafternoon on August 8, 1982, I attended the World Conference against Atomic & Hydrogen Bombs, which had been held the first time in Hiroshima in 1955. Conferences have been held regularly since that first one, including this year on August 6 in Hiroshima and on August 9, in Nagasaki.

Then on that Mondaymorning we sat in the hot sun with hundreds and hundreds of Japanese people,remembering the death and destruction caused by Fat Man 37 years earlier at11:02 a.m.

The previous morningwe had attended worship at the Nagasaki Baptist Church. I don’t remember when theservice began then, but in recent years the Sunday morning service is scheduledto start at 11:02 each week.

There was something notably new at this year’s Nagasaki activities. The JapanTimes reported on August 8 that the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo had announced theday before that on Tuesday (8/9) the U.S. would for the first time send arepresentative to Nagasaki’s annual peace memorial ceremony marking the 1945 atomicbombing of the city.

JamesZumwalt, the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Japan, said regarding his upcoming visit, “I am honored to bethe first U.S. representative to attend the Peace Memorial in Nagasaki, and toexpress my respect for all the victims of World War II. The United States looksforward to continuing to work with Japan to advance President Obama's goal ofrealizing a world without nuclear weapons.”

The August 9events in Nagasaki are held in Peace Park, which includes the 10-meter-tall PeaceStatue (pictured below) created by sculptor Seibou Kitamura from NagasakiPrefecture. The statue’s right hand points to the threat of nuclear weaponswhile the extended left hand symbolizes eternal peace. The impressive statuewas completed and erected in 1955, ten years after the bomb killed about 75,000people and injured about the same number.

The ceremoniesheld in memory of the victims of the atomic bombs of the past are over foranother year. The hard task of working for the elimination of nuclear weaponsin the world still lies ahead.

The Art of Compromise

2011-08-05T06:13:00.004-05:00

Compromise was finally victorious, although there were several days when it seemed that partisanship and intransigence were going end up being triumphant.

I am speaking about the debt ceiling crisis, which was finally averted on August 2, the day of the deadline. The U.S. House of Representatives voted the day before to pass the compromise bill by a rather decisive vote, 269-161. Then on Tuesday the Senate also passed the bill decisively, 74-26.

It is noteworthy that in the House there were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans against the bill and in the Senate there were 19 Republicans and six Democrats (and one Independent) who voted No—but for opposite reasons. Right-wing Republicans voted against it because it did not cut enough, whereas left-wing Democrats voted against it because it provided no additional revenue and because of fear that there were needy people who would be hurt by the cuts.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat from Kansas City, called the bill “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” (whatever that means) and voted against it. Representing the district just below Kansas City, Republican Vicky Hartzler, about whom I wrote recently, also voted against it, asserting that the bill “has the wrong priorities for my district and for America.”

On Monday I heard and read strong criticism of the passage of the debt ceiling bill from both the Right and the Left. That is one indication that the bill was a compromise, for compromise means that neither side is satisfied. (House Speaker Boehner did say, however, that he got 98% of what he wanted.)

But who compromised the most? I think it is clear that the President and the Democrats made the greater compromise. Some have even said that Obama is now characterized not by “Yes I can” but by “Yes I cave.” But what other choice did he have? He had to do what was best for the country, and it became apparent that the right-wing Republicans in the House were not going to make any compromise.

Last week’s cover, and cover story, of The Economist is “Turning Japanese,” a serious criticism of President Obama and German Chancellor Merkle and their lack of sufficient leadership (and an embarrassment to Japan). But that news journal’s strongest criticism is of Republican congressmen [sic] who “have recklessly used [the debt ceiling] as a political tool to embarrass Barack Obama.”

In that same July 29^th issue is an article called “Red means recalcitrant,” which is based on a survey which indicates that Republicans are far less willing to compromise than Democrats. And that is what we saw played out in weeks prior to the August 1-2 vote in the U.S. Congress.

In 1919, the German economist and sociologist Max Weber wrote an essay (“Politics as a Vocation”) in which he stated that politics is the art of compromise and decision-making based on social benefits weighed against costs. Political action, Weber argued, cannot be rooted only in conviction, since one person’s conviction can be another’s social anathema. Thus, a politician should combine the ethic of ultimate ends with an ethic of responsibility.

It can certainly be argued that the latter is what the President did and what most Republican congresspersons were almost completely unwilling to do. It is sad when politicians lose the art of compromise. But that seems to be the case for a large number of U.S. politicians at the present time.

Politics and Prayer

2011-07-30T06:15:00.002-05:00

James Richard(Rick) Perry, the current governor of Texas, may well be the Republican nominee forPresident in 2012. Gov. Perry (b. 1950) has not announced his candidacy. But heis getting high rankings in the polls and has strong backing from conservativeChristians across the nation.

I envisioned this column before hearing about Gov. Perrypossibly running for the presidency. Several months ago he proclaimed August 6as a “solemn day of prayer and fasting on behalf of our troubled nation.”

All of the other governors of the nation have reportedlybeen invited to the prayer meeting, and I have (from the Internet, of course) acopy of the letter Gov. Perry wrote, on official stationery, to the governor ofAlabama on May 18. The official announcement about the prayer meeting was madeon May 23.

As far as I have been able to determine, only two governorshave accepted Gov. Perry’s invitation: Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), and Gov.Bobby Jindal (R-Lousiana). Gov. Gary Herbert (R-Utah) sent regrets butsigned a proclamation supporting Perry’s event.

To promote the prayer meeting, Gov. Perry has created awebsite, “The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis.” On thatwebsite, the Houston Reliant Stadium event is described as “anon-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting.”

The “host entity” for the August 6 prayer meeting is theAmerican Family Association (AFA), whose founder and chairman emeritus is Rev.Donald E. Wildmon, an influential conservative (fundamentalist) Christianleader.

The Responsewebsite indicates that it has adopted the AFA statement of faith. That meansthat the prayer meeting is clearly intended only for Christians, and even manymoderate or liberal Christians would not be able to agree with the AFAstatement.

A few weeks ago,Interfaith Alliance President Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, a fellow Baptist ministerwhom I have known since we were in seminary together, called on Gov. Perry torefrain from using his public office for religious purposes. Rev. Gaddy wrote,

“Governor Perry’s call for governors around the countryto join him in prayer and fasting this August raises serious concerns about hiscommitment to the boundaries between religion and government. It has been myexperience that when elected leaders invoke religion in this way, it almostalways has more to do with furthering a political agenda than a religious one.”

I agree withWelton.

Certainly, I havenothing against prayer, and I would not at all discourage politicians frompraying. But that praying needs to be done primarily in their own “closet” andnot publicly at a 70,000-seat football stadium.

I fully agree with Welton’sclosing statement as well: “At the veryleast, I would hope that Governor Perry publicly confirms that no governmentfunds or resources are now or will be in the future used to further thisspiritual rally.”

As I wrotepreviously, there is a very close tie between conservative Christians and theRepublican Party. And now it looks suspiciously like Gov. Perry is using,within the Republican Party, a public prayer meeting for political purposes. Ifso, that is far from commendable.

Hitting the Ceiling

2011-07-25T07:54:00.003-05:00

TuesdayAugust 2 is, as has beenwidely publicized, the deadline by which the U.S. Congress must raise thenation’s debt ceiling limit in order to keep the country from defaulting on itsloan obligations.

At this point, it is by no means certain that theCongress will vote soon enough to increase the debt ceiling. And some people, forgood reason, are hitting the ceiling about that.

Some are hitting the ceiling because of the highlyirresponsible position of the Tea Party congresspersons who have made it clearthey will not vote to raise the ceiling no matter what. Rep. Michele Bachmannis one of those, and she has probably ruined any chance of receiving theRepublican presidential nomination because of her intransigent position.

Others are hitting the ceiling because of theconditions linked to a promise to vote for raising the debt ceiling. Thoseconditions are related to the “cap, cut, and balance” bill that was, foolishly,passed by the House last week.

The problem is that the House Republicans’ proposalfor cutting is not only of wasteful and unneeded government programs but also acutting of Social Security benefits and cutting Medicare and Medicaid. On The Ed Show last Thursday, Ed Shultz was hitting the ceiling because he thought thePresident was “caving in” to proposed cuts in “the big three.”

While “hitting the ceiling” may be too strong anexpression, a number of Christians, led by Jim Wallis (editor-in-chief of Sojourners), met with the President lastweek. They pleaded that cuts not be made which would negatively affect the poorand needy.

Wallis and his friends are a part of a group knownas the Circle of Protection, which has been signed by many denominationalleaders. Daniel Vestal, ExecutiveCoordinator, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, is one of the signers. (Manyreaders of this blog know, or know of, Dr. Vestal.)

I have also joined the Circle,which states, in part, “We are . .. committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rightsof poor and vulnerable people.”

Some Democratshave even been sending Republican congresspersons appeals from PresidentReagan. During Reagan’s two terms, he presided over eighteen increases in the debt ceiling. He even publicly scoldedCongress for playing hardball politics with the debt limit and bringing thenation “to the edge of default before facing its responsibility.”

It was in 1983 that Reagan “hit the ceiling,”declaring that "The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate."

But now, just eight days before the deadline, somecongresspersons, like Rep. Bachmann, are saying they will not vote for raisingthe debt ceiling no matter what. Many others are seeking to “blackmail” thePresident by saying they will vote for it only if their conditions are met.

Some are so irresponsible as to even say thatdefaulting is no big deal and might even help the country! And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has even suggested that the deadline was set for August 2 justso the matter would be settled in time for the President to celebrate hisbirthday with an extravagant fund-raising bash on August 3.

Maybe if we are not hitting the ceiling because ofthe government’s failure to raise the national debt ceiling we ought to be!

The Dalai Lama and “the Opium of the People”

2011-07-20T06:54:00.005-05:00

Karl Marx wrote, “Religion is thesigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it isthe spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people” (in Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843).

It was particularly Christianity that Marx had in mind when he pennedthose oft-quoted words, for Christianity was clearly the dominant religion ofEurope and Great Britain at the time. And to a certain degree Marx’s analysis wascorrect: most forms of popular Christianity at the time were individualisticand “other-worldly.” The focus of faith was on inner peace in the present andeternal bliss in the future.

Marx’s assertion about religion was also applicable to the religioustradition of India and Tibet (Hinduism and Buddhism). Through the centuries(millennia), those religions have stressed inner tranquility far, far more thansocial action.

In recent decades, there has been a new type of Buddhism, oftenreferred to as engaged Buddhism (or sometimes socially-engagedBuddhism). This movement is particularly linked to the Vietnamese Thien(Zen) Buddhist monk ThichNhat Hanh. But it is, clearly, a new form of Buddhism.

To a limited degree, the Dalai Lama has been linked with engagedBuddhism. But I did not get that impression from his public talk in D.C. on July 9 or fromhis essay titled “AHuman Approach to World Peace” about which I wrote in my previous posting.

In fact, it seems thatthe Dalai Lama’s emphasis was much too individualistic, and his stress on innerhappiness (regardless of the outward circumstances) was the kind of viewpointthat Marx was referring to when he called religion “the opium of the people.”

The emphasis on theindividual and inner peace was long a feature of popular Christianity, to besure. That was seen, for example, in Billy Graham’s Peace with God: The Secret Happiness (1953).

Perhaps that “fault” is even greater in Tibetan Buddhism, however. Meditationis its foundational practice. (The same is true for traditional Zen.)But here is the problem: meditation can be, and often is, an escape from thelarger world rather than preparation for active engagement in seeking to solvethe problems of society now.

There needs to be a two-way movement, such as Elizabeth O’Connor articulatedwell in her seminal book Journey Inward,Journey Outward (1968). Meditation or other means of cultivating the“inner” life, emphasis on what now is often called spirituality, is of great importance. But the “journey outward” is equallyimportant.

Many Christians, doubtlessly, have not adequately implemented that neededtwo-way movement. But in his recent public talks as well in his previousessays, the Dalai Lama has not adequately dealt with the “nitty-gritty” ofengagement with the problems of society either.

It is well and good for the Tibetan Buddhist leader to declare that “we must generate a good and kind heart, forwithout this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting worldpeace.” But to emphasize the development of a compassionate heart without achallenge to engage in societal change is, perhaps, to foster a mentality thatproves largely to be “opium” for contemporary people.

Questioning the Dalai Lama

2011-07-15T04:51:00.002-05:00

Tenzin Gyatso(b. 1935) is known around the worldas the Dalai Lama. He has been in town this week, and I could have gone to hearhim speak.

The “town” mentioned is Washington, D.C., andthe Dalai Lama has spoken Verizon Center in D.C. daily since July 6. His finalappearance there (this time) is tomorrow. During most of these days I have beenstaying in a D.C. suburb, so I could have easily gone to one of his gatherings.

Sunday morning I even had a free ticket in myhand, but gave it back as I had already decided not to go.

I probably would have gone if I could havemet him personally and said, “Hello, Dalai!” (This is probably an irreverentpun, but I am enough of a latent Quaker to dislike ranking peoplehierarchically, with some “properly” addressed only as Your Highness.)

My decision not to go was largely based on anexamination of why I would go. It seemed that being able to “boast” later thatI had seen and heard the Dalai Lama was the main reason for going. So I decidedjust to listen to his July 9 talk on YouTube and read “A Human Approach toWorld Peace,” his essay first published in 1984.

To be honest, I am not very favorablyimpressed with what the Dalai Lama has to say. But I can see why he is quitepopular in this country (and around the “developed” world). His message isappealing to those who tend to believe that personal and societal happiness canbe achieved by people thinking correctly and trying harder.

The Dalai Lama proclaims that “we mustgenerate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neitheruniversal happiness nor lasting world peace.” That may well be true, but how dowe go about generating such a heart?

Traditional Buddhism emphasizes the “eightfoldpath,” but the Dalai Lama claims he is not trying to convert people toBuddhism. Still, he sees the basic human problem through Buddhist eyes. Hewrites, “The great [religious] teachers wanted to lead their followers awayfrom the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them topaths of goodness.”

But according to the traditional Christianworldview, the human predicament is not rooted in ignorance; it is due to sin.And the solution is not enlightenment (a freeing from ignorance) butforgiveness and redemption linked to repentance. Such a perspective, though, isbecoming harder and harder to “sell” in our narcissistic culture. Many people seemto like the Dalai Lama’s ideas better; they would rather meditate than repent.

And they would rather seek to save themselvesthan to trust someone else to save them. The Dalai Lama acknowledges that somepeople “prefer Buddhism” because “everything depends upon your own actions.” Thatappeals to those who want to be master of their own fate.

But is there no need for a Savior? Do wehumans only need a guide to show us the way to live?

There are more questions I have about theDalai Lama’s message, and I will likely continue these musings on the July 20posting.

Note: Most of the quotes in this posting are from“A Human Approach to World Peace,” which can be found here. His July 9 talk isavailable at this link.

"The Girl in the Picture"

2011-07-10T05:00:00.002-05:00

Kim Phuc was longknown as “the girl in the picture” before she was widely knownby her personal name.

Phan Thi Kim Phúc (b. 1963) was the girl in the Pulitzer Prize-winningpicture taken on June 8, 1972, by AP photographer Nick Ut. That graphic pictureshows Kim at nine years of age running naked on a road out of her village inSouth Vietnam after being severely burned on her back and arms by a napalm bombattack.

About ten yearslater, Ms. Phuc was admitted to medical school in Saigon, but was withdrawn bythe Vietnamese government who wanted to use her for propaganda purposes. Partlybecause of her unhappiness with that development, at Christmastime in 1982 sheconverted to Christianity.

In 1986 Kim wassent to study at the University of Havana in Cuba. There she met Bui Huy Toan,another Vietnamese student, and they married in 1992. On the way back to Cubafrom their honeymoon in Moscow, the airplane made a refueling stop inNewfoundland. The newlyweds left the plane and asked for political asylum inCanada, which was granted.

Kim became aCanadian citizen the following year, and she continues to live in Canada withher husband and two sons, who are now 17 and 13.

Last Monday (7/4) Kimwas the keynote speaker at the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America summerconference, which met on the campus of Eastern Mennonite University inHarrisonburg, VA. I had the privilege of attending that conference and ofmeeting Kim and hearing her speak.

I don’t know when Ihave ever seen a more radiant, joyous, sweet-spirited person.

But she hasn’talways been that way. She spent years in physical pain, having seventeenoperations over the twelve years after her injuries. Then, she was bitter athaving been bombed in her village, of having had to suffer so much, and ofhaving to bear such scars on her body.

She eventuallyrealized that to be free she had to learn to forgive. She told the raptaudience who heard her speak last week, “It was hard, but I became free.”

Kim also emphasizedthat “forgiveness is a choice.” And it is a choice she encouraged all herlisteners to make, forgiving anyone and everyone toward whom they harborresentment or grudges.

Since hearing herspeak, I have bought The Girl in the Picture: The Story of KimPhuc, the Photograph, and the Vietnam War (2000), her biography written by Denise Chong. I am eager to learn more of her inspiring story.

From now on when Ihear about Kim Phuc, I will not think of her as “the girl in the picture.”Rather, I will remember her radiant face and her marvelous message on thepower of forgiveness.

And I will rememberher closing words: “Don’t see the little girl calling out in pain and fear. Seeher as crying out for peace.”

What about American Exceptionalism?

2011-07-05T05:25:00.001-05:00

The United States of America celebrated its 235^th birthday yesterday. Across the country, as always, Independence Day was replete with parades, patriotic speeches, and fireworks. I don’t have any trouble with all that (although I would be happy with fewer late night fireworks).

But I do have trouble with the emphasis, not just on July 4 but often, on what is referred to as American exceptionalism.

Make no mistake about it: the U.S. is an exceptional nation in many ways, and there are numerous things to be proud of as a USAmerican. But people from many other countries, rightfully, think that their nation is exceptional with numerous things to be proud of, too.

During a European trip in the spring of 2009, President Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” He has been severely criticized (mostly by right-wing conservatives) for making that statement.

“A Nation Like No Other”: Newt Gingrich’s Manifesto of American Exceptionalism is the title of a book published just last month. A reviewer of the new book says that the President’s 2009 statement is a quote Gingrich “does not so much cite as target.”

Of course, the critics rarely (and Gingrich doesn’t) note that the President went on to say, “I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.” And I am, too.

But there are problems with narcissistic patriotism, as most seems to be. You’ve no doubt heard this definition of patriotism: “the belief that your country is better than everyone else’s because you were born there.”

In the past, certainly the English (British) thought that their country was exceptional, and they set out to spread their superior culture, and territorial possessions, around the world. For example, what once belonged to Native Americans became New England. And it was not without reason that it was once said, “The sun never sets on the British flag.”

The Chinese long thought their country was exceptional. To this day the two written characters used for the name of the nation literally means central kingdom. The Chinese thought they were the center of the world. Consequently, Chinese cultural influence is strong throughout East Asia.

A century ago, the Japanese came more and more to think of their country as exceptional. Based on a new emphasis on the ancient Shinto myths, the military leaders came to believe that Japan was rightfully the country to rule Asia (remember their emphasis on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?) and then the world. Ideas of Japanese exceptionalism was disastrous for their neighboring countries, and, ultimately, for Japan.

But what about exceptionalism in the new country that became the United States of America after July 4, 1776? Among other things, that widespread belief led to the concept of “manifest destiny,” an idea that turned out to mean death for many Native Americans and destruction of much of their culture.

So while celebrating the many exceptional aspects of our beloved nation, let us note, and beware of, the manifold problems that can spring from too much emphasis on exceptionalism.

“Blessed Are the Cynical”

2011-06-30T06:11:00.001-05:00

Mark Ellingsen is a professor of church history at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. He is also the author of many books, including one that I will be using as a text for the first time this fall in the course I teach at Rockhurst University.

Dr. Ellingsen (b. 1949) is a Lutheran pastor, but he is also an Augustinian scholar with a Ph.D. from Yale University. Last week I finished reading his intriguing book, based partly on Augustinian ideas, Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place (2003).

Since Ellingsen uses a lot of statistics about the current American (and world) context, the book already seems a bit dated. However, more up-to-date statistics concerning most of what he writes about would strengthen his arguments, not weaken them.

“Whatever Happened to Original Sin?” is the subtitle Ellingsen uses for the introduction to his book. Here is his conclusion:

This book will show, paradoxically, that when we realize our limits and our insidious motives, we are more likely to be tolerant of our neighbor’s agendas, and more likely to get in the trenches and work to make things better, more likely to appreciate ourselves and the direction of our nation. The more the doctrine of original sin permeates our thinking, the better (though by no means perfect) life in America is likely to be (p. 32).

Ellingsen continually makes references to the American political scene. He contends, for example, that “an Augustinian view of human nature is realistically cynical enough to appreciate that politics is ultimately about power and that you get things done by means of tradeoffs and coalitions in which you engage to get power” (p. 70).

And he ends his book with these words: “Vigilance about the low sides of human nature, a healthy cynicism, improves civic life.”

I have never been much of an enthusiast of cynicism. Just the other day I saw where someone quipped, “to the cynic it doesn’t matter whether the glass is half full (like the optimist says) or half empty (like the pessimist says), for he thinks it is probably polluted anyway.”

But Ellingsen makes an important point: it is wise not to be gullible and even to be on guard against the self-centered bias lurking in the words and deeds of other people—as well as in what we say and do. Being somewhat cynical keeps us from expecting too much from others. Further, a healthy cynicism engenders realism, freeing us from the overly-optimistic Enlightenment viewpoint prevalent today, at least in some circles.

I highly recommend Dr. Ellingsen’s engaging book Blessed are the Cynical.

Three Cheers for Global Zero!

2011-06-25T06:17:00.003-05:00

Global Zero, launched in December 2008, is an international movement working for the phased, verified elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide.

According to their website, “Global Zero members believe that the only way to eliminate the nuclear threat—including proliferation and nuclear terrorism—is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, secure all nuclear materials and eliminate all nuclear weapons: global zero.”

Perhaps you already know about Global Zero. I didn’t until I read the June 16 issue of The Economist. When I learned about what the movement is trying to do, I soon signed on. I encourage others to do the same.

Global Zero’s London “summit” ended yesterday. Yesterday was also the first screenings (in the U.K.) of the new Global Zero film, “Countdown to Zero,” produced by the same Academy Award winning people who did “An Inconvenient Truth.”

At the “2010 Paris Summit,” keynote speaker Secretary George Shultz declared that the growing political support for our shared goal means that we are “entitled to hope and believe that this is an idea whose time has come.”

According to Plowshares Fund (based on the most reliable reports available and updated last month), there are now up to 6,900 operational nuclear weapons in the world today. And note this: 6,650 (96%) of those are possessed by Russia and the United States. (It is not known how many such weapons Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea have.)

There are currently five nations who have nuclear weapons and who have agreed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, these are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China.

There are four other countries who have, or probably have, nuclear weapons but have not signed the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

The two main nations suspected of being actively engaged in developing nuclear weapons are Iran and Syria. That is scary. But I don’t know if it is any scarier than Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea having nuclear weapons. And, it must be remembered, the U.S. is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on a human population.

Last year there was a move to reduce the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons with the signing of the new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) agreement. It was signed in April 2010 and went into effect in February of this year.

That was a significant step in the right direction. Global Zero wants to continue that movement, in four phases, until there is complete elimination of nuclear weapons by 2030.

If I should die at the same age my father did, that would be in 2030. For the sake of my grandchildren (and all the children of the world), I hope and pray that I will live to see the world eradicated of nuclear weapons by then (although I might not be ready to die quite yet!).

There is still very much that must be done in order for the goal to be reached, but Global Zero is working hard to that end. I hope you will join me in saying, Three cheers for Global Zero!

The Bombing of Fukuoka, 6/20/45

2011-06-20T06:11:00.003-05:00

June 20, 1945, was a terrible, terrible day for the people who lived in Fukuoka, Japan.

Fukuoka City, with a metropolitan population much larger than Kansas City, is not well-known in the U.S. But twenty-three years after the end of WWII, Fukuoka became June’s and my home, and we enjoyed living in that beautiful city for thirty-six years.

But it was a terrible place to be on June 20, 1945.

While living in Fukuoka we sometimes heard references to the saturation bombing of the city in 1945. In fact, some friends were always frightened by thunder, for it reminded them of that horrendous June 20. (The bombing actually began less than an hour before midnight on June 19, local time.)

But for some strange reason I never did learn much about the details of the bombing of Fukuoka. Until last year, that is.

Akira Yoshimura (b. 1927) is a bestselling novelist in Japan. His book about Japan in 1945, and later, was published in 1978, and it was translated and published as One Man’s Justice in 2003. Last August I read Yoshimura’s book, and was greatly moved by it.

June 20, 1945, was also not a good day for eight captured U.S. airmen, for they were taken to a schoolyard in Fukuoka (very near where our church used to meet) and beheaded.

Takuya, the main character of Yoshimura’s novel, was a fugitive after the end of the war, for he had given direct orders for beheading two of those captured American flyers and was sought by the Allied occupying forces as a war criminal.

An American friend we knew quite well in Fukuoka has posted on the Internet considerable material about the beheading of those American servicemen. Yoshimura’s novel tells the other side of the story.

By June 20, 1945, there had already been over 20,000 bombing raids on Japan, claiming around 400,000 lives. But most of the attacks on Kyushu, the main southwestern island of Japan, had been limited to military targets—until the Fukuoka bombing.

Most of the nearly 1,000 deaths from that bombing were of defenseless civilians. (That, of course, was also true of the hundreds of thousands killed in August 1945 by the dropping of atomic bombs on two Japanese cities.)

The painful question is why were the U.S. prisoners who were directly related to the bombings that “burnt to death thousands of defenceless old men, women and children” (p. 66) not considered guilty by most Americans whereas the man who ordered the execution of two such flyers was pursued as a war criminal?

Some would say the U.S. airmen were executed without a trial. In that case, why was there such cheering in this country when Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. SEALS? (Admittedly, the scale of bin Laden’s crimes was greater, still . . . .) And won’t there be the same sort of rejoicing if, or when, Muammar Gaddafi, is killed by the NATO forces bombing Libya daily?

I do not condone people taking “justice” into their own hands. But much more strongly, I oppose the bombing of non-combatants (the elderly and children) even in war.

Thus, this is a day of sad remembrance for me for those who were living in Fukuoka in 1945. But today is also a good time to pray for peace, now and in the future.

Nurturing Fathers

2011-06-15T06:25:00.002-05:00

Father’s Day, as you know, will be celebrated this Sunday, June 19.

For maybe understandable reasons, Father’s Day is not nearly as popular as Mother’s Day, and its observance is much more recent. It was not until 1966 that President Johnson issued the first presidential proclamation honoring fathers, designating the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day. It was six years later that President Nixon signed it into law as a permanent national observance.

In this country Father’s Day was first proposed in 1910, but in the early years, even in the 1920s, there was sometimes laughter when observance of such a day was mentioned. There were several reasons for such a response, but one seems to have been that many fathers were not highly involved in the nurture of their children.

Those who raise cattle or horses are well acquainted with the importance of having a good sire for their calves or colts. For good offspring, they know there must be a good bull (or “he cow” as June’s neighbor used to say) or stallion (studhorse).

In registering animals, information about the sire is listed. But the sire is not usually referred to as the father. According to the dictionary, a father is “a man who has begotten a child.” And it is generally assumed that such a man, along with the child’s mother, has the responsibility for the physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being of the child.

Unfortunately, it seems that many men today have become sires, but not fathers in the full sense of the word.

Former Reagan Education Secretary William J. Bennett was one of the speakers I heard at the conference I wrote about on June 5. He talked about “the man problem in American society,” and he lamented, “Men are not marrying, not making the commitments in the way they used to.”

Later this year Bennett’s new 560-page book, The Book of Man: Who Are Men, What Should Men Be, What Should Men Do? will be published. In it I hope he deals helpfully with the importance of men being good fathers. (I will likely disagree with some of his conservative ideas about the relationship of men and women, though.)

The country needs men who will make commitments to help rear children, beginning with the ones they sire. The number of unwed mothers in the U.S. has risen dramatically in recent decades. Nationwide, now more than 40% of the children born have an unwed mother. Some of these, thankfully, do have a father who helps with the demanding task of rearing them. Sadly, many don’t.

You fathers who read this likely have been, and are, good, nurturing fathers, that is, fathers who nurture your children physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

But all of us, men and women alike, probably need to do more to nurture the young men around us toward becoming more responsible fathers. Unfortunately, in American society now there are too many men who are just sires, not fathers in the true sense of the word.

Gay (Same-Sex) Marriage and Polygamous Marriage

2011-06-10T06:18:00.004-05:00

Missouri Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, who defeated longtime (1977-2011) 4^th District Representative Ike Skelton in last fall’s election, has been called, for good reason, “Missouri’s anti-gay zealot.”

Recently Rep. Hartzler (b. 1960) has compared gay (same-sex) marriage to polygamous marriage. She asked, in opposing the idea, “If you just cared about somebody, have a committed relationship, why not allow one man and two women or three women to marry?”

Listening to a local radio station earlier this week, I heard clips of Hartzler’s June 2 talk (at the Eagle Forum in D.C.), which included the above statement, and comments on her talk. The host of the program fully agreed with Hartzler on that point, although he did disagree of some of her later, more outrageous statements.

But is polygamous marriage and same-sex marriage basically the same ethically and to be equally accepted if traditional marriage is not maintained? I think not.

The difference is that of innate orientation. Surely no one can argue that people are born with a polygamous orientation. But there is ample reason to recognize that some people are born with a homosexual orientation. That is the way they are “wired” from birth.

A more serious question might be whether other people are perhaps born with, say, kleptomania or pedophilia. But even if such should be the case, which I seriously doubt, there is no doubt that such “disorders” are harmful to society, just as promiscuity often is. But the same cannot be said for homosexuality, depending on how it is expressed, of course. (There can be, and is, harmful homosexual activity just as there can be, and is, harmful heterosexual activity.)

Hartzler ran the public campaign for Missouri’s anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, which 71 percent of voters approved. Thanks to Hartzler and the many who agreed with her, since 2004 the MO constitution has stipulated: “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

Now seven years later Hartzler is working hard to see that that law remains in MO and that DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act that became federal law in 1996) is defended. She has the full support of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, of course, who join with her in criticizing President Obama. Earlier this year the President concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and so the Justice Department should cease defense of that section in the Act.

(Section 3 of DOMA ends by declaring that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”)

Certainly Representative Hartzler has the right to oppose same-sex marriage, and it is clear that a majority of voting Missourians has agreed with her position in the past, and may still agree with her.

But it is not valid for Hartzler to oppose same-sex marriage by saying that there is no basic difference between approving that and other non-traditional forms of marriage such as polygamy. The two are not the same kind of thing, and we should beware of people who try to equate them in an attempt to “protect” traditional marriage by opposing same-sex marriage.

Whose Freedom? Which Faith?

2011-06-05T06:59:00.009-05:00

Faith and Freedom are two of my longtime commitments and present concerns. But I have serious questions about the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The past two days (June 3-4) I attended the Faith & Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing at a downtown Washington, D.C., hotel. The conference was organized by Ralph Eugene Reed, Jr., and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which he founded in 2009.

Ralph Reed (b. 1961), as many of you remember, was the first executive director of the now-defunct Christian Coalition of America, which was founded by Pat Robertson in 1989 and which Reed headed until 1997.

The speakers at the D.C. conference were mostly conservative Christians, and some were Republican presidential candidates (or potential candidates, past and present), such as Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump. The keynote speaker at last night’s banquet, which I did not attend, was Herman Cain.

Other top Republican leaders who spoke at the conference include House Speaker John Boehner, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and several other U.S. Senators and Representatives. It was a star-studded list of speakers.

But the speakers were all Republicans. And the Christians on the program were all conservatives or fundamentalists. The reported marriage of conservative Christians and the Republican Party appears to be true, and each partner seemed to promise fidelity to the other.

Further, the freedom emphasized was also limited in scope. So the questions arose in my mind, Whose Freedom? Which Faith?

The faith touted at the Faith & Freedom conference was not that of another prominent Christian politician: President Obama. Nor was it the faith of his former pastor, the vilified Jeremiah Wright, or of Wallace Charles Smith, the recently vilified pastor of the Shiloh Baptist Church in D.C. (where the Obamas attended Easter worship) and former president of Palmer (originally Eastern Baptist) Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

The latter all have faith in the same God and the same Savior. But their faith relates differently to the world, and especially to the poor and suffering people of the world and nation. Compassion and help for the needy and the discriminated against is not an apparent concern of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The faith of the Coalition seems different than that of the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, and most “mainline” Protestant denominations including sizable segments of Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists who are not Southern Baptists.

Whose freedom was emphasized at the meeting? Not a lot more than the political freedom of U.S. citizens and, surprisingly, the freedom of the nation of Israel, which the U.S. was called upon to protect.

And, predictably, there was also strong emphasis on the freedom of the “unborn,” as nearly every speaker staunchly opposed abortion. The freedom of women to have the choice to terminate unplanned for and unwanted pregnancies was not only not recognized, it was repeatedly condemned.

Nor was there any recognition of the need for freedom by gay and lesbian persons to have equal civil rights, including marriage. Same-sex marriage was also repeatedly rejected.

At the Faith & Freedom conference, there was also a strong Tea Party emphasis (“debt = slavery”) and even talk about “Teavangelicals,” Tea Party evangelicals, but that is a subject for a future posting.