The audacity to hope…

I’m not sure I can give a poetic, inspiring summery of my feelings today, but I’ll do my best.

I have not really dared to hope in a long time. The last eight years of Bush’s political reign, along with what I believe is the hijacking of my faith by the closed-minded “faithful”, has given me good reason to be in a place of despair. I have watched our nation lose the respect of most of the world, as well as the continued efforts to fight a fraudulent war. I have seen those who claim to love Jesus fight to restrict the freedom of my fellow Americans. I listened, sadly, as the wealthy accused Obama of being a socialist who would redistribute their wealth—wealth that in some cases has prevented others from having even just the basics. No, I did not dare to believe that America would elect a black man and set a course of change for our nation and indeed the world.

It was raining when I woke up this morning. I called Amanda to find out the election results—I was too nervous to keep up with all the polling and predictions last night. But her delightful reply of “Obama” made me happy in spite of the gloomy day outside. I was joyous at the news—so joyous that I have spent the day alternating between smiles and tears. Later, the rain clouds blew off and I felt the sun on my back—I had reason to be hopeful. It’s been so long since that has been true for me.

The definition of selfishness…

On a classic episode of Seinfeld (well, they’re all classic to me), George asks Jerry if it’s so selfish to want to have something to oneself. Jerry replies, “I think that’s the definition of selfishness.”

I couldn’t stop thinking about that remark as I watched an interview this week on Fox News. A panel of three people was being asked questions about healthcare for all Americans. This may have been part of a longer interview about the coming election, but by the time I tuned in, they were on healthcare. A man on the panel began his argument against universal healthcare by stating that he’s not selfish, nor is anyone else who simply wants to keep their “wealth” to themselves. He simply believes that healthcare for others is not his problem. He went on to argue that he shouldn’t have to pay for what others need. Wow. If that’s not selfishness, then I really don’t know what is.

But his argument calls to mind another quote: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “ (Matthew 6:19-21 NIV)

I read an article this week about gay marriage, which was along the same lines as the issue above. The author of the article argued that America couldn’t allow the definition of marriage to be changed. He gave as his reason that marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege. No one has the guarantee or right to get married, he wrote, and society gets to decide who is granted the privilege of marriage.

Hum, the privilege to have healthcare and the privilege to enter into one of the most satisfying relationships possible. All of that reminds me of yet another quote: “Quakers believe that since all people embody the same divine spark, all people deserve equal and fair treatment” (from Wikipedia).

My faith in Jesus and my faith as a Quaker prohibit me from seeing some people as more worthy than others. I could never argue that my taxes shouldn’t go up so that those less fortunate than myself can have access to healthcare, just like I will not argue that a loving adult couple shouldn’t have the right to be married as I am. To do that would be to distinguish between the worth of one individual over another, and that is the opposite of what Christ teaches.

“I’m a Values Voter”

Those aren’t my words. I heard a woman proudly proclaim them on NPR this morning. When pressed for what values she was speaking of, she said that she voted for life, and she was against the “gay marriage thing”. “One man and one woman”, she happily offered. She went on to say that McCain’s values are her values. I wonder if that includes secrecy, lies, and abuse of power—all things that seem to be valued on the McCain-Palin ticket.

But being a so-called values voter brings up an interesting issue. Simply because I support a woman’s right to choose, as well as the right for a gay couple to marry, does this mean I have no values? If I used her criteria, then I suppose it would. Yet, everyone has values. Whether it be power, prestige, material goods, or the more noble values such as human rights, animal welfare, or equality. All are values—the only thing that differentiates them is the people who hold them.

The woman on NPR concluded her mini-interview by stating, “God bless McCain, and God bless America!” It made me wonder if she’s thought of perhaps holding the value of humility. She didn’t demonstrate that, of course. Instead, she showed self-righteousness. But, I suppose that’s a value as well…

Eatin’ my words…

Well, I had to make a decision this week, and now I’m prepared to share it with you. Despite my earlier declarations, I am going to eat my words, and now I’m back to backin’ Obama. Why did I come back? One word—Palin.

I have spent a lot of time discussing politics here lately, but this is supposed to be a spiritual blog, so I’m giving a spiritual reason as to why I jumped back onto the Obama wagon. Sarah Palin represents all that is, in my opinion, wrong with fundamental beliefs of any religious system. She claims to support women and their progress, yet doesn’t think they should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. This is a problem, because in case Palin hasn’t noticed, not everyone is a Christian. What is one to do if they find themselves pregnant and observing a faith other than the one Palin subscribes to? Palin wants all to observe life from a Christian perspective, but would she want to have to observe life from a Buddhist perspective? Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about? Now, I certainly believe some rules are good for all, regardless of faith—such as not killing another person. And personally, I don’t know if I could abort my own child, as I do believe life begins at conception. However, I am extremely uncomfortable with telling others what to do with their bodes, and I think such restrictive laws (as Palin would have) actually go against the tremendous freedom that God gives us. Some may argue that the Bible instructs Christians to help one another in their walk. Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians that “if someone in your group does something wrong, you who are spiritual should go to that person and gently help make him/her right again” (Galatians 6:1). And I realize that is what Palin and others are trying to do by making abortion against the law. But, they are missing a critical point here—Paul said specifically someone in “your group”. Group—in this case, Christians—would mean others that share your belief system. Are we to impose our ways on everyone, whether they are in our faith community or not? I don’t think so.

Palin is also not going to be a poster child for the environment or the welfare of animals any time soon. A person who happily endorses shooting wolves from a helicopter is not being a good steward of God’s planet and his animals. God instructed us to care for the land and its occupants, not brutalize it.

Finally, Palin has strange tendencies—such as a curiosity about the procedure for banning a book from the library—which I think are inconsistent with the freedom we supposedly espouse in this country. Her “quirks”, as they are, are directly related to her fundamental faith, a religion she wears on her sleeve. But somehow, compassion, a concern for the least among us (health insurance for the poor, any one?), humility, and the maturity to understand that we don’t all believe in the same things, are lost on her.

I can no more protest this election than I can sit back and be comfortable with fundamentalists hijacking my faith. I don’t call myself a Christian, but I do love Jesus and strive to be like him. Yet, I would not impose my belief system on others. If I want folks to see the Jesus I see, then I must be what I want to be seen. I can’t beat others over the head with threats, fearful speeches, and laws. And when I use that stick to measure who I’d want in office, then Obama is really the only choice. Male running mate or not.

The Palin Problem

I apologize for my silence this week. I have been following the Palin story very closely, and wanted to get my thoughts together before ranting.
Let me begin by saying that Palin is indeed very beautiful and down to earth. She adds a vibrancy to the Republican ticket that no old white man ever could--perhaps that is why she has upstaged her running mate so well. But, beauty and the "she's just like us" qualities aside, Palin is a big problem. To begin, she is an evangelical Christian who appears to be unable to set her literal Bible beliefs and proselytizing aside. It would be different if she were religious, but I think she is simply more of the standard Christian Right, focused on rhetoric and agenda rather than upholding the values of freedom and liberty. Palin wears her religion on her sleeve, not unlike Bush, and I'm not convinced that such frankness really equates with genuine spiritual discipline. Palin simultaneously defends the war in Iraq as necessary so that our freedom (in jeopardy due to those 'who hate us') is not lost, while being a staunch anti-choice advocate. Hum--the freedom to be born, but not the freedom to choose what is right for one's body and life.
She isn't for gay marriage either, another freedom one would assume would be allowed in a democracy. I'm not sure we really live in a democracy, considering the 2000 election debacle, but Palin apparently does and said as much in her interview with Charlie Gibson.
Palin is hazy on foreign policy, doesn't understand the Bush Doctrine (well, I didn't know that either, but I'm not running for VP), and appears to be willing to go to war with Russia. As if being in 2 wars and in the worst economic conditions in years aren’t problem enough for this nation. She reluctantly admits that man may have contributed to global warming, and supports drilling for oil in Alaska. She is also a big fan of "clean coal", a technology that my environmentalist husband insists is not so clean.
She is also a bit condescending--a quality that usually isn't appreciated by the low class, everyday folk like me. In her interview with Gibson, she repeatedly called him "Charlie", and refused to answer his questions directly. Several times, he tried to clarify her answer, in which she responded with more evasive rhetoric. When asked if she had ever met a head of state, Palin said "no", then pointed out that if other VP candidates had been asked the same, they'd probably say the same. In fact, as Keith Olbermann pointed out in Countdown last night, every VP candidate for the last 32 years has, in fact, met a head of state before entering the VP office.
Palin is also forgetful--she has repeatedly said that she told congress "thanks, but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere". Well, that's not entirely true. Palin started out as a huge supporter of the bridge, and in fact wore a t-shirt at one point touting that she was from "Nowhere Alaska". And when she finally saw the light and ditched the project, she in fact still kept the money that congress had given. She claims to be against politics-as-usual, but is now in a scandal involving the firing of a staff member--she is alleged to have fired the individual because he would not fire her sister's ex-husband. Todd Palin, the unofficial governor of Alaska, as he receives all state emails and attends meetings that he has no business being at, has been subpoenaed before the court in the Palin case. She claims to be against pork barrel spending, and yet requested $2 million for pet projects last year. I don't have a problem with what she wanted the money for--it was mostly environmental and animal-related. However, it's the kind of stuff that McCain has said he's against. He isn't keen on drilling in Alaska, either, but Palin says she's working on that.
You can read all this for yourself, and watch it too. YouTube has several clips of the Palin/Gibson interview, and if you like (as the editors of "The Nation" boast) that famous liberal media bias, as I do, then watch Keith Olbermann's "Countdown", which airs nightly on MSNBC.
Finally, Palin still believes we went to Iraq because of 9/11. 5 years after we found out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, she still believes it did.

What a difference a week can make…

Wow—last Saturday I was in a grumpy fog due to Obama letting me (and women in general) down regarding the VP spot. A week later, in swoops McCain with a female running mate. Now, Amanda (see the comment for last week’s post) says McCain is my man since he decided to run with the “fairer” sex. Well, not quite. McCain and Palin are anti-abortion, against equal pay legislation (What’s that? See http://www.equalpay.info/index.html for details), against gay marriage (one person noted that Palin stands up for what is “right”) and Palin has a crummy record when it comes to animals and the planet.
No, I may be petty enough to retract my support for Obama because he didn’t choose a woman running mate, but I’m not so petty that I’ll vote for any woman.
What is really remarkable to me is that the Republicans, a group that’s made a point to be against advances for the causes of women in so many areas, would be the party to support a woman for the second-highest office in our land. I just hope Palin will be fine making less than Chaney did as VP—she is against receiving equal pay for equal work, after all.

Why Obama lost my vote…

Well, it’s official—the presidential election of 2008 ended for me today. I am withdrawing my support for Obama—all because he withdrew his chance to support women.
That’s right. You may think it’s petty, but I’ll explain why it isn’t—at least from a woman’s point of view. You see, by choosing Biden as his running mate, he effectively shut the door in women’s faces all over the country. He squashed the chance for a woman to make her way to the Whitehouse via the vice presidency.
You may argue that it’s not about sex or race, but about who is the most qualified. Well, I’ve heard that argument my whole life, and for some strange reason, the most qualified candidate—whether it be for the clergy, the CEO of a large corporation, the promotion at the office, or the highest office in the nation—is always a man. Doesn’t that seem odd? Or maybe it’s that we just don’t want a woman to be qualified for those positions…
I find it shameful that a candidate who claims to be running a campaign for change would choose an older white man for his running mate. Or perhaps Obama means his own ability to change, that is to say, his talent for flip-flopping all over the place when it comes to his campaign promises.
Change I can believe in? I don’t think so…

Women and our lack of progress...

"The woman's movement just can't seem to make any progress in the world of bribery, can they?"
This funny little Seinfeld quote popped into my head when I saw this church sign:
"Every man will give an account to God".
Whew--I was worried for a minute that that sign was threatening me, then I remembered that I am of the weaker sex, so apparently God is not interested in accosting me at the pearly gates...
But seriously, threats about interacting with God aside (shouldn't talking with God be a good thing?), I find it amazing that a church that surely has female members would post a sign that addresses men only. Of course, there's always a chance that I'm being my literal Aspie-self, but just in case I'm not, I wanted to point out how sexist that sign is.
What is really interesting to me is the dynamic of this particular church and a church across the street from it. The sexist, threatening church has a moderately full parking lot on Sunday mornings, perhaps 50 cars or so. I know this because I'm out sinning, oops, I mean working, while they are having services.
The church across the street is empty--it's for sale, in fact. The congregation grew so large that they had to relocate to a larger building.
So...love and equality in the arms of an amazing God, or sexism and threats for "sinners in the hands of an angry God". Take your pick.

In the mean time, I'm going to try to level the playing field for women and bribes.

A partial understanding…

I’m not unfamiliar with the world of evangelical Christians. I say evangelical Christians, instead of the usual broad reference of evangelicals, because I know a lot of Christians who would not want to be identified with the moniker “evangelical”. I am one of them.
But like I said, I am well acquainted with the evangelical world. For one thing, I was raised in that culture. Many of my family members are a part of the evangelical circle. But despite my previous relationship with that culture, I don’t identify with it. The truth is, I don’t understand all of what they believe. But I’m trying. I know I identify with some of their core beliefs—such as the divinity of Christ. But other things that they hold dear, such as being ‘born again’, the virgin birth, and the inerrancy of Scripture are either unimportant to me or outside my realm of beliefs.

In any case, as I journey on the path to a new faith community, I have to confront the evangelical movement one way or another (nearly all churches and most Quaker Meetings in North Carolina have an evangelical bent). I am reading a book called “God and Country” in an attempt to understand these folks.

Here are a few things I’ve discovered so far:
They are far more comfortable with the culture at-large than we realize. They are in greater numbers, too. Their recent influence on our government is no accident, and may be around for a long time. They are courted by the Republicans, but mainly because they courted the Republicans first. Their attraction to the conservative political movement surprises me—conservative politics is to me in direct conflict with the Gospel. But not if you view the Gospel from an evangelical perspective. See, they believe in the responsibility of the individual. Individual attention to being ‘saved’. Individual obligations to one’s own family, taking responsibility for your own actions, etc. So, in that light, it makes sense (though I must say I still believe it’s in direct conflict with the Gospel) that evangelicals do not support government social programs, don’t want sex education in the schools, and other ‘causes’ they are known for championing. What doesn’t make sense is their persistence involving other matters that I would think they would believe to be an individual's responsibility—the right to choose an abortion, the right to pray or not to pray at school, the right to choose to blow off the Ten Commandments (which Christ didn’t seem to be too obsessed with any way). I guess I’d understand them more fully if they were consistent about what they considered the realm of the individual.

But as I said, I do think such things are in the realm of the villagers, to use a Hillary Clinton concept. I think we must have social programs—you cannot count on the religious sector to meet all the needs of the poor, and if government does what it should, the poor should be protected and maybe we’d have less poor people to begin with. The church cannot dictate what the market place pays workers, or how long a workday should be—government must play a social role, despite what the conservatives wish. And Jesus said to love my neighbor as myself, which means I must not see things as solely an individual’s responsibility. It takes a community to keep a community. If that makes any sense. But I stop short of where evangelicals boldly march on—I do think it’s an individual’s right to choose to have a baby (or not), and so many other things. But as a follower of Christ, it’s my ‘job’ to be a good neighbor, to care about the situations I find my fellow neighbors in, and to help those in need. It’s not about my personal Jesus and me—it’s about me, you, and all other life on this planet.

*Photo courtesy of Martin LaBar. Contact him at hathach3@earthlink.net*

More wisdom from Tony the simple churches guy...

Tony sent the following via email--I thought it was too important to read and 'delete'...

Several weeks ago in our Tuesday night Bible study, John asked me where Quakers stand on the issue of abortion. While I cannot or would not presume to speak for all Quakers on this or any other issue, I would say that Quakers have a strong testimony regarding the sanctity of all life. The sticky point for some Quakers is the debate regarding when life begins. For me personally it is clear from Biblical references in Psalms and Jeremiah that life begins at conception. That said the fact that I have never voted for a pro-life candidate may seem strange to some people. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the candidates who have campaigned as pro-life including George Bush, have not been able to change the existing laws. If you look at the statistics on abortion, you will discover that a significant portion of them are economically driven. Yet the people who claim to be pro-life are the same people who have opposed national health insurance, increases in the minimum wage, and other benefits for the poor that would address some of the economic factors that contribute to the number of abortions in America. More importantly, however, I agree with Tony Campolo's approach to choosing the right candidate. For me like him, there are too many difficult issues facing our country right now to choose a candidate based on one issue alone. For example, George Bush made his pro-life position very clear. At the same time, however, he all but set a record during his time as governor of Texas for the number of executions during his administration. And sanctity of life is sanctity of life regardless of whether we are talking about the unborn or the already born. There are also folks who are deeply concerned about the quality of life for future generations if we don't address global warming and other environmental issues that threaten the very future of our planet. Because I am a Quaker Christian, I personally believe that war is the single worst violation of the sanctity of life; therefore bringing the war in Iraq to an end as quickly as possible is the most important issue in this election for me personally. The last statistics I saw indicated something like 5,000 American lives have been lost in Iraq. The death toll among the people of Iraq is estimated at something like 150,000 which includes a significant number of non-combatants, women, children, and the elderly. The lives of those Iraqi children are just as precious to God as the unborn children in America. Obviously, I have made no secret of the fact that I am an Obama supporter ( I have had a bumper sticker indicating the same on my vehicle for several months now). Weighing all the issues that we are facing, I find that on the majority of them I am in agreement with his views. I am not trying to convince anyone else to agree with me, but I do believe our Christian witness has to involve standing for more than just one single issue. And I will admit, I am pretty tired of getting e-mails calling on "Christians" to pray for our upcoming elections that are really no more than thinly veiled warnings that God is on the side of the Republican party. When we were driving through the midwest on our trip to Montana, we saw roadsides signs in several states that said, "Faith still matters. Vote Republican." Yes, faith does matter. But it is neither democratic or republican. So I encouarge everyone - look at the issues and vote, not for a particular political party, but for the person whose platform most closely reflects your own personal faith convictions.

A young guy trying to stay celibate for God? He’s not religious—he’s just gay!

Oh yes—I really did hear this come out of someone’s mouth. On Love line. Admittedly, Love line is not the most religiously respectful of shows, but Dr. Drew offers some great answers to what are often (at least to me) bizarre problems. But he dropped the ball when he allowed this to be the answer from one of his guests. His response was that the guy might be gay, but he didn’t address the very real dilemma that spiritually conscious kids have in a sex saturated world.

Now, I’m no moral authority, but I do feel that someone should come to this kids’ defense. I have never allowed something as “petty” as my relationship with God to come between a “good time” and me. Of course, I should have. But I’m not that restrained. But for those who are, I give my full support and admiration. Just because many of us are too shortsighted to see the benefits of abstinence, that doesn’t mean that those who aren’t are hiding some big sexual secret. In fact, the suggestion that this particular teenager who said “no” was in fact, gay, is an insult to the ability of a man of any age to work toward something larger than the satisfaction of his libido.

Alan and I talked about this; we think this is a standard response to a person we don’t understand. My favorites are the hypothetical questions about ethical situations—such as, “if you knew no one would ever find out, would you steal something from a store?” If you say “no”, inevitably someone accuses you of being a liar. But that is ridiculous. It is simply a way for a moral moron to “trump” someone who genuinely wants to do right over wrong, whether or not anyone knows about it.

So I encourage all you ethical nay Sayers to open your mind, and quit bringing others down to your level. Instead, try doing some good—and stop worrying whether or not you’ll be noticed for it. You’ll find it easier, in the long run, to believe that a kid might choose to skip sex in order to strengthen his bond with God.

Let Jesus bring out the worst in you!

I was listening to a song about one’s love for God—the main chorus states that “I could sing of your love forever”. And it got me thinking—what does it mean to really know and love God? And the answer seemed so simple; I wonder why we don’t see it more often. To love God is to want to be like him—that love should inspire you to be and do your best. I’m serious—this isn’t one of those goofy billboards that declare, “Pass it on”. It’s really how I think things should be. I mean, when we are in a healthy human-to-human relationship, we announce that that person brings out the best in us. Well, then, shouldn’t we expect that from a human-to-God relationship?
I certainly want to do this—I want to be a better person because I know Jesus and want to be like him.
This is in contrast to much of the behavior we see when encountering Christians at large. The bigotry, damning of souls, snobbery, judgment, and other rotten behaviors all too often describe Christianity. It’s embarrassing, really, and makes me wonder why those people who claim to know and love Jesus don’t want to act more like him.

Scattered thoughts for today…

My mind is always on several different things. I thought I’d ramble on about a few of those things here…
To begin, I must discuss yet another annoying church sign. Now, you know I have Asperger’s, and my world tends to be simplified and literal. So it was with dismay that I read the following: “My neighbor is anyone who needs me”. Hum—that really leaves out quite a few folks. Those who don’t think or know they need [your] help, for starters. And what about the people in need that you don’t know about? If you don’t know they are in need, are they still in need? Okay, clearly I’m making a pun in relation to the old question about the tree falling in the forest. But seriously, that sign is so simplified. As I understand it, Jesus told us that anyone and everyone is our neighbor—regardless of that person’s circumstances (or ‘needs’).

And continuing with the religious theme, I must ask, why is Obama so mad? He all but severed ties with his old friend Jeremiah Wright (the same friend he told the world last month that he could not disown) because of Wright’s speech given to the National Press Club. Okay, so Wright is a bit weird. He is a bit too self-confident, and could use a healthy dose of humble pie. But, really, aside from his conspiracy-theory ideas about AIDS (which aren’t even his ideas), what did he say that wasn’t true? Oh, maybe that is the problem—that what said was true. Despite what Obama wants to imply, we are not a society that has moved beyond race and gender issues. Not so, you say? Well, just recall what out-of-touch John McCain said recently: women don’t make more money because they lack the education credentials of men. Oh really? But, back to Obama. Is he upset that Wright pointed to the so-called golden rule? He simply said that America couldn’t act like a terrorist and expect to be free of terrorist attacks upon her. Is he wrong? I don’t think so—our nation doesn’t always act in a responsible, peace making way when dealing with other nations. We bully, attempt to change the political make-up of countries, support embargos, and drop bombs without any concern over whether or not our intelligence is accurate. Wright is correct—we cannot operate in this way and expect to be free from violence in our own cities. And while Wright dispenses his words with a smile that suggests you are the fool (not him), he really hasn’t said anything that I haven’t heard to be true of the black experience in America. Throughout his speech, he reminded us of the legacy of slavery (an issue which I think too many Americans are guilty of not knowing or caring about), the virtues of being different (God obviously likes different things—look at all the flowers and birds, etc.), and the need for reconciliation in our country.
So Obama, quit whining! Spend your time trying to unite the American people and get yourself elected!

A question of equality…

I have a concern about equality. It pertains to the use of the titles ‘Mrs.’ and ‘Mr.’ It came up when I read a passage in a book about proper social etiquette (written by none other than Miss Manners…)—a woman had written a letter stating that she was appalled that younger women were addressing her mother by her first name. One example she gave involved nurses at her mother’s assisted living center—they were calling her mother by her first name, even though they were 50 or 60 years her junior. Miss Manners found the casual first-name use appalling as well, and downright disrespectful. In her view, first names were to be reserved for intimates only. This social protocol presents a quandary for Quakers. We have a history of leaving out titles when speaking to others, as titles differentiate people, making the relationship inherently unequal. You would never address a Quaker professor as “Dr.”, or even “Mr.”. You’d simply say “Joe” or “Jane”, as the case may be. This goes for all titles and positions. Coming from that perspective, how then am I to address others “properly”? Do I reserve my perceived casualness for other Quakers, and defer to standard rules of etiquette when in the real world?
One may argue that the usage of the prefix ’Mr.’ and such doesn’t really imply unequal status between the individuals, but merely shows respect. However, respect based upon age alone is does not render the relationship equal, and moreover, one can respect another without being less than them. Here’s an example, which involves class status:
I was watching yet another obnoxious show, and this episode featured several wealthy women gathered for a dinner party in of the women’s homes. The ‘lady of the house’ introduced her maid (a demeaning title, I would argue) to her guests as say, “Maria”. Of course, the maid was a minority woman, much older than her young, white boss. Any way, the host then introduced her guests to Maria by addressing them formally: “Maria, this is Mrs. Jones, Miss Simpson, …”. You get the idea. So, I would argue that using titles of any kind always implies inequality—whether in social status, age, profession, or gender. It really doesn’t matter what the reason for the title is. Unfortunately, my desire to be inclusive is seen as rude and disrespectful…

Please know your faith…

Sigh. It seems that there is no end to the ridiculous things people will say regarding their spiritual beliefs. Once again, I must refer to an episode of Trading Spouses to comment on something that I suspect is widespread: ignorance of the history of one’s faith.
Yesterday’s repeat featured the spousal swapping between an orthodox Jewish family and a rural evangelical Christian family. Here are some of the stupid comments uttered by the evangelical family:
“I don’t get this Jewish thing” (mom)
“I like Christianity; that’s what I believe in” (son)
“So, do you believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he died for your sins?” (evangelical mom to orthodox family members)
“You don’t hunt?” (son’s response to Jewish mom’s proclamation that Jews have rules for the way an animal can be killed)
“I don’t understand this kosher food. If I were making breakfast at home, I’d make bacon, eggs, etc.” (Mom complaining about cooking in a Kosher kitchen)

Do you believe Jesus is your Lord? Was this woman for real? I mean, the whole premise of Jesus and his saving grace for the Gentiles is based upon the Jewish people rejecting Christ as the Messiah. Come on—did this woman ever even crack open the Bible, or is she just spouting the “Good News” she hears from the pulpit every week?
And she doesn’t get “this kosher food”? Well, again, if she simply referred to her Bible, she’d find all the details in Leviticus (chapter 11 is really helpful!).
My point is, know your history. Jews and Christians have an intricate, inseparable history, and I suspect, an intertwined future. It would also help if Christians treated Jews with love and respect, and take an interest in their culture. After all, Jesus was a Jew.

Where to now?

God brought the Jews out of Egypt, but on the journey to the Promised Land, he chose the long road less traveled. He must have had his reasons—among them the fear that if the Jews ran into trouble with the Philistine’s, they might turn around and go back to Egypt.
I suppose I feel like those Jewish people, having been led out of my spiritual home, and on the road to the next thing. But unlike the Jews, I have no idea where I’m headed. What’s more, I suspect God has sent me on a long road—one that’s surely out of the way.
I don’t know what I’m supposed to learn, or if I’ll even find a permanent place to worship. If I don’t find a permanent “home”, I’ll be surprised—it will go against everything I taught while at Hillel. I mean, without consistency, how will I be involved with and connected to the Meeting community I find myself in?
And yet, there seems to be no potential permanent spiritual home at this point. Of course, I’ve only visited 2 Meetings, but I’ve virtually visited many more than that. I just don’t see where I’ll belong.
So, I don’t know where I’m headed next. I guess I’ll just have to be patient—not an easy thing for me, though.

Look what I found in the dustbin...

Oh, what a find! I was trying to find out just how many days it's been since Bush made his glorious speech about the war in front of a banner that screamed, "Mission Accomplished". I didn't find the number, but was reminded by one blogger that Keith Olbermann knows (I do so enjoy his show!). But I did stumble upon this nugget, posted in the "historical dustbin" section of the Wonkette:
Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world's goodwill. In short, no other president's faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.

I couldn't have put it better myself. By the way, have you started thinking about Obama yet?

How fortunate, you say?

Whenever Trading Spouses is on, I simply must watch. I just can’t resist.
The premise is okay—not terribly thought provoking, but interesting because they always manage to find the most extreme families to pair up. And today’s rerun on CMT was no different: a farmer’s wife swapped her place with a snooty little thing from Fort Lauderdale who was, if I may be honest, not as pretty as she thought, nor a big user of sunscreen (which she needed to be).
Actually, I liked the family that lived on the farm. They were a little too detached about the death of one of their animals, but perhaps if I lived on a farm, I might need the ability to detach a bit too. I guess it’s something they see a lot. Life in the city can be so sanitized—we never see our food before it arrives in a neat package or is cleanly wrapped by the local butcher. We have no real sense of the world of slaughtering animals. But I digress…
The point is, this family was pretty down to earth and quite likable. But the beach bunny from Florida had ideas. She decided from the beginning that she would breathe life and culture into these poor, small-minded country folk. She gabbed on and on about her wonderful life in Florida, and constantly made demeaning comparisons between life on the farm and life at the beach. She even had the audacity to announce that her room at home was much larger than the one being offered to her by her host family. She lamented that the kids could not go to the beach every day as hers did (I lamented that her kids would probably have skin cancer by the time they reached high school).
But what really set me off was an observation she made about the family. In her video diary, she pointed out that “they are so fortunate to have me here. I can help them better themselves. It’s what I like to do—help people.”
How fortunate? Really? Did they ask for that help, that “betterment”? I looked up the definition of help, and part of the act of helping consists of providing that which is sought. What’s more, she insulted them by reading the farmer’s teenage children foreign language primers, which were designed for children in elementary school. Wow—I never thought of enlightening people in such a manner.
Her actions really bring up a good point, though—what is the real reason we “help” others? Is it to help them—to be of service, which comes from a place of love—or is it simply to help ourselves? There’s a difference, and it’s a fundamentally important one.

He came early!

He's here--our second nephew, named Christopher David. He was born this morning around 2:30. He's early...about 4 weeks, but doing well! When my brother called to tell me, he announced, "you guys are an aunt and uncle times two!" I blurted out, "You had twins?!" He laughed at his verbal mistake. He simply meant that with their previous child, the new baby made two.
It's pretty cool anyway!

Yet another MLK blog posting...

Well, you may be tired of hearing about the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death. But, I know that to let this moment in history pass without at least a blurb about it on my blog would be inconsistent with the issues I routinely address here.
I have nothing truly insightful to offer this historic person--many others have said great things about him, and offered their opinions about where America has gone since that sad day in 1968. But I do have one little suggestion... it's regarding that pesky political contest coming up in November.
If you haven’t considered Barack Obama for president, perhaps you should take a second look. The most obvious is that he offers a real change in perspective, and let's be honest here--appearance, too--from the tired old offerings that Democrats and Republicans have offered up for what seems like eons now. But another reason to consider him may be simpler--a vote for Obama (or Clinton, to be sure) would propel the U.S. into the new century both philosophically and for minorities. Since the election of Washington, our nation has steadfastly refused to see representation in the White House for anyone but white men. Imagine what it's like to never see anyone who looks like you representing our country--from a gender minority perspective, it sucks. It seems that women have come so far, yet we cannot get a promotion to the most important office in our homeland. The same goes for those of other skin colors--opportunity has most certainly come along for many, but the highest office remains just out of reach.
I'm tired of hearing that folks aren't ready for a black or female president. Well guess what? I'm not ready to have another white man in office. I know that sounds shallow--you may argue about qualifications. I'll be honest--I'm a die-hard democrat. However, I will always vote for the person who has the most potential. I will cross party lines if that person happens to be on the other side. In this election, I think all three are very qualified in their own ways, and all have potential. Yes, even McCain, who is criticized for his age. There's a name for that--it's called ageism. His age has nothing to do with his ability to connect across generations--whether or not he makes that connection will depend upon his willingness to do so and a genuine interest in younger Americans.
But back to the point--all three candidates offer a great opportunity for the U.S. But only two have the ability to change the face of representation in this country, and the ability to truly reach across those racial and gender divides with authentic empathy.

Now you can hoard on line too…

I had to laugh when I saw Yahoo’s new ad this morning offering unlimited storage in your mailbox. It boasted, “save every message you receive!”
So…apparently it isn’t enough for us to have our homes full of stuff we don’t need. It isn’t enough that we need shows like “Clean House” and “Dress my Nest” to help people get out from under their clutter. If you have seen either of these shows, the people living in these circumstances are often buried in emotional turmoil as a result of having so much crap. And now we can bring that same anxiety, that same depression to our email accounts! Thanks Yahoo!
I say, go ahead—delete those old messages. It’ll feel soooooo good!

The 'warm and fuzzy' God image…

Last night we had a visitor at the Quaker Meeting of which I’m a part. She was quite nice, and spoke about her work as a Christian missions coordinator. But mostly she talked about her journey with God. She emphasized the concepts of “surrender” and “trust”—two areas of apparent struggle for her. But it was the imagery she alluded to that was most difficult for me to grasp. She spoke of ‘falling’ into God’s arms, and being held by him. She spoke of the physical support he gave her—his love which allowed her to trust him completely. In the autistic world, such imagery is, in a way, useless. For one thing, it’s hard for me to imagine what all that would be like. It’s not appealing to me—so I guess I have a difficult time negotiating such concepts. I am quite happy not having any, or at least minimal, “touchy-feely” contact with others. Even with my husband, physical touch has to be on my terms. It isn’t simply about being cold. It’s that it’s downright uncomfortable for me, unless I’m absolutely prepared for it. I guess it’s why I don’t want to hold hands, or even shake hands (except for when a Quaker worship gathering concludes, but that is another topic). So if I cannot tolerate a brief touch, unless truly ready, then the last thing I want to do is to “fall” into someone’s arms—even God’s. It reminds me that as an autistic person of faith, I need to find comfort in different imagery, or situations. I know there is something spiritual, and deeply comforting, about a walk on a sunny, breezy day. I feel God when I hug my dogs, or serve my animals in some capacity (like feeding them or cleaning their ‘space’). I feel connected to the spiritual when I cook a satisfying meal for my friends, or when I care for my husband in some small way. But sometimes I feel that I am “shortchanged” in the eyes of others—that somehow my spiritual life is not as deep as it would be if only I could embrace such things as described by our visitor. No one has ever said this, of course—but so many people of faith talk in terms of physical love that it’s hard for me to not feel left out. I don’t know how to change that—I only know that it’s evident, at least to me, that God “touches” each of us differently. And I know he never touches us when we’re not ready, and never in a way that is disconcerting to us. He shows his love in terms that all creation—even autistic people—can understand and appreciate.

Really, it’s not about you…

Oh, but you wouldn’t think that, would you, if you watched American television? Every time I flip one on, there’s an advertisement pushing some product that is designed just for me. It always recalls a line from Seinfeld: George asks, rather sarcastically, if it’s so wrong, so selfish to just want some things for yourself. Jerry responds with, “I think that’s the definition of selfishness”.
Our country is obsessed with personalized products—phone plans specifically for your needs, customized homes, “get what you want, when you want it” stuff. We are, if we believe what corporate America suggests, the neediest, whiniest, most impatient bunch of brats on the planet. I’m so tired of being told that I’m incapable of delaying my impulses—or waiting for a download, for that matter. I’m tired of hearing that I should be willing to pay extra just to be “different”. Wanna be different? Stop buying all that mass-produced stuff you don’t need. Dress in a way that you really to, and you won’t feel like you must have a customized-dyed handbag to stand out. Live your life in a way that serves others, instead of you and your interests, and feel a satisfaction far deeper than any “lightning fast” internet speed can offer. And please know something else—whenever you get that great, “meaningful” individualized-yet-mass-produced item at a “deal”, it comes at a steep price for someone else. Those cheap products are only cheap to you; the people who make and/or sell them must give up a living wage many times, or forgo benefits such as healthcare and paid sick time. Living in a way that maximizes your needs at an unbelievably low price is, as Jerry would say, “…the definition of selfishness”.

God doesn’t want a woman to lead America (he’s fine with women leading other countries, though—they aren’t as important as ours)…

If you’re expecting to read an explanation about why I believe the above, you’ve come to the wrong place. I’m about to launch into a tirade about why this title is so ridiculous…
So I guess I’ve suspected it for a long time—well, at least since Hillary Clinton began her campaign. But it’s one thing to suspect something, and quite another to hear that suspicion confirmed on NPR’s Morning Edition. A story was being aired about the upcoming Texas primary; people were asked whom they were voting for and why. And wouldn’t you know that some evangelical Christians would be a part of those being questioned! One woman said that although she was impressed with Hillary Clinton and how far she had come, she could not vote for a woman to be president. She gave her Christian beliefs as the reason for this decision, and pointed out that the Bible instructs women to submit to men. Her pastor echoed this sentiment, and then explained why he’d be casting his vote for Huckabee. Apparently God has no opinion on people of color, as Obama did not seem to be a contender to them at all.
Well, this is America, and I’m fine with people believing what they want. I’m fine with them setting up their family structure in a way that suits their beliefs. But something seems wrong when people are willing to subject others to their belief systems when they know that not all subscribe to that system. It seems fundamentally un-American—asking those to give up the freedom to live up to their potential simply because some don’t find that freedom to be consistent with their particular interpretation of Scripture. Interestingly, I never got the idea that God demanded submission to men in any context other than family and religious life—private realms that should really be apart from the greater public life. Of course, I don’t think God demanded submission at all—I think submission as we see it is largely misunderstood, abused, and most of all, culturally-bound. For those fans of Paul out there, the Bible even says something about equality in the church as a whole—Paul wrote that “in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free person, male and female…” (Galatians 3:28). If anything, Paul’s letter calls for a radical equality far superior to that of the world’s version of equality—hardly a call to submission and the forgoing of opportunities to live up to one’s potential.
What is really sad to me is that women buy into this idea. But really, how ludicrous is it? Would God really choose for one of his children to be inferior to the other? For one child, as Stacy Eldridge likes to note, to be a “helper”, and the other to be helped, but never with reciprocation? Does the God of equality seem to line up with the sexist God of some people’s Bibles? I didn’t choose to have the “wrong” body parts—why should I sacrifice what my mind and gifts are capable of simply because of that physical difference? It seems so shortsighted, really, to think that God would have genitalia determine who shall do what in non-reproduction terms.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that I believe in the right of folks to worship and live how they will. And when it comes to voting, I vote in a way that maximizes opportunity and equality for all (regardless of my religious beliefs) and not in a way that is strictly consistent with my faith. But, I do look upon the daughters of those Texas voters quoted above with sadness. They will be taught that their gender—not disabilities, economic disadvantages, or the like—their gender is what limits them in life. How sad for those girls—and ours.

You’re an idiot, Mr. President…

Wow—what an idiot. This morning, Mr. Bush held a press conference regarding the shootings in Illinois. He spent perhaps 60 seconds commenting on the tragedy, as well as asking Americans to bless the families with strength and courage during this time. Then, he moved right on to his dismay about Congress not passing an extension on FISA, or the spy law that allows the government to listen in on ordinary folk who have nothing to do with acts of terrorism. "American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it… By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," the president said.
It’s interesting that Bush thinks reading the emails of private citizens and listening to calls will somehow flesh out the next plan of attack from our so-called enemy. I think it is more accurate to suggest that he is interested in legalizing big brother-style voyeurism.
Oh, but I’m rambling. What I really wanted to comment on was that Bush used a personal tragedy—yet another school shooting—to blast the Democrats as well as drum up fear, and thus support, for his agenda. How crummy—he would have been much more honorable, and perhaps even believable, if he had stuck to the original premise of the press release.

There are women too, Pat…

Well, Pat Robertson did it again…he’s managed to anger me by simply opening his mouth. Now, before I tell you what he said, I need to re-affirm my commitment to pacifism, which is an important tenet of my Quaker faith. Having said that, I was still infuriated when Pat closed out today’s episode of the 700 Club by thanking our brave men in uniform.
Now, I realize that Pat is older than me, and perhaps he is having a difficult time remembering that women are, in fact, serving in the military these days. But, as he has made this “oversight” more than once, I’m inclined to think that he opposes having the “weaker” sex employed at such tasks. And even though I am against the military in principle (because it involves taking lives), I am still for the rights of women—all women—whether or not they share my faith convictions. I, as all Quakers are taught, try to live my life in a way that removes the occasion for war. But I’m not stupid; I know war is going to happen. And I also know that many people are okay with it, and in fact desire the chance to serve. So, I cannot help but point out that anyone who wants to serve—be it male or female—should have a right to do so. And they do have that right. So, why is it that Pat cannot accept this? If he wants to thank those who serve, he needs to thank everyone involved, not just “the boys”.

A query on the equal treatment of all people…

As you know, this is Black History Month. This is one of my favorite times of the year, as African American History is one of my favorite “subjects”. Last night, in lieu of the much-hyped Super Bowl, Alan and I watched the Spike Lee documentary 4 Little Girls. It is about the 1960’s tragic bombing at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four little girls.
So, in the Quaker tradition, I thought I would pose a query for self-examination during this month. As the economic status of many Americans, but blacks in particular, is of great concern to me, the query is of an economic nature.
Are you concerned that our economic system shall so function as to sustain and enrich the life of all? Do you as workers, employers, producers, consumers, and investors endeavor to cultivate goodwill and mutual understanding in your economic relationships?

That’s discrimination, Mr. President…

Last night, among the many suggestions Bush made in his lame duck state-of-the-union address, was the proposal that employers give preferential treatment to the spouses of military personnel. In other words, Bush suggested that when it comes to hiring, let’s give first pick to those who are married to soldiers. Now, it’s possible I heard that wrong, but just in case I didn’t, I’ll tell you my concern with such a suggestion. It’s discriminatory. That has nothing to do with my Quaker beliefs concerning war—instead, it addresses a very basic issue when it comes to jobs. Is it fair to give anyone preferential treatment? Now, you may argue that folks with college degrees get an advantage all the time, and while that may be so, I feel that offering a job to someone simply because they married the “right” person is more problematic than considering a person to be more qualified for a position based upon continued education credentials. There are a plethora of reasons why a person may not serve in the military, and thus be unable to offer their spouse that certain military “edge”: religious beliefs (which apply to many Quakers), physical limitations, mental issues, etc. The point is, jobs are difficult enough to come by without the president encouraging discriminatory hiring practices.

Contract, expand, unite…

I heard this phrase tonight during a lecture given by a Sufi Muslim. He used it in the context of Islam, of course, when discussing one’s relationship with God. But I felt that it really described my journey with God thus far.
When I first encountered God, really encountered him, I was in my early 20’s. My first reaction was very selfish—what some might call a belief in the so-called prosperity gospel. Let me explain: I viewed God in very individual, “me” terms. My Jesus, My saving, My blessings, and so on. I really fell for the prosperity idea—the belief that God has plans to bless you materially, and that everything comes down to two individuals—me and God. I was also quite narrow in my interpretation of Scripture, and very strict about who was “in” and who “wasn’t”. But then I started to expand. I began to embrace others, in all their imperfect wholeness. Yes, I really did just write that. I realized that this was not about two individuals—it was about millions of individuals, a whole planet, in fact—and a God who deeply loved all that he had created. I saw not “spiritual projects”, but unique creations with special gifts, struggles, and their own way of approaching the world. It no longer mattered whom I believed to be “in” or “out”. My purpose was to love, be compassionate, and to serve. And that’s when the final aspect of the phrase was fulfilled—I united with God and all around me. I see the very real connection I have to all of God’s creation—people, plants, animals, water—and know the responsibility I have to each one. And my recognition of that responsibility has brought me full circle with God—I can now spend my life loving and serving—the exact “job” he has for each of us if we really want to unite with him.

Who is this idiot, any way?

You may be wondering who I am and why I keep getting pissed off about the state of Christianity in America and around the world. I have a profile, but it’s rather brief—so, let me fill you in!
Five years ago I began working in the ministry—I have been an associate and lead pastor in the Quaker church. I am from of branch of Friends (formal name for Quakers) that is affiliated with Friends United Meeting—FUM is quite evangelical. My monthly meeting is a member of the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends. NCYM has, for many years, been home to Quaker meetings that are either socially liberal or conservative. Many meetings are Christ-centered, but many are not. This “divide” has been problematic, but it seems to be getting worse. Because I no longer feel that the true spirit of Christ is visible in NCYM or FUM, I have resigned from my position as pastor of a meeting in Greensboro, NC. I’m “hopping” to a more liberal branch of Quakers, where gays and lesbians are welcome, and where issues such as peace, animal welfare, the environment, and social justice are just as important as a relationship with the Spirit. The challenge for me will undoubtedly be my Christ-centered attitude, but as I’m not an evangelical (nor do I claim to have exclusive access to the Truth), I will probably be okay.
I have been blogging for over a year now, but those postings (some of which appear here) have been for my Meeting’s website. I have decided to keep blogging, on this site, because it is a good way for me to continue my soapbox rants! I hope you gain something from them, and I always enjoy hearing from my readers, whether or not they agree with me!
So, happy reading…

That’s a dumb argument…

So, I’m still thinking about the film Jesus Camp. In particular, I can’t shake one of the pieces of “advice” good ol’ Pastor Becky gave her kids. She was preaching about sin, and made her way around to the topic of Harry Potter. Let me establish here that I’m a big Potter fan, and I doubt I’m the only Jesus follower who is. Any way, Pastor “B” informed her kids that Harry Potter is evil. Her advice? “You don’t make heroes out of warlocks.” But what really shocked me was what she next—she asked the kids if they knew that had this been Old Testament times, Harry Potter would be put to death. Hum. Well, let’s establish two things—Harry Potter is not a real person! He’s a book character, so maybe the Potter books would have been burned, but it would be quite difficult to actually execute Harry himself. My second point is one Pastor “B” already made, even though she didn’t actually say it: we are not living under the old law because Christ ushered in a new law. As sad as she may be about that truth, the fact is, we don’t have to worry about what would have happened—it no longer matters. So why even introduce an argument based upon a law that no longer exists? That’s like arguing that we don’t make heroes out of black Americans like Barach Obama. I can just hear someone asking, “Did you know that if these were still the antebellum years, blacks would be enslaved?” Please. That’s ridiculous. Don’t threaten people about punishments that are antiquated. In many ways, it says that Pastor “B” cannot come up with a valid reason, that applies to this current time, about why one should not read the Potter books.
By the way, Obama is one of my political heroes—his color makes little difference to me (except that if he wins, we’ll finally get to see someone who isn’t white sitting in the oval office!).

Blessed are the war makers?

I like Catholic television. If you have cable (which I don’t, but most of my pet sitting clients do!), you’ve probably breezed by it while “flipping”. I like some of the programming—especially the new music showcase and the reruns of Mother Angelica and the nuns reciting the Holy Rosary. So I turned to it while watching TV the other day, and instead of the usual programming I’m used to, there was a televised church service being led by John Hagee.You know from a previous blog how I feel about this individual, so I won’t go into that again. Nevertheless, he was still able to surprise me with his words. He was preaching about Christians and Jews. At first I thought this would be good—the church doesn’t have a good history (in my opinion) of reaching out to the Jewish people. I saw an example of this recently—Alan and I were attending the local Jewish festival. As we were parking, we saw a guy protesting the celebration; he had a sign that read The Jews killed Jesus. I was so embarrassed—ideas like that seem to ignore the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew. But this wasn’t exactly the essence of Hagee’s message—he did address, briefly, the problem of Christian anti-Semitism. But his real point was about uniting with the Nation of Israel—quite different from recognizing a shared history with the Jews as a people. His motivation was political. He is part of a movement called Christians United for Israel. He was preaching at a church on Capital Hill, with the goal of raising the government’s awareness of this group. He called for pre-emptive strikes on Iran, as they are a sworn enemy of Israel. He led the audience in a chant about supporting Israel, and pronounced diplomacy efforts with nations like Iran “brain-dead”. He called upon Christians and Jews to unite against radical Islam, and called moderate Muslims “silent” against their radical counterparts. I found all this rhetoric humorous—does Hagee not realize that he, too, is a radical? Does he not see that he is promoting war, alliances against “enemies”, and nationalism—much as radicals of other faiths do?Finally, he pointed out that we must support Israel if we desire God’s blessings. Ah…the real reason for uniting. Not because he loves Jews (I’m sure he does, though), but because he wants something as a result of that relationship. That’s like entering into a relationship with Jesus to save yourself from “hell”. It seems so disingenuous.My real concern is the call for war, however. And in light of wanting God’s blessings, I’d think Hagee would pay more attention to Jesus’ instructions about this kind of thing. Did Christ not say, “blessed are the peacemakers”? I think he did. In fact, he said “you’re blessed when you can show people how to cooperate instead of compete or fight” (Matthew 5, The Message). Should Christians and Jews unite? Of course—but it shouldn’t end there. All people of all faiths should unite, find our commonalities as humans, and work for peace. Only then will we begin to realize the many blessings God has given us.

A narrow interpretation of Scripture may lead to a small life in Christ…

I had the “fortune” of coming across another John Hagee show the other day—this one was about a program he has started called Exodus II (see http://www.jhm.org/exodus2.asp). The purpose and goals are highlighted here, taken from a revealing look at his website: Through John Hagee Ministries, Christians are uniting in support for the State of Israel and the Jewish people… John Hagee Ministries has been able to donate more than 19 million dollars to various causes that support the Jewish people. These causes include education, repatriation, rebuilding and relocating children to safe zones, as well as providing medical equipment and supplies for the Jewish people injured in terrorist attacks… We have aided in tens of thousands of God’s Chosen to be brought back to their covenant… In Psalm 122:6, King David commands all Christians, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you.” The scriptural principle of personal prosperity is tied to blessing Israel and the city of Jerusalem… Why did Jesus Christ go to the house of the Centurion and heal his servant who was ready to die? Jesus went because the Gentile Centurion deserved the blessing of God because he had demonstrated his love for God’s chosen people, the Jews, by building a synagogue in Israel (Luke 7:5). When you do things to bless the Jewish people and the state of Israel, God will bless you. Your support of the nation of Israel through Exodus II strengthens their nation. As the Jewish leaders say, every Jewish person coming to Israel strengthens the nation… [Scripture verifies] that PROSPERITY (Genesis 12:3 and Psalm 122:6), HEALING (Luke 7:1-5) and the OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT came first to Gentiles that blessed the Jewish people and the nation of Israel in a practical manner.
Let me begin by saying that I absolutely love the Jewish people, and I understand (and support) their effort to get to their homeland should they desire to do so. However, replace the words Jewish people, and plug in whatever you like as far as race, religion, and country of origin: that’s how I really feel. The exception would probably be any person who interprets their religious beliefs to mean that they can harm any human or animal—terrorists, fundamentalists, that kind of thing. I only say that because in the past some individuals have misinterpreted my blogging to mean that I am for a free-for-all. Not so—common sense ought to dictate otherwise, but because it doesn’t, I felt the need to address that possible interpretation of what I am saying here.So, getting to the actual point of this blog… My concern here is Hagee’s apparent obsession with exclusively blessing Jews over people of other nations and/or religions. The underlying reason appears to be the sole desire to gain a blessing from God, apparently explicitly promised to the Christians in the Old Testament. Never mind that Christians weren’t even around then… But it isn’t what I’ve already cited that really disturbs me—it’s a grossly narrow interpretation of Scripture that he used on his program. He used a famous instruction given by Jesus—“I tell you this: whenever you saw a brother or sister hungry or cold, whatever you did to the least of these, so you did to me” (Matthew 25, from the Voice of Matthew). So, then, who is a brother or sister? A Jew? Yes, perhaps during that time. But it isn’t Jews who typically read this passage–it’s Christians. The narrowest interpretation during this time would have to be, at least to me, the Christians. But back to that pesky question, “Who is a brother or a sister?” Well, someone asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) And I think that may be the better question, as I believe it gives us the answer to our first question: He tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. Sister Magdalen writes, “the neighbor is the one who shows mercy. Then Christ says, ‘Go and do you likewise.’ [So] the question becomes, ‘How can I be a good neighbor?’ By my becoming a good neighbor to others, everyone becomes a neighbor to me. We are asked not to find a neighbor but to become a neighbor”. She follows this by referencing another part of Scripture—“Whoever does not love a neighbor whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20).So, if all are my neighbors, and Christ has instructed me to do as the Good Samaritan did, then blessing only one aspect of God’s creation—in Hagee’s case, the Jews—then I run the risk of living a small life in Christ. It’s not that God won’t accept my kindness, but it’s that I’ll miss out on all the joy, community, and yes, even blessings (though not necessarily the kind Hagee refers to) that will surly come if I’d open my heart to all of his people (and creation in general).

Love from an autistic perspective…

For years, my whole life really, I lived in a private prison of self-judgment. I thought that I was cold and heartless. My actions did not reflect this belief, for the most part at least. But inwardly, I struggled with my lack of attachment to others that I know most people feel. When I saw a child, or heard a sad story, I would make the appropriate expressions outwardly, but internally I felt little or nothing at all. This is still the case today. The exceptions were with animals and in the early stages of every romantic relationship I’ve been in. In fact, when it came to romance, I had a near obsession with the person I was with—and that obsession engulfed my emotional and physical being with a kind of stranglehold. But eventually, that would subside, and I’d feel the way about that person that I felt for other people. Not a kind of complacency, but a lack of emotional attachment that one would expect a reasonable person to have. And so I came to believe that I was incapable of really loving; that in fact, I did not know or understand love. I still think this is the case—at least when comparing love to the rules of neurotypicals. But, I am not a neurotypical—I am mildly autistic. Regardless of where one falls on the autism spectrum—severe or mild, I think this is the case. Love is a difficult concept for us. But then I remembered this: “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, and it is not proud. Love is not rude, is not selfish, and does not get upset with others. Love does not count up wrongs that have been done. Love is not happy with evil but is happy with the truth. Love patiently accepts all things. It always trusts, always hopes, and always remains strong… Love never ends.” (1st Corinthians 13:4-8) So whether you love in the emotional, attached way that is expected, or whether you love through the cocoon of autism, the best way to love is God’s way. It’s simple, straightforward, and honest. It lacks fanfare. And it involves sacrifice. One need not be warm and fuzzy to love this way.

Yet another reason why I’m not an Evangelical Christian…

I find it interesting that we are so scared of terrorists of the Muslim faith. We spend so much time and energy fearing a group from far away, when we have our own, good ‘ol made-in-America “terrorists” to contend with. Let me explain. I just watched a documentary called Jesus Camp. It’s an eye-opening (and scary, if you are like me) look at the indoctrination into the world of extreme evangelicalism.
It features the daily life of kids in extreme, fanatical Christian families. Many of the kids are home schooled, and all live in homes that are saturated with white-bread Christian culture. Not the Christian culture of Jesus’ community—in fact, except for the Bible, Jesus is talked about as if he is somehow separated from the world he walked, talked, slept, preached, and probably got sick in. It seems to ignore, except for the bloody (and I mean bloody—there’s definitely an emphasis on his bloody death) crucifixion, that Jesus was a real person—he got pissed off, felt lonely, worried, and ate real food (and it wasn’t from Chik-Fil-A!). It ignores that his favorite friends weren’t very respected—hell, they weren’t even Christians. The kind of religion practiced in the film seems so artificial and political—like the plastic cross one purchases at the bible bookstore to hang in their rear-view mirror (which is supposed to somehow help other believers identify them). It’s so one-dimensional. This kind of faith doesn’t look at all like the deeply spiritual, truly life-altering faith of some believers that I can think of, such as Brian McLaren, St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, or even the evangelical favorite (more beloved than Jesus, perhaps?) Paul. Their faith was multi-dimensional, and it really changed the world. It didn’t piss off and even alienate those outside the faith (or inside, for that matter). I would rather be identified as a Christian (by those a part of and apart from the faith) as a result of my love, service, listening skills, compassion for all, etc. than the Christian rock blasting from my radio.
So what do you think goes on at Christian camp? Team and self-confidence building? Bible lessons designed for children about how they can better serve their community and be good at home? How about those good old ghost stories (that we know aren’t real—at least I think they aren’t—but love anyway?)? Not at Jesus Camp. Oh, you’ll find team building—but it’s of a Republican sort. One scene features a “visit” by the beloved president himself—a cardboard cut-out of Bush was presented at the pulpit, where the children were required to greet him and pray for his efforts to achieve the conservative agenda. I was scared nearly to tears as I watched little kids cry and shake over their “sins”. One child was brought to the floor in shame because he had dared to question whether or not the Bible was true. Wasn’t it in the Bible that Thomas questioned Jesus about his authenticity? Was he not rewarded for his seeking? Another child dismissed quiet, contemplative churches (like many Quaker Meetings) as “dead”. She thought God only showed up to loud churches like the mega-church she was a part of. Probably the saddest part was the opinion voiced by one little boy—a child considered to have great leadership potential (by the camp staff). He said that he didn’t feel good around non-believers—in essence that they creeped him out. He said they made him sick, then promptly noted that that was perhaps the case because they were sick. I was immediately reminded of a passage of Scripture:“Very few people will die to save the life of someone else. Although perhaps for a good person someone might possibly die. But God shows his great love for us in this way: Christ died for us while we were still sinners.” (Romans 5:7-8)
God loves all of his creation—even when they aren’t (and perhaps especially) squeaky clean. Remember Jesus discussing the prodigal son? The greatest celebration is saved for the return of the lost. So, it was with great sorrow that I heard a child saying that those out of the Christian faith make him sick. Jesus’ best friends were the dirty and criminal.
A final note about the film—the pastor of the camp is a woman named Becky Fischer. Well, I guess those particular Christians don’t always interpret the bible literally…

Some more thoughts on worship…

I’ve been thinking about worship lately. In particular, I’ve thought about the difference between Quaker worship and the kind of worship you see in most churches. You know the kind—people raising their hands while singing, that kind of stuff. For most of my life, I had two images in mind when thinking of worshipping God: the singing with uplifted hands image, and people laying with their faces to the ground in God’s presence. And since I haven’t been sure what worship really is, I looked it up. The dictionary defines worship as
“Homage or reverence paid to a deity. Acts, rights of ceremonies of worship. Adoration or devotion.”
I’m not sure I like what the dictionary says. I know some would think differently, but I see God as more than a mere deity. He’s someone I have a relationship with. I think about him a lot, and consider what he would want me to do throughout the day. I think of his desires in all of my interactions with the world around me. And once a week I gather with my fellow Quakers and wait silently to hear what God has to say to us.This does not look like the worship that I always imagined, nor does it resemble what many encounter in churches. But it’s real, and I think it’s what God had in mind when he made us to “worship” him.

I have high-functioning autism…

I haven’t blogged in awhile because I’ve had to put some things into perspective, and to get used to something new to me—high-functioning autism, or Asperger’s syndrome. Last year I was diagnosed with OCD. I started therapy for it, but eventually I realized there was something missing—a piece of the puzzle that we had not yet identified. About that time I picked up a book by Temple Granden, the famous animal scientist who is also autistic. Over the next year, I read her book (a long time for a book, I know) and began to see myself in those pages. Each page seemed to leap out at me—a three-dimensional description of who I really was. Not liking to be touched. A fascination with words, sentence structure, and puns. Being hopelessly locked into routines that made little sense to others. A lack of genuine connection with people and a simultaneous belonging with animals. Enjoying repetitive activities like rocking and watching the same TV show over and over again. Social anxiety. Dressing weird as a young person, and inappropriately for someone my current age. Not liking to talk for too long. Difficulty remembering names and faces. A fascination with twirling objects, like fans. And finally, a pattern of making hasty decisions without any real regard to consequences.
I was seeing a therapist for my supposed OCD—but I found that I did not really struggle with the things I should have been struggling with, such as fearing impending doom if I did not stick to my routine. Rather, I became irritable and anxious if I could not follow my rules—something more characteristic of a person with autism. My therapist accused me of trying to be different; she pointed out that I dressed strangely and liked off beat things simply because I didn’t want to join the status quo. I thought about that, and concluded that while that may have been the case for a couple of years during adolescence (although I can’t be sure), at 29 years that was unlikely. I simply was different, but I did not know why.
And then I sort of started to spin out of control emotionally. I felt more alienated than ever before—I felt as if I was collapsing inward. I started to think about suicide again, despite being on two heavy anti-depressants. Then I came across a little tidbit on the Internet that changed everything. I read that often people with high-functioning autism (or Asperger’s syndrome) are mistakenly diagnosed as having OCD. With a diagnosis of OCD, treatment is of course totally focused on that one area—repetitive thoughts and behaviors—and autism is not generally considered after that. So I asked my therapist. She laughed outright and said, “you’re not autistic”. But why not? Because I could talk? Because my vocabulary may be unusual? But talking, and talking well at that, is quite normal for people with Asperger’s.
So I decided to see someone else—someone who would take me seriously, whether or not I was autistic. And that’s what led me to this current place. My new therapist sent me to be evaluated by an autism specialist—and you know what? We really do know ourselves best. I wasn’t simply seeing what I wanted to see in the pages of Temple’s book. I had spent years considering myself, compulsively thinking and rethinking about who I am. And now I know (and you do too).

Adventures in missing the point (big time)

I watched a great documentary tonight—it was about the book of Revelation. Now, let me just say right now that I do not hold a literal view of the Bible. That’s not say that I don’t think there are elements that can and should be taken literally, but most of it I take as narrative and metaphor that applied to the time and culture in which it was written. Many scholars hold this view as well. However, many Christian fundamentalists do not—they especially read Revelation with an excitement of things to come. The success of the ridiculous (my opinion—doesn’t have to be yours too) Left Behind series is evidence enough. In any case, the documentary presented both views, with much scholarship and great visuals. But one quote in particular proved to be very memorable for me (and the actual subject of this blog). A pastor was talking about Revelation and life in general. He said that if one lives with the expectation that Christ will return at any moment, then that will have a direct impact on how that person lives. He finished by saying that he would not want to be caught “off guard” when Christ came. Wow. What a huge example of missing the point of being in fellowship with Christ. Having a relationship with Christ is not about being on guard for screw-ups—it’s about loving Christ enough to live the way that he wants us to. It’s not about being scared of God; it’s about wanting to be with God. Notice I said wanting to be with him–not trying to escape “hell”.And this brings me to another thought I had about the documentary. The literal interpretation of Revelation almost hints at a delight in the horrors described in John’s vision. Now, Old Testament stories aside (and I’d argue that even then God did not delight in punishing the world), I have a hard time believing that God would want to heap such atrocities upon his creation. It seems inconsistent with the God who entered humanity, lived among his handiwork, died to reconcile his creation to him, and laid the groundwork for a new kind of kingdom. Jesus hints at this during his Sermon on the Mount—a little tid bit about how God cares for those who love him and those who don’t:“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” God sends what we need, including himself, in the process of fulfilling the greatest revelation of all—reconciling with his creation.One final note about the documentary—some scholars believe John was actually writing about the Roman Empire, not some distant era to come. They even suggest that the Beast was the emperor Nero.By the way, I saw another annoying church sign today; it read: “If you can read this, then you can still be forgiven.” Bet you can guess what I thought of that…

A Christian cannot be a defender of homosexuality and still be a Christian…

What exactly is a Christian? It’s the theme throughout the postings on this blog. It’s a question that I think should be quite simple to answer, and yet it isn’t (at least for some). Well, John Hagee turns this around and offers up who is not a Christian. He wrote the words used as the title for this posting. You may be wondering how I know this—well, I was reading his book. Normally, I don’t pay attention to such rubbish (yes, I’m still reading the latest Harry Potter book and have gleaned some new vocabulary words!), but I knew that whatever was in his book was bound to anger me, so I took a peek. Suffice it to say that I got what I was looking for, and perhaps deserved—I really should know better than to read this stuff.
He made his judgmental proclamation in reference to the homosexuality “problem”. This topic just happens to be the problem de jour for a large number of North Carolina Quakers. It threatens to split up an already fragmented Friends community. At the heart of the debate, I believe, is really the question of who is and who isn’t—a Christian, that is. If you take the Hagee view, then those of us who don’t are doomed (in more ways that one). But I think a more important question to ask is whether or not it’s our job to make such judgments. I’m not so sure that it is. Paul is pretty clear about that in Romans: “So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? … Forget about deciding what’s right for each other. Here’s what you need to be concerned about: that you don’t get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is… So let’s agree to use our energy in getting along with each other. Cultivate your own relationship with God…” (Taken from the Message, Matthew 14). Now, I’m addressing the Christian community here (although I believe we are to get along with everyone). Our job is not to point fingers and say who’s in and who’s out based upon interpretation of Scripture. Armed with a point of view like Hagee’s, we could condemn a lot more than just homosexuals—women who serve in the ministry, men who treat their wives as equals, those who don’t baptize with water. You get the point. But armed with a point of view such as Paul’s, we realize that what is important is getting along—doing that will accomplish a lot more than bickering and hurtful condemnation. And it will free up our hearts to let God do the work.
I’m going to tell a little autism story here that will make my final point. When I found out I had autism, I told Ernest the autism guy that I wanted to meet others who had my type of autism—Asperger’s syndrome. He said something that has really made an impression on me: sharing a condition does not mean that there will be kinship. That doesn’t mean there can’t be, but it does mean that it will not come automatically. I found out the truth in this statement recently—I met another “Aspie”, and he drove me crazy! But maybe it’s because we share many of the same characteristics. Although Aspie’s differ from one another, they share some unique quirks that tend to annoy and even baffle neurotypicals. So I decided that in order to have kinship with this person, I’d have to work at it. I’d have to stop judging him, and look past the things I didn’t like. I’d have to appreciate him simply because we share the same plight—that is what creates kinship. And so it must be with those who make up the Christian community. Simply because we love and follow Jesus does not mean we will be in agreement and have automatic kinship. Perhaps it should, but we’re dealing with people here, and that means we’re dealing with flaws. In order to be a cohesive unit of Christ followers, we’re going to have to work at it. That means not judging each other, or accusing those who don’t believe exactly as we do as not being Christians. The fact that we’re here, serving Christ, should mean something. No, we will never agree on how to interpret Scripture, but is that really important? I don’t think so; I think what’s important is that we love Jesus and have chosen to follow him. If someone is doing something “wrong”, and they really love Christ, than I believe he will let them know. It’s his job, not ours. That doesn’t mean that he won’t use us to assist in that process, but we must make damn sure that it’s his will, not ours. During the Quietist period in Friends history, Quakers waited a long time—months sometimes—to give a message to their fellow believers. They were so concerned that it was God’s message being spoken and not theirs that they waited and waited to speak. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book when “advising” our brothers and sisters in Christ. But saying that they are not Christians because of the way they read the Bible doesn’t sound like God’s direction to me. So our job is not to condemn, judge, or make someone’s life more difficult than it already is—it’s to see past the things we don’t like, or don’t think may be consistent with our view of Scripture, and kindle the kinship that exists among followers of Christ. If the Quakers in North Carolina busy themselves with that task instead, then perhaps a split is avoidable.

The religion America was founded upon?

They say an argument based upon emotion (rather than logic) is not a good one. Well, I’ll try to base this blog upon logic, but I can’t say there won’t be any emotion present. Today I watched one of my “favorite” kinds of TV shows—the Christian news broadcast. I really despise these—they are one-sided, with a special commitment to the right wing agenda. Any way, the one today was spotlighting the life of a TV pastor who recently passed away. At the end of the story, the anchor said that those who love America and wish to see her return to her “biblically moral” foundations especially appreciated this pastor.
Let me first say that a comment like this ignores the obvious—America was not founded upon Christianity. It was, in fact, founded by the native peoples who had long inhabited this land, and they had a variety of religious beliefs, none of which were Christian. Christianity did not present itself here until those who claimed to know Christ stole this land. Brian McLaren describes this steal-conquer-and subject way of founding a new nation beautifully:

In the old modern-colonial world, Christians could wish that everyone everywhere would just get with it and become proper…Christians like us. In fact, non-Christians could be seen as stubborn rebels who refused to capitulate to the dominating truth. They could either be seen as “in the way”, a problem to be removed through either conversion (forced or free) or ethnic cleansing… [Christians] showed boldness and confidence in the gospel through what appeared to outsiders (though not to ourselves) as bombast, arrogance, disrespect, and insensitivity.

So to argue about America’s religious foundations while simultaneously ignoring the people and faiths that were already present here is to deny the real truth. And let me just say that I don’t believe God gave America to us—Jesus never endorsed stealing, which is precisely how America was “acquired”.
But eventually Christianity did make its way here, via the European settlers who journeyed here. But that Christianity is one that I would hardly think folks would want to return to, if they considered it deeply. For one thing, there was not the freedom that some people would have us believe. Any one who dared to believe something slightly different (and I’m not talking about a whole different religion, I’m talking about deviating from the common understanding of the church at that time) faced jail, banishment, or death. A look at Quaker history in this country is evidence enough of that. When people did something wrong, they were subject to harsh, even cruel punishment that I doubt that even the most “conservative” among us would like to see. I say this because such harsh rules did not produce actual followers of Christ—it simply produced people afraid of getting into trouble and who therefore lived by the rules. Is that really what certain Christians want us to return to? If so, then that desire is not born out of a concern that folk know Christ, rather it comes from a desire to have everyone act the same, which is comfortable for some (and misery for a great deal more).
But I caution those who agree with me to view our true history with understanding. Again, McLaren writes:

We can apologize for the sins of our fathers [and mothers] in such a way that we render ourselves arrogantly superior to them, insensitive both to the challenges of their milieu and to our present and anticipated failures in our own. So [we must be humble], showing respect for our ancestors in the faith, for what they have handed down to us…even if we have reason to be painfully embarrassed by their racist, sexist, and imperialist bias.

I have a book about crime in the 1930’s, and there is a revealing quote on the cover—“proof that there were never any ‘good old days’”. It would behoove us to recognize that indeed there weren’t any better days in the past. Instead of wishing for a “better time” (keep in mind that that ‘better time” was only better for some—just ask a woman or a black person), we should work to make this time a good one, understanding that God’s kingdom is, after all, present and alive. We need only to jump in and be a humble, loving, and obedient part of it to make this life better.