Acts 1:6-14; I Peter 4: 12-14, 5:6-11; John 17:1-11 May 8, 2005
So much for the church triumphant! We can throw that dream into the garbage heap.
Jesus has come among us—born to the strains of an angelic choir singing “Glory to God in the Highest;” He has performed wondrous signs—healing the sick and lame, casting out demons, feeding hungry stomachs and hearts with bread of life and words of life; He has met the worst his enemies could muster—taking their insults and their cross without violence—and overcome it all in the power of love, the power of resurrection. And then after forty days that must have seemed like four to his friends and disciples, he is leaving; returning to the One from whom he has come.
The disciples’ question to him just before his ascension was a logical one don’t you think? “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?” You’ve accomplished everything else you set out to do. Not exactly in the way we’d expected, of course; we weren’t anticipating having to hide out in fear while you went to a cross. But now that’s past. So will you now fulfill the hopes and dreams of Israel; the hopes and dreams that the prophet Isaiah expressed so well when he spoke of all the nations of the gathered around the mountain on which we worship, singing your praises having beaten their swords into plowshares? Is this the time when all our best hopes and dreams, the best hopes and dreams of all humanity, God’s own hopes and dreams for the creation are to be accomplished?
You can’t blame them for asking. You can’t blame them for hoping. We merely human beings need to believe—not just that we’ve found the principles, the method, the leader that will make everything right, but that their triumph is near at hand, just around the corner.
I’ve been teaching History of Christianity in the United States this semester. I was reminded once again that for much of our history, but especially in the 2nd half of the 19th century, after the Civil War, Christian leaders in the United States believed that things were getting better and better and that the Kingdom of God was just around the corner. After all, this nation was unique among all the nations in that it was founded not on the basis of blood kinship or ethnicity and the power of a King, but on universal principles, self-evident truths as Mr. Jefferson called them. And ironically, here where church and state were separate and religious liberty was respected, the church was thriving through a series of awakenings or revivals.
Some even went so far as to proclaim that individual perfection was possible and near at hand. So the holiness movement and utopian communities of various stripes emerged and thrived for a while with the promise of living in “sinless perfection.”
And under the power of the spirit of evangelical Christianity, people in the United States were putting every evil on the anvil of history, hammering away at them with the hammer of Christian righteousness. Once slavery fell, it seemed to many that everything was possible—the elimination of illiteracy and ignorance, child labor, poverty, the abuse of alcohol, even war itself. It’s hard to imagine now, but even Darwin’s theory of evolution was embraced by many as scientific confirmation that progress to higher and higher forms of life, both individual and social, was written into the laws of nature. So toward the end of that period of profound hope and confidence, even the most devastating war in human history, the First World War, could be construed as the “war to end all wars.”
It was not to be. It was not to be.
God did not restore the kingdom to Israel; the Kingdom of God did not come in America; World War I we now know was not the war to end all wars, but merely the precursor to an even more devastating World War. And one doesn’t have to be a Lutheran to doubt that few if any have achieved “sinless perfection.”
Such dreams die hard. There must be something in our nature that can’t give them up. So with the fall of the Soviet Union, some proclaimed the end of history and the emergence of a new world order of peace, prosperity, and human dignity. And even the tragedy of September 11 and the announcement of a seemingly endless “war on terrorism,” has not prevented President Bush—inspired by an evangelical Christian faith in the sprit of the late 19th century—from articulating among the most idealistic and hopeful visions of the future for America and the world ever seen.
And now the promise of sinless perfection for individuals is offered in various New Age spiritualities or by overzealous therapists impressed by the discoveries of Freudian or Jungian psychology.
And many or our Christian brothers and sisters, despite Jesus’ warning, believe sincerely that we are in the Last Days. Even more bold than Jesus disciples basking in the sunlight of his resurrection the do not ask, but proclaim, “This is the age Jesus will restore the Kingdom to Israel.”
I hope you will forgive me if I say, “I don’t think so.” It is not to be. It is not to be.
Our lessons today paint a much more sober picture.
It’s not just Jesus warning in Acts on the day of his ascension that ours is not to know the timing of God’s triumph. There is also profound realism and sobriety if you will in Jesus’ prayer for the disciples from the gospel reading. The setting there is the Last Supper from John’s gospel. And though it claims that God’s love is for the whole world and that Jesus has come that the whole world might be saved, here in the upper room Jesus prayer is incredibly low-keyed and reflects much less grandiose ambitions. “I have made your name know to those whom you gave me from the world. And they have believed the words you gave me. I am asking on their behalf, not on behalf of the world. A world that I am leaving, but in which they will remain.”
Or consider, the word from first Peter, maybe the most sobering of all. “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you. But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings.” Good God, no imminent triumph awaits us, but a fiery ordeal! And we who would be his disciples are to rejoice because we are to share his suffering! What kind of a religion is this! Imagine the marketing campaign related to this revival, “Come join that people who rejoices in the suffering of a cross.” “That’s no way to discover the secrets of revivalism,” I hear the gurus of growth growl.
Our lessons today suggest that the task before us is not to prepare ourselves for the immediate triumph of the Kingdom of God, for the end of history, for the coming of peace, prosperity, and human dignity the world over; not to expect that we will achieve any sinless perfection the day after tomorrow.
Rather we are to steel ourselves for the long haul. The gift of the Holy Spirit, Jesus indicates to his disciples, will prepare them for witness “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” I Peter warns that such witness will require discipline and resistance because “like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour.”
Witness, discipline, resistance. These are watchwords of our lessons today.
Those who would be Jesus’ disciples are called to be his witnesses. Our lives are to be a witness in Madison, in all the Piedmont and Virginia, and to the ends of the earth.
All the world is not a stage, as Shakespeare suggested. We are not actors on a stage; our lives are not the playing out of a grand drama. Rather, Jesus says, all the world’s a courtroom and we have been called as witnesses, his witnesses. And the measure of our lives is the effectiveness, the truthfulness, the consistency, the persuasiveness of our witness—on his behalf.
The task of a witness is to tell the truth, not in some abstract or speculative sense, but the truth as he or she knows it; it is to give testimony to what he or she has seen and heard, nothing more, and nothing less. “Just the facts, ma’am,” the famous detective of dragnet use to say as he collected testimony that might be useful to the solving of a crime. “Just tell me what you saw and heard. Just tell me what you know in your own experience. Not what you’ve heard from others; not what you think it all means. Just what you saw; what you heard. The jury will decide what it means. The jury will attempt to determine the truth. Just the facts, ma’am.”
[Are you the one? Tell him what you’ve seen. Is he the Messiah? All I know…]
Our task as his disciples, Jesus suggests, is to be his witnesses, just to tell what we’ve seen and heard. And this as a metaphor for our lives; not just our words, but our actions (which speak louder than words) are to tell to what we’ve seen and heard about him; to bear witness to what we’ve experienced in him; to give testimony to what we hope for because of him.
Doing this truthfully, doing it well, doing it consistently, persuasively requires discipline and resistance, doesn’t it? It requires discipline and resistance because there are other claimants on our lives than Him. There are others who ask us to bear witness on their behalf. There are other ways than His, other truth than His, others that promise life if we will but follow faithfully.
We would like to believe that giving our witness for Jesus is easy here—in the United States. After all we have religious liberty. No one will haul us off to jail or throw us to the lions because of our beliefs. Even more importantly, ours is a culture shaped profoundly over the years by the Christian values of our founders and of the Christian values of the vast majority of the peoples that have had greatest influence on its social habits. Especially here in rural Virginia, in a region that is usually identified as part of the so-called Bible belt, a region where people’s beliefs and manners and lifestyles are indelibly shaped by their familiarity with the Bible. Here, we like to think, no fiery ordeal faces those called to bear witness to Jesus in word and deed. No great discipline or resistance is required of us and for this we are thankful. We are thankful that our context, the courtroom to which and in which we have been called for witness to Jesus is so unlike the hostile one the early Christian community faced.
I fear that we delude ourselves. Witness, even here, especially here, still requires discipline and resistance, I believe. Our context is different than that of the first Christians, but it is no less challenging.
I’ve come to think of it this way. Our world—our courtroom, if you will—confronts of us with two choices; we face a fundamental option and maybe it’s always been this way: to live with open arms or to live with hands that grasp and turn to clinched fists.
Jesus gives us the possibility to live with open arms. As a forgiven people, as a people who have known the free grace of God in our lives, we have been empowered to live with open arms. Open to all that life offers and grateful for it; open to the gift that our neighbors are to us—in all their racial and cultural varieties; open and grateful for all the experiences—pleasant and unpleasant, comforting and challenging—that God brings our way in life. Open armed in our readiness to share the riches that are ours in his grace with our neighbors near and far. We are his faithful witnesses in the courtroom of the world when we live with open arms.
But much in the world around us, much even in the culture that shapes us, would have us grasp for what we need and to guard it with clinched fists. We are told to see this as a dog-eat-dog world, where you’d better look out for number 1 because good guys finish last. We are told that hope is to be found in the relentless pursuit of things for ourselves and for those we love. We are told see those who work for us as human resources to be bought at the cheapest market rate, not as brothers and sisters who require a living wage. We are told that those who are different from us are a threat to us, that those who are our enemies are uncivilized and only understand the threat of force, that the key to security and salvation in this world is strength. As if this is not God’s world, not a world whose Creator and Lord was one incarnate in the crucified and resurrected sage of Nazareth. As if there is no God, or no God like the One in Christ, the one in whom and through whom we have experienced grace upon grace.
And we are powerfully shaped by the world around us. Adopting its cynical, defensive posture of the grasping hands and the clenched fists is a profound temptation for us. Truth be told we are constantly wavering between life with open arms and life with clinched fists. We want to live with open arms and some times, in some moments, in some relationships we do. And our witness is faithful and true. But in other moments, in other relationships we grasp and clinch resisting the God-inspired inclination to live with open arms. We hedge our bets more than a bit, fearing that God’s grace cannot be trusted, fearing that living with open arms is naïve and foolish. And in so doing our witness is tarnished and in the courtroom of the world Jesus is found guilty once again for lack of credible testimony on his behalf.
Witness requires discipline. It requires resistance against all that would twist us into the posture of the grasping hands and the clinched fists.
After Jesus’ ascension and with their mandate to be his witnesses fresh in their minds, Acts says they returned to Jerusalem. More specifically it says they went to the room upstairs where the entire company of Jesus’ followers was staying. Isn’t this the so-called upper room of the Lord’s Super? If so, it suggests that the discipline and resistance necessary for faithful witness is found only in our constant and faithful nourishing of the gift of the Holy Spirit at the table where, in company with others who have heard his call to witness, we are reunited with him in the sharing of the bread and cup which is his body and blood.
“Did we in our own strength confide,” Luther wrote in that wonderful hymn which may have been his greatest gift to Church, “Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing. Were not the right man on our side, the man of God’s own choosing.”
I have not the strength I need for discipline and resistance. I have not the strength I need for faithful witness. I have not the strength necessary to resist the temptation to live defensively with grasping hands and clinched fists. But Thanks be to God, among the promises to us is the promise that God in Christ is always with us and among us, making witness on his own behalf in and through us. Thanks be to God, he is ever at work among us giving us strength to stand up straight with open arms. In this is our hope. Praise God.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Monday, February 28, 2005
Some interesting statistics on poverty
I received this today in an email from a friend and that it was worth posting and worth making a comment or two. First, it seems important to me to recognize that these realities represent an indictment of both the major political parties and not just Republicans. We who are Christian or Progressive and other who care about the poor ought not forget that it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who basically eliminated welfare (it was called Reform). Secondly, it is worth commenthing that at a time when so-called "moral values" supposedly dominated the election season, there was little or no talk about these matters. Third, it would be easy to say, and not inaccurate, that we simply can't have a 'war on terrorism' and eliminate poverty. We learned that in the 1960s and in relation to an earlier war to bring democracy to a distant country. However, that would ignore the fact that, in fact, no one on the scene nationally is even talking about eliminating poverty. It's not even on the political radar screen. Barry Penn Hollar
This was published on Common Dreams, Counterpunch and a few other
places. Thought you might enjoy sending it around.
Peace, Bill Quigley
Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz (Answers below)
by Bill Quigley, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
quigley@loyno.edu
1. In 1968 the minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. How much would the
minimum wage be today if it had kept pace with inflation?
2. In 1965, CEOs in major companies made 24 times more than the average
worker. In 2003, CEOs earned how many times more than the average worker?
3. The US is composed of 3,066 counties. In how many of the nation's
3,066 counties can someone who works full-time and earns the federal
minimum wage afford to pay rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment?
4. How much must the typical US worker must earn per hour hour if they
dedicate 30% of their income to housing costs.
5. How many million workers in the US earn poverty-level wages of less
than $8.20 an hour?
6. What are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Tennessee?
7. What are Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and West Virginia?
8. In 2001, the average financial wealth for black householders was
about what % of the average for white households?
9. The median financial wealth for blacks is how much of the
corresponding figure for whites?
10. Over the entire 28 year history of the Berlin Wall, 287 people
perished trying to cross it. In the ten years since the Clinton
administration implemented the current U.S. border strategy with Mexico,
how many people have died trying to cross?
11. Where does the US rank worldwide in the imprisonment of its citizens?
12. In 2004, the direct reported US military budget was how much for
each second of the year?
13. In 2003, the US military budget was how many times larger than the
Chinese budget, the second largest spender?
14. In 2003, the US military budget was how many times as large as the
combined spending of the seven so-called “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria)?
15. The difference in income per head between the richest nation and the
poorest nation in 1750 was about 5 to 1. Today the difference between
the richest nation and the poorest nation is what?
16. Of the 6.2 billion people in the world today, how many live on less
than $1 per day, and how many live on less than $2 per day?
17. The richest 1% in the world receive as much income as what
percentage of the poorest?
18. The Congress under President Bush has been more generous in helping
poor countries than under President Clinton. In 2003, the US increased
official development assistance to poor countries by one-fifth. Where
does the US contribution rank in the top 22 countries in proportion to
our economy?
19. Americans give how much per day in government assistance to poor
countries?
20. Americans spend how much on soft drinks each day?
ANSWERS to Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz
1. The minimum wage would be $8.70 today if it had kept pace with
inflation. Brennan Center, NYU Law School, November 3, 2004.
2. In 1965, CEOs in major companies made 24 times more than the average
worker. In 2003, CEOs earned 185 times more than the average worker.
“Wages” in State of Working America 2004-2005, Economic Policy
Institute, www.epinet.org
3. In four of the nation's 3,066 counties can someone who works
full-time and earns the federal minimum wage afford to pay rent and
utilities on a one-bedroom apartment. New York Times, “Study Finds Gap
in Wages and Housing Costs,” December 25, 2004.
4. In fact, the typical US worker must earn $15.37 an hour if they
dedicate 30% of their income to housing costs. New York Times, “Study
Finds Gap in Wages and Housing Costs,” December 24, 2004.
5. How many people in the US earn poverty-level wages of less than $8.20
an hour? More than 30 million workers. William Quigley, ENDING POVERTY
AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job at a Living Wage 24 (Temple
2003).
6. What are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Tennessee?
The total population of these states represents the number of people in
the US living below the official poverty line. William Quigley, ENDING
POVERTY AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job at a Living Wage
23-24 (Temple 2003).
7. What are Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and West Virginia? The total populations of these state
populations must be added to the states above if you count all the
people below 125% of the official poverty line, a total of 22 states.
William Quigley, ENDING POVERTY AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A
Job at a Living Wage 23-24 (Temple 2003).
8. In 2001, the average financial wealth for black householders was
about 12% of the average for white households. “Minorities,” in State of
Working America 2004-2005, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org
9. The median financial wealth for blacks was $1,100, less than 3% of
the corresponding figure for whites. “Minorities,” in State of Working
America 2004-2005, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org
10. Over the entire 28 year history of the Berlin Wall, 287 people
perished trying to cross it. In the ten years since the Clinton
administration implemented the current U.S. border strategy with Mexico,
more than 2,500 people have died trying to cross. Wayne Cornelius,
director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San
Diego. Marc Cooper, “On the Border of Hypocrisy,” December 5, 2003, LA
Weekly.
11. Where does the US rank worldwide in the imprisonment of its
citizens? First. The US imprisons over 700 persons per 100,000. Russia
is second with 584. Sentencing Project, Facts About Prisons and
Prisoners. Www.sentencingproject.org
12. In 2004, the direct reported US military budget was over $399
billion, $12,000 a second. www.globalissues.org
13. In 2003, the US military budget was more than 8 times larger than
the Chinese budget, the second largest spender. www.globalissues.org
14. The US military budget was more than 29 times as large as the
combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya,
North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Even if you add China and Russia’s
military spending to that of the seven potential enemies, all nine
nations together spent $116.2 billion, 27% of the U.S. military budget.
The US military budget is more than the combined spending of the next
twenty three nations. www.globalissues.org
15. The difference in income per head between the richest nation and the
poorest nation in 1750 was about 5 to 1. Today the difference between
the richest nation, Switzerland, and the poorest nation, Mozambique, is
about 400 to 1. (David S. Landes, THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS, xx,
W.W. Norton 1998).
16. Of the 6.2 billion people in the world today, 1.2 billion live on
less than $1 per day, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 per day. 2002 UN
Human Development Report.
17. The richest 1% in the world receive as much income as the poorest
57%. 2002 UN Human Development Report.
18. The Congress under President Bush has been more generous in helping
poor countries than under President Clinton. In 2003, the US increased
official development assistance to poor countries by one-fifth. Where
does the US contribution rank in the top 22 countries in proportion to
our economy? Last. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Land of Penny Pinchers,” New
York Times, January 5, 2005.
19. Americans on average give how much per day in government assistance
to poor countries? 15 cents. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Land of Penny
Pinchers,” New York Times, January 5, 2005.
20. Americans spend how much on soft drinks each day? 60 cents. Nicholas
D. Kristof, “Land of Penny Pinchers,” New York Times, January 5, 2005.
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world
revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing” oriented society to a
“person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives
and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant
triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being
conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question
the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., “A Time to Break Silence,” April 4, 1967.
Bill Quigley is a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He can
be reached at quigley@loyno.edu
This was published on Common Dreams, Counterpunch and a few other
places. Thought you might enjoy sending it around.
Peace, Bill Quigley
Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz (Answers below)
by Bill Quigley, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law
quigley@loyno.edu
1. In 1968 the minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. How much would the
minimum wage be today if it had kept pace with inflation?
2. In 1965, CEOs in major companies made 24 times more than the average
worker. In 2003, CEOs earned how many times more than the average worker?
3. The US is composed of 3,066 counties. In how many of the nation's
3,066 counties can someone who works full-time and earns the federal
minimum wage afford to pay rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment?
4. How much must the typical US worker must earn per hour hour if they
dedicate 30% of their income to housing costs.
5. How many million workers in the US earn poverty-level wages of less
than $8.20 an hour?
6. What are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Tennessee?
7. What are Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and West Virginia?
8. In 2001, the average financial wealth for black householders was
about what % of the average for white households?
9. The median financial wealth for blacks is how much of the
corresponding figure for whites?
10. Over the entire 28 year history of the Berlin Wall, 287 people
perished trying to cross it. In the ten years since the Clinton
administration implemented the current U.S. border strategy with Mexico,
how many people have died trying to cross?
11. Where does the US rank worldwide in the imprisonment of its citizens?
12. In 2004, the direct reported US military budget was how much for
each second of the year?
13. In 2003, the US military budget was how many times larger than the
Chinese budget, the second largest spender?
14. In 2003, the US military budget was how many times as large as the
combined spending of the seven so-called “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria)?
15. The difference in income per head between the richest nation and the
poorest nation in 1750 was about 5 to 1. Today the difference between
the richest nation and the poorest nation is what?
16. Of the 6.2 billion people in the world today, how many live on less
than $1 per day, and how many live on less than $2 per day?
17. The richest 1% in the world receive as much income as what
percentage of the poorest?
18. The Congress under President Bush has been more generous in helping
poor countries than under President Clinton. In 2003, the US increased
official development assistance to poor countries by one-fifth. Where
does the US contribution rank in the top 22 countries in proportion to
our economy?
19. Americans give how much per day in government assistance to poor
countries?
20. Americans spend how much on soft drinks each day?
ANSWERS to Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz
1. The minimum wage would be $8.70 today if it had kept pace with
inflation. Brennan Center, NYU Law School, November 3, 2004.
2. In 1965, CEOs in major companies made 24 times more than the average
worker. In 2003, CEOs earned 185 times more than the average worker.
“Wages” in State of Working America 2004-2005, Economic Policy
Institute, www.epinet.org
3. In four of the nation's 3,066 counties can someone who works
full-time and earns the federal minimum wage afford to pay rent and
utilities on a one-bedroom apartment. New York Times, “Study Finds Gap
in Wages and Housing Costs,” December 25, 2004.
4. In fact, the typical US worker must earn $15.37 an hour if they
dedicate 30% of their income to housing costs. New York Times, “Study
Finds Gap in Wages and Housing Costs,” December 24, 2004.
5. How many people in the US earn poverty-level wages of less than $8.20
an hour? More than 30 million workers. William Quigley, ENDING POVERTY
AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job at a Living Wage 24 (Temple
2003).
6. What are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Tennessee?
The total population of these states represents the number of people in
the US living below the official poverty line. William Quigley, ENDING
POVERTY AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job at a Living Wage
23-24 (Temple 2003).
7. What are Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and West Virginia? The total populations of these state
populations must be added to the states above if you count all the
people below 125% of the official poverty line, a total of 22 states.
William Quigley, ENDING POVERTY AS WE KNOW IT: Guaranteeing A Right to A
Job at a Living Wage 23-24 (Temple 2003).
8. In 2001, the average financial wealth for black householders was
about 12% of the average for white households. “Minorities,” in State of
Working America 2004-2005, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org
9. The median financial wealth for blacks was $1,100, less than 3% of
the corresponding figure for whites. “Minorities,” in State of Working
America 2004-2005, Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org
10. Over the entire 28 year history of the Berlin Wall, 287 people
perished trying to cross it. In the ten years since the Clinton
administration implemented the current U.S. border strategy with Mexico,
more than 2,500 people have died trying to cross. Wayne Cornelius,
director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San
Diego. Marc Cooper, “On the Border of Hypocrisy,” December 5, 2003, LA
Weekly.
11. Where does the US rank worldwide in the imprisonment of its
citizens? First. The US imprisons over 700 persons per 100,000. Russia
is second with 584. Sentencing Project, Facts About Prisons and
Prisoners. Www.sentencingproject.org
12. In 2004, the direct reported US military budget was over $399
billion, $12,000 a second. www.globalissues.org
13. In 2003, the US military budget was more than 8 times larger than
the Chinese budget, the second largest spender. www.globalissues.org
14. The US military budget was more than 29 times as large as the
combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya,
North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Even if you add China and Russia’s
military spending to that of the seven potential enemies, all nine
nations together spent $116.2 billion, 27% of the U.S. military budget.
The US military budget is more than the combined spending of the next
twenty three nations. www.globalissues.org
15. The difference in income per head between the richest nation and the
poorest nation in 1750 was about 5 to 1. Today the difference between
the richest nation, Switzerland, and the poorest nation, Mozambique, is
about 400 to 1. (David S. Landes, THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS, xx,
W.W. Norton 1998).
16. Of the 6.2 billion people in the world today, 1.2 billion live on
less than $1 per day, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 per day. 2002 UN
Human Development Report.
17. The richest 1% in the world receive as much income as the poorest
57%. 2002 UN Human Development Report.
18. The Congress under President Bush has been more generous in helping
poor countries than under President Clinton. In 2003, the US increased
official development assistance to poor countries by one-fifth. Where
does the US contribution rank in the top 22 countries in proportion to
our economy? Last. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Land of Penny Pinchers,” New
York Times, January 5, 2005.
19. Americans on average give how much per day in government assistance
to poor countries? 15 cents. Nicholas D. Kristof, “Land of Penny
Pinchers,” New York Times, January 5, 2005.
20. Americans spend how much on soft drinks each day? 60 cents. Nicholas
D. Kristof, “Land of Penny Pinchers,” New York Times, January 5, 2005.
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world
revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing” oriented society to a
“person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives
and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant
triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being
conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question
the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., “A Time to Break Silence,” April 4, 1967.
Bill Quigley is a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He can
be reached at quigley@loyno.edu
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Confessing Christ in a World of Violence
This is from Sojo Net: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041020
Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.
Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?
Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.
- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.
- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.
- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."
The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.
In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.
1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.
We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.
2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.
We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.
3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.
We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.
We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.
5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.
We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.
The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.
We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.
Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.
Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?
Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.
- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.
- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.
- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."
The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.
In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.
1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.
We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.
2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.
We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.
3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.
We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.
We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.
5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.
We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.
The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.
We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The "Trust Clause" Controversy
Recently, the General Assembly of the State of Virginia a bill was proposed that would have made the “trust clause” that is a part of the structure of the United Methodist Church illegal. The trust clause says that the trustees of a local congregation hold the property in trust for the denomination. It means that if a local congregation wants to leave the denomination, they cannot take the church building and property with them. The bill to eliminate the trust clause in Virginia seems to have been generated by attempts by several Episcopal parishes to leave the denomination in protest against its ordination of an openly gay bishop. The bill was ultimately sent back to committee and effectively killed for the time being though it is likely to reappear in some form in future sessions.
I think I understand why people believe the trust clause should be eliminated. First, it seems that the local people who have given their time, resources, and energy for the purchase, building, and upkeep of the property over the years should have the right to withdraw from the denomination and take the property with them. Another reason for supporting the elimination of the trust clause is to enable local churches to exert their influence and maintain their integrity (overagainst a possibly apostate denomination) with respect to the various issues the church is confronting, especially those related to homosexuality. This seems clearly to have been the motivation behind the proposed bill.
I think we all know that the real driving forces behind the move to eliminate the trust clause have to do with that struggle over homosexuality and related issues. The trust clause has always been a part of Methodist church structure and that of the other denominations with an episcopal organizational structure. It only becomes an issue in the context of concrete struggles over doctrinal and moral matters. (It’s much like the national debate in the 19th century over whether the states that formed the union had the right to withdraw or secede from it. That debate about states’ rights was not driven by abstract constitutional issues, but by the very concrete struggle over slavery.)
None of this is to suggest that the question of the rights of the people of the local churches in relation to church property is not important. Indeed it is very important and it may well be what concerns me as much or more than the debate about homosexuality, that is driving the issue. What frustrates and angers me so about the position you have taken is that it reflects a complete failure to understand the theology of the church that underlies the trust clause. The idea that the local congregation holds the property in trust for the denomination reflects the belief that the church (the community of faith, the body of Christ) is the whole people of God and the local congregation is “church” only in communion or organic union with the rest of the body. Paul says the one part of the body cannot say to another part of the body, “You are not the body.” That’s precisely what a single congregation withdrawing from the denomination represents from the perspective of this episcopal or connectional understanding of the church (which is held by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Methodist branches of the church).
From the perspective of this ecclesiology the claim of the current members of any congregation that the property is “theirs” is wrongheaded. It is not theirs to do with as they please or even as they believe themselves to be lead by the Spirit. It is only theirs in trust from Christ, in trust from the whole body of Christ (including the generations in their local church who have gone before), in trust from the denomination which imperfectly represents Christ and the whole body. What they do with the property of Christ should be shaped in large measure by the discernment of all those among whom the Sprit works and not just the local members. The members in every place should test their discernment against that all the members of the body—rather than assuming that there discernment is infallible.
Of course, this theology of the church is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the right one. There is also the Baptist view that the church is fully present in the local congregation. That is the basis of Baptist church organization in which local congregations are fully autonomous and may or may not “associate” with other congregations and withdraw from their association to become “independent” at will.
It may be wrong for me to say that people who supported the bill don’t understand this. Maybe they do. If so, then it is evident that they subscribe to the baptist rather than the episcopal theology of the church. That’s fine. Either view can find some basis in scripture and Christian people operating under both forms of organization have effectively spread the Gospel. (I must say I think the episcopal form is a better witness to the unity for which we hope as people of God and is more effective in discipling those who become believers, but that’s a discussion for another time.)
Here’s the bottom line for me: if those who don’t subscribe to the theology that has historically formed and continues to form the United Methodist Church on this matter why do they want to be United Methodist? They have choices. Typically, they drive by many Baptist churches (associated and independent) on their way to the United Methodist congregations they attend? Why don’t they attend and become members there? Why do they insist on trying to turn the United Methodist Church into a Baptist association? If they had no options I could understand, but they do have options. Lots of options. Why do they insist on coming into my home and rearranging the furniture! It saddens me deeply that we can no longer attend the United Methodist congregation that I once served as pastor and to which my wife and her family has long belonged. That some there have been clamoring to leave the UMC and were excited about the possibility that this bill would facilitate that possibility reminds me again of what I felt so many times over the years when we were attending: why do you people have to make my United Methodist Church into a Baptist Church. If you want a Baptist Church go to a Baptist Church.
As I’ve said, what’s driving this issue is the struggle for the soul of the UMC with regard to homosexuality (and other related matters). A significant part of what’s going on in the debate about the trust clause is an attempt by those who oppose any recognition of the legitimacy of homosexuality or homosexual unions or ordination to gain additional leverage over their denominations in the “political” struggle with the church organizations over this issue. This is where I find the position of those who are supporting this bill in the UMC most curious. It’s not as if the UMC doesn’t provide all the necessary mechanisms for enabling its members and local congregations to shape denominational policy. Moreover, those who are opposed to any recognition of homosexual legitimacy are winning and winning consistently! God Lord, if any congregation should be supporting the end to the trust clause it should be those where the majority of the members feel profoundly out of step with the direction the UMC is going as it strengthens its stand against homosexual ordination and unions. But no, it’s the winning side that is clamoring to increase its leverage.
I know, the opponents of homosexual unions and ordination can point to the proclamations and actions of a bishop or two, lots of seminary professors, and more than a few officials in church agencies that reflect positions different from theirs and different from the official positions of the church. Still, the church is farther from approving the ordination of homosexuals or authorizing homosexual unions than its ever been in our lifetime. So why the push to eliminate the trust clause?
Let me tell you what I think and feel from my own experience: it’s not enough for the anti-gay forces to win. They want to drive everyone who thinks differently out of the UMC. That’s what I think largely because that’s what I experienced at one United Methodist congregation and what I see happening at the denominational level. Many of the groups that consider themselves “watchdogs” and “renewal movements” in the UMC miss no opportunity to sound the alarm, to inflame outrage against the denomination, and to promote discontent among the laity at every sign of any dissent. And they won’t be satisfied until all of us who think differently are either silenced or gone because they’re just so sure they are right and they’ve got a monopoly on the Holy Spirit and the rest of us are just misguided pagans.
I think I understand why people believe the trust clause should be eliminated. First, it seems that the local people who have given their time, resources, and energy for the purchase, building, and upkeep of the property over the years should have the right to withdraw from the denomination and take the property with them. Another reason for supporting the elimination of the trust clause is to enable local churches to exert their influence and maintain their integrity (overagainst a possibly apostate denomination) with respect to the various issues the church is confronting, especially those related to homosexuality. This seems clearly to have been the motivation behind the proposed bill.
I think we all know that the real driving forces behind the move to eliminate the trust clause have to do with that struggle over homosexuality and related issues. The trust clause has always been a part of Methodist church structure and that of the other denominations with an episcopal organizational structure. It only becomes an issue in the context of concrete struggles over doctrinal and moral matters. (It’s much like the national debate in the 19th century over whether the states that formed the union had the right to withdraw or secede from it. That debate about states’ rights was not driven by abstract constitutional issues, but by the very concrete struggle over slavery.)
None of this is to suggest that the question of the rights of the people of the local churches in relation to church property is not important. Indeed it is very important and it may well be what concerns me as much or more than the debate about homosexuality, that is driving the issue. What frustrates and angers me so about the position you have taken is that it reflects a complete failure to understand the theology of the church that underlies the trust clause. The idea that the local congregation holds the property in trust for the denomination reflects the belief that the church (the community of faith, the body of Christ) is the whole people of God and the local congregation is “church” only in communion or organic union with the rest of the body. Paul says the one part of the body cannot say to another part of the body, “You are not the body.” That’s precisely what a single congregation withdrawing from the denomination represents from the perspective of this episcopal or connectional understanding of the church (which is held by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Methodist branches of the church).
From the perspective of this ecclesiology the claim of the current members of any congregation that the property is “theirs” is wrongheaded. It is not theirs to do with as they please or even as they believe themselves to be lead by the Spirit. It is only theirs in trust from Christ, in trust from the whole body of Christ (including the generations in their local church who have gone before), in trust from the denomination which imperfectly represents Christ and the whole body. What they do with the property of Christ should be shaped in large measure by the discernment of all those among whom the Sprit works and not just the local members. The members in every place should test their discernment against that all the members of the body—rather than assuming that there discernment is infallible.
Of course, this theology of the church is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the right one. There is also the Baptist view that the church is fully present in the local congregation. That is the basis of Baptist church organization in which local congregations are fully autonomous and may or may not “associate” with other congregations and withdraw from their association to become “independent” at will.
It may be wrong for me to say that people who supported the bill don’t understand this. Maybe they do. If so, then it is evident that they subscribe to the baptist rather than the episcopal theology of the church. That’s fine. Either view can find some basis in scripture and Christian people operating under both forms of organization have effectively spread the Gospel. (I must say I think the episcopal form is a better witness to the unity for which we hope as people of God and is more effective in discipling those who become believers, but that’s a discussion for another time.)
Here’s the bottom line for me: if those who don’t subscribe to the theology that has historically formed and continues to form the United Methodist Church on this matter why do they want to be United Methodist? They have choices. Typically, they drive by many Baptist churches (associated and independent) on their way to the United Methodist congregations they attend? Why don’t they attend and become members there? Why do they insist on trying to turn the United Methodist Church into a Baptist association? If they had no options I could understand, but they do have options. Lots of options. Why do they insist on coming into my home and rearranging the furniture! It saddens me deeply that we can no longer attend the United Methodist congregation that I once served as pastor and to which my wife and her family has long belonged. That some there have been clamoring to leave the UMC and were excited about the possibility that this bill would facilitate that possibility reminds me again of what I felt so many times over the years when we were attending: why do you people have to make my United Methodist Church into a Baptist Church. If you want a Baptist Church go to a Baptist Church.
As I’ve said, what’s driving this issue is the struggle for the soul of the UMC with regard to homosexuality (and other related matters). A significant part of what’s going on in the debate about the trust clause is an attempt by those who oppose any recognition of the legitimacy of homosexuality or homosexual unions or ordination to gain additional leverage over their denominations in the “political” struggle with the church organizations over this issue. This is where I find the position of those who are supporting this bill in the UMC most curious. It’s not as if the UMC doesn’t provide all the necessary mechanisms for enabling its members and local congregations to shape denominational policy. Moreover, those who are opposed to any recognition of homosexual legitimacy are winning and winning consistently! God Lord, if any congregation should be supporting the end to the trust clause it should be those where the majority of the members feel profoundly out of step with the direction the UMC is going as it strengthens its stand against homosexual ordination and unions. But no, it’s the winning side that is clamoring to increase its leverage.
I know, the opponents of homosexual unions and ordination can point to the proclamations and actions of a bishop or two, lots of seminary professors, and more than a few officials in church agencies that reflect positions different from theirs and different from the official positions of the church. Still, the church is farther from approving the ordination of homosexuals or authorizing homosexual unions than its ever been in our lifetime. So why the push to eliminate the trust clause?
Let me tell you what I think and feel from my own experience: it’s not enough for the anti-gay forces to win. They want to drive everyone who thinks differently out of the UMC. That’s what I think largely because that’s what I experienced at one United Methodist congregation and what I see happening at the denominational level. Many of the groups that consider themselves “watchdogs” and “renewal movements” in the UMC miss no opportunity to sound the alarm, to inflame outrage against the denomination, and to promote discontent among the laity at every sign of any dissent. And they won’t be satisfied until all of us who think differently are either silenced or gone because they’re just so sure they are right and they’ve got a monopoly on the Holy Spirit and the rest of us are just misguided pagans.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Letter to a friend
I have taken down my letter to a friend to which I referred in an email. A thoughful person, to whom I am grateful, raised questions about confidentiality which I had thought about but not carefully enough! The letter will only reappear but only with the permission of the person to whom it was directed. More likely the ideas in the letter are likely to reappear with the personal nature of the original letter removed.
Thanks VS!
Thanks VS!
Monday, January 31, 2005
Three Responses to Cultural Diversity
ETHNOCENTRISM
Regards one's own particular cultural as superior; it's perspectives "true;" others as "false" or deficient. Often associated with racism—which defines another race as inferior.
Focus on communities/cultures.
Segregation of groups enforced by those with power.
Racial, religious, cultural hatred
EQUALITY
A commitment to the idea that behind all our obvious differences are common qualities/capacities that define our humanity and are the source of our dignity.
Generally focuses on capacities for autonomous reason and choice.
Focus on individuals (as autonomous in relation to communities/cultures).
Associated with integration.
Racial, religious, cultural blindness
Commitment to individual liberty-—with little regard to power issues.
Commitment to geographical representation.
MULTI-CULTURALISM
A commitment to the idea that there is truth/value in all cultural perspectives and that individual identity is shaped by cultures.
Individual "essence" isn't independent of culture
Focus on individuals-in-community, individuals as culturally formed.
Voluntary separation of groups in name of racial, ethnic identity or pride.
Racial, religious, cultural awareness and appreciation.
Commitment to participation—with significant emphasis on power.
Commitment to group representation.
Regards one's own particular cultural as superior; it's perspectives "true;" others as "false" or deficient. Often associated with racism—which defines another race as inferior.
Focus on communities/cultures.
Segregation of groups enforced by those with power.
Racial, religious, cultural hatred
EQUALITY
A commitment to the idea that behind all our obvious differences are common qualities/capacities that define our humanity and are the source of our dignity.
Generally focuses on capacities for autonomous reason and choice.
Focus on individuals (as autonomous in relation to communities/cultures).
Associated with integration.
Racial, religious, cultural blindness
Commitment to individual liberty-—with little regard to power issues.
Commitment to geographical representation.
MULTI-CULTURALISM
A commitment to the idea that there is truth/value in all cultural perspectives and that individual identity is shaped by cultures.
Individual "essence" isn't independent of culture
Focus on individuals-in-community, individuals as culturally formed.
Voluntary separation of groups in name of racial, ethnic identity or pride.
Racial, religious, cultural awareness and appreciation.
Commitment to participation—with significant emphasis on power.
Commitment to group representation.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Getting Started
My friend Jim Winkler at the United Methodist Board of Church and Society sent me an email about his new blog site. I went there, read his first post, and started to log in a comment asking him to keep us posted on his trip to the Middle East. I had to register to post, in the process I said, what the heck I might as well blog too!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)