I wrote this last week, but I did some weird little HTML thing that kept it from publishing; so I am not yet sure what will be the word of the week for this week, but it may emerge tonight in the debates.
Egregious ripples off the tongue. It combines a bit of the gutteral with the potential of a rolled "r". I proclaim it my word of the week. And just in time! I found this on James Wiser's blog, and found the contents nothing but deserving of the word of the week. Next week maybe the Democrats will supply something--equal opportunity egregiousness.
from the New York Times
Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKPublished: September 24, 2004
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
down, dowdy, and disaffected
Before I publish this post, I must add this preface:
Stop right now and pray for the family and friends of Jack Hensley, so brutally murdered today in Iraq.
Are you a staunch Republican? A new prosperity independent? How about staunch conservative—that must be more conservative than Republican. Are you a liberal Democrat? These are rhetorical. You don’t have to answer. Try this assessment from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. My government students have been doing this all day today.
Ideology, partisanship, and elections have been the topic of my classes for the last several days. I attempt to create a climate of civil civic dialogue. My Dad emerged from five generations of Republicans—does the name Herbert give you a clue? And mom? A yellow-dog Roosevelt Democrat. I’ve warned you about her. She’s the one who said she loved Bill Clinton. At a church service no less!
I happen to believe people of good heart and good mind can disagree about policy.
Guess how I came out on the Pew assessment? Disaffected! Hmm. The vitriol of the partisanship this season drives my disaffection. Meanwhile, I feel a moral obligation to educate and not indoctrinate students about politics. So, as much as I work at non-partisanship and at critical thinking, I am feeling---disaffected.
Would you?
A Christian friend put a message in my mailbox which he urges me to share with my friends. So I am. The piece rages over the Communist Party’s deep desire to defeat Bush resulting in an endorsement of John Kerry. One of the alarms sounded is that Kerry’s theme “Let America be America Again” comes from the poet Langston Hughes, who in another poem exalts Marx.
Wonder what drove Langston Hughes to disaffection?
Another fellow Christian sent me an email asking for my reflections on an article that explains how the left bases their reasoning on law whereas the right bases their reasoning on morality, because the left has no moral compass--only secular relativity as a basis. He has asked for my response in a collegial and respectful tone. I want to reply in that manner. This is not a "line by line" response as we sometimes give in debate, but it is response to the tendency of those on the right to assume that all those who see things from a different perspective have no moral or spiritual basis for doing so.
Is there not a place for a thoughtful Christian to see a role for activist government in areas such as healthcare, the environment, and affirmative action? Is questioning the legitimacy of the war in Iraq only a matter of inane legal allegiance to UN? Are abortion and gay rights the only issues moral consequence? Hear another perspective.
Recovering a hijacked faith
By Jim Wallis
July 13, 2004
The Boston Globe
Stop right now and pray for the family and friends of Jack Hensley, so brutally murdered today in Iraq.
"The first thing I want you to do is pray.
Pray in every way you know how,
for everyone you know.
Especially pray for rulers
and their governments to rule well
so we can be quietly about our business of
living simply,
in humble contemplation.
This is the way Savior God wants us to live."
I Timothy 2 The Message
Are you a staunch Republican? A new prosperity independent? How about staunch conservative—that must be more conservative than Republican. Are you a liberal Democrat? These are rhetorical. You don’t have to answer. Try this assessment from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. My government students have been doing this all day today.
Ideology, partisanship, and elections have been the topic of my classes for the last several days. I attempt to create a climate of civil civic dialogue. My Dad emerged from five generations of Republicans—does the name Herbert give you a clue? And mom? A yellow-dog Roosevelt Democrat. I’ve warned you about her. She’s the one who said she loved Bill Clinton. At a church service no less!
I happen to believe people of good heart and good mind can disagree about policy.
Guess how I came out on the Pew assessment? Disaffected! Hmm. The vitriol of the partisanship this season drives my disaffection. Meanwhile, I feel a moral obligation to educate and not indoctrinate students about politics. So, as much as I work at non-partisanship and at critical thinking, I am feeling---disaffected.
Would you?
A Christian friend put a message in my mailbox which he urges me to share with my friends. So I am. The piece rages over the Communist Party’s deep desire to defeat Bush resulting in an endorsement of John Kerry. One of the alarms sounded is that Kerry’s theme “Let America be America Again” comes from the poet Langston Hughes, who in another poem exalts Marx.
Wonder what drove Langston Hughes to disaffection?
Another fellow Christian sent me an email asking for my reflections on an article that explains how the left bases their reasoning on law whereas the right bases their reasoning on morality, because the left has no moral compass--only secular relativity as a basis. He has asked for my response in a collegial and respectful tone. I want to reply in that manner. This is not a "line by line" response as we sometimes give in debate, but it is response to the tendency of those on the right to assume that all those who see things from a different perspective have no moral or spiritual basis for doing so.
Is there not a place for a thoughtful Christian to see a role for activist government in areas such as healthcare, the environment, and affirmative action? Is questioning the legitimacy of the war in Iraq only a matter of inane legal allegiance to UN? Are abortion and gay rights the only issues moral consequence? Hear another perspective.
Recovering a hijacked faith
By Jim Wallis
July 13, 2004
The Boston Globe
MANY OF US feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take it back. A misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many people around the world now think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions?
That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don't speak for most of us. We hear politicians who love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of faith to their leadership and policies.
When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God's name. We will see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.
The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.
The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"-- that being the image of God in every human being.
Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.
It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power -- politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.
It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their self-appointed vocation to do so.
The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to his public life and how his convictions shape his political priorities is the true litmus test.
Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of Sojourners.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don't speak for most of us. We hear politicians who love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of faith to their leadership and policies.
When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God's name. We will see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.
The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.
The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"-- that being the image of God in every human being.
Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.
It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power -- politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.
It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their self-appointed vocation to do so.
The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to his public life and how his convictions shape his political priorities is the true litmus test.
Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of Sojourners.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
between exclusion and embrace
A fair-haired, blue eyed friend, a native of the American Midwest, and one in generally consider an fine Christian lady recently shared with me her concern over immigration. She confided her certainty of the damage that the influx of foreigners are having on America. One of her family members works for a federal agency that funds childcare for an immigrant population in major city. The recipients of the federal aid frequently misuse the funds.
I am always taken a bit aback by the complaints about immigrants to North America from those of English descent. It may seem silly, assimilated as I am to be put off by the irony of it, but I admit I am.
The challenges upon American society to embrace the current wave of immigration include economic and political issues for sure, but the spiritual challenge weighs on my heart today. My limited knowledge of immigration policy leaves me short on suggestions on matters such as amnesty, but the spiritual response to the influx of strangers seems to demand less research.
All of this has been on mind this week as I have been reading a short, but well written book, An 8-track church in a CD world, by Robert N. Nash, Jr. I felt the most compelling passage in the book is his discussion of the church’s desperate need for a theology of “otherness.” He comments on how we have shed the need for welcoming strangers as we mask differences in ethnicity, socio-economic status, and theology by our forming of denominations and congregations. He particularly indicts the American South as having a culture unto itself.
He shares this definition of stranger attributed to Eli Wiesel:
"Someone who suggests the unknown, the prohibited, the beyond; he seduces, he attracts, he wounds—and he leaves…The stranger represents what you are not, what you cannot be, simply because you are not he…The stranger is the other. He is not bound by your laws, by your memories; his language is not yours, nor his silence.”
Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit Books, 1990) 59f.
Nash points out that in today’s society, strangers watch. Strangers witness the clash in the current divide among traditional and progressive Christians. Nash wonders if the “damaging politics of exclusion” can give way to the embrace of the stranger. He fears that if we can hardly embrace one with whom we disagree about church function or politics, we will never be able welcome the stranger who doesn’t sit in church at all
As I consider about how to respond to my friend, Nash’s quotation from Miroslav Volf, a Croatian and Pentecostal theologian keeps coming to mind:
“Forgiveness is the boundary between exclusion and embrace.”
I am always taken a bit aback by the complaints about immigrants to North America from those of English descent. It may seem silly, assimilated as I am to be put off by the irony of it, but I admit I am.
The challenges upon American society to embrace the current wave of immigration include economic and political issues for sure, but the spiritual challenge weighs on my heart today. My limited knowledge of immigration policy leaves me short on suggestions on matters such as amnesty, but the spiritual response to the influx of strangers seems to demand less research.
All of this has been on mind this week as I have been reading a short, but well written book, An 8-track church in a CD world, by Robert N. Nash, Jr. I felt the most compelling passage in the book is his discussion of the church’s desperate need for a theology of “otherness.” He comments on how we have shed the need for welcoming strangers as we mask differences in ethnicity, socio-economic status, and theology by our forming of denominations and congregations. He particularly indicts the American South as having a culture unto itself.
He shares this definition of stranger attributed to Eli Wiesel:
"Someone who suggests the unknown, the prohibited, the beyond; he seduces, he attracts, he wounds—and he leaves…The stranger represents what you are not, what you cannot be, simply because you are not he…The stranger is the other. He is not bound by your laws, by your memories; his language is not yours, nor his silence.”
Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit Books, 1990) 59f.
Nash points out that in today’s society, strangers watch. Strangers witness the clash in the current divide among traditional and progressive Christians. Nash wonders if the “damaging politics of exclusion” can give way to the embrace of the stranger. He fears that if we can hardly embrace one with whom we disagree about church function or politics, we will never be able welcome the stranger who doesn’t sit in church at all
As I consider about how to respond to my friend, Nash’s quotation from Miroslav Volf, a Croatian and Pentecostal theologian keeps coming to mind:
“Forgiveness is the boundary between exclusion and embrace.”
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Dynamite or Spitballs?
Even if I were a communist, which I AM NOT, I would have to say Arnold’s speech inspired me. I showed it to my high school government students.
Even if were a Republican, which I AM NOT, watching the senator from Georgia speak metaphorically, bombastically, but not Prozacly accurately, I would have to say, the experience repulsed me. Any wonder he did not get a ringside seat on Thursday night? Maybe the strategists of the RNC feared a similar response from other independents in places like Ohio. Reports have it that Miller spent Thursday night at home attending to personal business. Maybe he was out somewhere in New Jersey getting ready for a duel with Chris Matthews.
Even if were a Democrat, which I AM NOT, I would have to say that last week left me tense, a bit deflated, and tired of partisan politics. Although I teach government and politics, I feel a need for relief.
If you have not seen Napoleon Dynamite, let me give you a frame of reference. For any Greater Atlanta Christian School friends, Napoleon Dynamite is a Brigham Young University student answer to a Matt Elliott GACS Christmas video. A bunch of smart funny Mormon kids put together a geek makes good story and entered it in the Sundance Film Festival. The rest of the story will be a piece of cinematic history. MTV picked up some of the promotion and these kids have run a grass roots promotion of the cleanest, cutest, and funniest bit of celluloid I have seen for years--and just in time to relieve my experience of Zell Miller's diatribe, Swift-boat Veterans for Truth and Fahrenheit 9-11.
So if you are feeling uninspired repulsed, tired, deflated, or tense, sell your llama and buy a ticket to see Napoleon Dynamite.
Special thanks to my son, Trevor, and his friend, Anna Burns, for introducing me to this film. They have seen at least four times, as have 10,000+ other kids.
Even if were a Republican, which I AM NOT, watching the senator from Georgia speak metaphorically, bombastically, but not Prozacly accurately, I would have to say, the experience repulsed me. Any wonder he did not get a ringside seat on Thursday night? Maybe the strategists of the RNC feared a similar response from other independents in places like Ohio. Reports have it that Miller spent Thursday night at home attending to personal business. Maybe he was out somewhere in New Jersey getting ready for a duel with Chris Matthews.
Even if were a Democrat, which I AM NOT, I would have to say that last week left me tense, a bit deflated, and tired of partisan politics. Although I teach government and politics, I feel a need for relief.
If I were a card carrying member of the Napoleon Dynamite Fan Club, and I AM, I would prescribe for all those already tired of the race between W and JFKerry a refreshing alternative:
VOTE for PEDRO for PRESIDENT.
He will make your wildest dreams come true.
If you have not seen Napoleon Dynamite, let me give you a frame of reference. For any Greater Atlanta Christian School friends, Napoleon Dynamite is a Brigham Young University student answer to a Matt Elliott GACS Christmas video. A bunch of smart funny Mormon kids put together a geek makes good story and entered it in the Sundance Film Festival. The rest of the story will be a piece of cinematic history. MTV picked up some of the promotion and these kids have run a grass roots promotion of the cleanest, cutest, and funniest bit of celluloid I have seen for years--and just in time to relieve my experience of Zell Miller's diatribe, Swift-boat Veterans for Truth and Fahrenheit 9-11.
So if you are feeling uninspired repulsed, tired, deflated, or tense, sell your llama and buy a ticket to see Napoleon Dynamite.
Special thanks to my son, Trevor, and his friend, Anna Burns, for introducing me to this film. They have seen at least four times, as have 10,000+ other kids.
Monday, August 30, 2004
"God is not a Republican or a Democrat'"
"It is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew...to get serious about re-electing President Bush." - Jerry Falwell, The New York Times, July 16, 2004
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him.... It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad." - Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 2004
These statements activated Sojourners to put a full-page in today's New York Times. Check out the ad.
Growing up in a home with a Republican dad and a Democrat mom convinced me that there is not just one way to view politics. Folks of good heart and mind can disagree on partisan politics. I am a healthy happy independent who has lived, worked, and worshipped among conservative Republicans for the last 30 years. Sojourners gives voice to many of my concerns.
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him.... It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad." - Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 2004
These statements activated Sojourners to put a full-page in today's New York Times. Check out the ad.
Growing up in a home with a Republican dad and a Democrat mom convinced me that there is not just one way to view politics. Folks of good heart and mind can disagree on partisan politics. I am a healthy happy independent who has lived, worked, and worshipped among conservative Republicans for the last 30 years. Sojourners gives voice to many of my concerns.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
"Al tikrar biallem il hmar"*
My soul shudders when I see clips on CNN of the midrasas in the far reaches of Pakistan where young children absorb a combination of Islam with a virulent strain of anti-US hatred. The other day I was reflecting on this disturbing aspect of "that culture," when the images from the film with Robin Williams called Toys came to mind. Remember the Christmas-time flick from a few years back which portrayed an intentional military-toy industrial complex conspiracy to train Americans children to kill with video games and other toys? We recoil in horror at the training given to a portion of a generation of Arab-Muslim children, but how much pause do we give the training our young ones receive while playing video games? And to what extent does our media machine inculcate a strain of potentially virulent anti-Arab messages?
I started thinking about an article I once shared with my government classes. U.S. army officer and expert in the psychology of killing, David Grossman, made a case for banning certain video games from mainstream society because they were training kids to kill. The story ran as the Christianity Today cover, August 10, 1998, "Trained to Kill."
I mentioned this to a psychologist friend of mine who immediately poo-pooed this concern, but I hold to it. Just because, thankfully, he and his family don’t train their children to direct the killing skills of these video games to a certain ethnic or religious groups doesn’t mean that these games are not training American kids to be killers. I might add that for all of his family’s loving ways—there are millions who do articulate hatred for a variety of folks—especially those who appear to be among our country’s enemies.
Combine this concern with the one I heard raised last week in a recording of a book signing by Jack G. Shaheen, author of Reel Bad Arabs; How Hollywood Vilifies a People. In a study of 900 films, he tells of “the persistent and prolonged vilification of Arab peoples in mainstream Western movies.” (Okay, so I watch C-Span book reviews...) Shaheen expresses in a most articulate and passionate way his concern over the way slanderous stereotypes Americans have affected honest discourse and public policy." In his opening pages he quotes an *old Arab proverb, Al tikrar biallem il hmar-By repetition even the donkey learns. He decries a century of Hollywood "tutoring movie audiences by repeating over and over, in film after film, insidious images of Arab people."
I wonder--between Disney's Alladin and the evening news-- what images are being repeatedly given to our children of Arabs without any counterbalance? Could this be an unintentional parallel to the midrasas?
What prompted me to write was this weekend's New York Times Magazine story on "The Making of an X Box Warrior". Read it and speak. Is the American media machine from video games to the cinema not training our kids to kill and hate but in our own special way?
Consider this quote:
I mentioned this to a psychologist friend of mine who immediately poo-pooed this concern, but I hold to it. Just because, thankfully, he and his family don’t train their children to direct the killing skills of these video games to a certain ethnic or religious groups doesn’t mean that these games are not training American kids to be killers. I might add that for all of his family’s loving ways—there are millions who do articulate hatred for a variety of folks—especially those who appear to be among our country’s enemies.
Combine this concern with the one I heard raised last week in a recording of a book signing by Jack G. Shaheen, author of Reel Bad Arabs; How Hollywood Vilifies a People. In a study of 900 films, he tells of “the persistent and prolonged vilification of Arab peoples in mainstream Western movies.” (Okay, so I watch C-Span book reviews...) Shaheen expresses in a most articulate and passionate way his concern over the way slanderous stereotypes Americans have affected honest discourse and public policy." In his opening pages he quotes an *old Arab proverb, Al tikrar biallem il hmar-By repetition even the donkey learns. He decries a century of Hollywood "tutoring movie audiences by repeating over and over, in film after film, insidious images of Arab people."
I wonder--between Disney's Alladin and the evening news-- what images are being repeatedly given to our children of Arabs without any counterbalance? Could this be an unintentional parallel to the midrasas?
What prompted me to write was this weekend's New York Times Magazine story on "The Making of an X Box Warrior". Read it and speak. Is the American media machine from video games to the cinema not training our kids to kill and hate but in our own special way?
Consider this quote:
"Some military experts argue that while it is possible for the games to provide useful training for terrorists, the benefit of some of these games to the Army far outweighs any potential security hazard its theft might pose. ''This is going to give us a bigger edge than it gives to somebody else,'' said William Davis, who heads the lab that created the virtual weapons for the recruitment game America's Army. "
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Dowdy days of avocado and peach
Ken and Bev 70s 
As the evening sun filtered through the 60s styled stained windows the soft colors dappled over the avocado green carpet and drapes. The mellow baritone voice of Ken Dowdy filled the air.
“You see, I’d like to share my life with you
Show you things I’ve seen
Places that I’m going to, places that I’ve been
To have you there beside, never be alone
And all the time that you’re with me
We would be at home”
(Song by John Denver)
“I’ll love you forever and forever
Love you with all my heart
Love you whenever we’re together
Love you when we’re apart…
Sing it loud so I can hear you
Make it easy to be near you
For the things you do endear you to me
Oh, you know I will, I will."
(Song by the Beatles)
As the evening sun filtered through the 60s styled stained windows the soft colors dappled over the avocado green carpet and drapes. The mellow baritone voice of Ken Dowdy filled the air.
“You see, I’d like to share my life with you
Show you things I’ve seen
Places that I’m going to, places that I’ve been
To have you there beside, never be alone
And all the time that you’re with me
We would be at home”
(Song by John Denver)
“I’ll love you forever and forever
Love you with all my heart
Love you whenever we’re together
Love you when we’re apart…
Sing it loud so I can hear you
Make it easy to be near you
For the things you do endear you to me
Oh, you know I will, I will."
(Song by the Beatles)
The congregation sang.
For the beauty of the earth
For the beauty of the skies
For the love which from our birth
Over and around us lies
Lord of all to thee we raise
This our sacrifice of praise.
The girls in apricot and the guys in beige tuxedoes with apricot ruffled shirts stood up with us, sang to us, sang with us, and prayed with us. The parents, sans my Daddy who would have loved Ken Dowdy, blessed us. Our friends and family celebrated with food and fun for hours.
The fashion police and the music critics might cringe at a reprise of that wedding of 30 years ago, but there is nothing in this world I would trade for all the Dowdy days I have reveled in Ken’s love.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Q's Questions
"Q" , a young woman, studies theology at Harding Graduate School of Religion. She blogs earnestly, asking heartfelt questions. She recently explored that ever sensitive territory of the Bible, God, and women. Sometimes, it is hard to describe how it feels to be a woman reading the Bible. There are moments that one wonders why God bothered to make women with minds and voices and then let them get educations. Q ventures some of these concerns on July 23 in a discussion about what she refers to as an invisible male bias in society. Here's my response:
There is more than one thing at work here. You identified what you consider invisible. My perception varies. What remains visible really is the power of the masculine. It screams at us from the images from Arab-Muslim nations and whispers to us in the contemporary church. As to the latter, lean in close and sense this simple representation of male privilege—presented with no malice, but because “it’s just the way things are” from James Wiser, a blogger you may appreciate. The blog brings to the table an announcement of a special day of encouragement designed for ministers and their wives sponsored by a Christian university.
Visible and disturbing in a visceral way is the crushing domination of women in many Arab Muslim communities. Veiled, silent, and subject even to point of socially sanctioned honor killings, these women live in a world I have to see as much like the world Jesus came into.
Now to the invisible. Imagine Jesus today in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran with an entourage of women talking theology. Think of Mary, with her spirit and mind as well the uniqueness of her female anatomic capacity, encountering Gabriel, trysting with the Holy Spirit, and experiencing the inner affirmation in her meeting with the expecting Elizabeth. Relish these encounters with the divine. Between us girls, the friendship of Jesus with Mary and Martha and the other women and baptism into Christ thrills me more than the circumcision deal the guys got before the new covenant. From my eye of faith, the appearance of Jesus to his followers, both male and female, and the partnership of Paul with women in the gospel supercede the problems, large as they loom, with roles in the burgeoning movement.
Cable televsion beams the ancient order of male authority so starkly that I am now thoroughly convinced of the fallacy of putting a literal contemporary application on some of Paul’s teachings. What is visible, Q, is this: we, women in the milieu of Churches of Christ, attend and work in groups of Christians who have utterly inconsistent, even schizophrenic applications of some scripture. This is not true for all folks who take God’s word for God’s word, but it is true for many. You live with this don’t you? As hard as it is in the meetinghouse, don’t miss the invisible reality of Christ and his vibrant, radical relationship with women for visibly weak attempts to appropriate the treasures of his will. And don’t quit asking questions, Q.
There is more than one thing at work here. You identified what you consider invisible. My perception varies. What remains visible really is the power of the masculine. It screams at us from the images from Arab-Muslim nations and whispers to us in the contemporary church. As to the latter, lean in close and sense this simple representation of male privilege—presented with no malice, but because “it’s just the way things are” from James Wiser, a blogger you may appreciate. The blog brings to the table an announcement of a special day of encouragement designed for ministers and their wives sponsored by a Christian university.
Visible and disturbing in a visceral way is the crushing domination of women in many Arab Muslim communities. Veiled, silent, and subject even to point of socially sanctioned honor killings, these women live in a world I have to see as much like the world Jesus came into.
Now to the invisible. Imagine Jesus today in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran with an entourage of women talking theology. Think of Mary, with her spirit and mind as well the uniqueness of her female anatomic capacity, encountering Gabriel, trysting with the Holy Spirit, and experiencing the inner affirmation in her meeting with the expecting Elizabeth. Relish these encounters with the divine. Between us girls, the friendship of Jesus with Mary and Martha and the other women and baptism into Christ thrills me more than the circumcision deal the guys got before the new covenant. From my eye of faith, the appearance of Jesus to his followers, both male and female, and the partnership of Paul with women in the gospel supercede the problems, large as they loom, with roles in the burgeoning movement.
Cable televsion beams the ancient order of male authority so starkly that I am now thoroughly convinced of the fallacy of putting a literal contemporary application on some of Paul’s teachings. What is visible, Q, is this: we, women in the milieu of Churches of Christ, attend and work in groups of Christians who have utterly inconsistent, even schizophrenic applications of some scripture. This is not true for all folks who take God’s word for God’s word, but it is true for many. You live with this don’t you? As hard as it is in the meetinghouse, don’t miss the invisible reality of Christ and his vibrant, radical relationship with women for visibly weak attempts to appropriate the treasures of his will. And don’t quit asking questions, Q.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Spitting in the ocean
As genocide raged in Rwanda and the rest of the world "dithered" Carl Wilkens stayed and saved as many lives as he could. Today, Nicholas Kristof's column poses the question, "So, what would you do if, like Carl Wilkens, you were caught in the middle of genocide?"
Carl Wilken's story parallels the story of a Moravian missionary Samuel A. Worcester of Worcester v. Georgia fame. In the early 1800s this missionary took the cause of the Cherokees of Georgia all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, but Andrew Jackson, the hero of the common man in America, said that if Chief Justice John Marshall had an army, he can enforce his decision. The fate of the Cherokees fell to the Commander in Chief in the end, and the result was the tragic removal of the Cherokees to Indian Territory. But what did Worcester do? He walked the Trail of Tears with them and made his home in Indian Territory.
According to Kristof, Wilkens sent his family home, and all other missionaries left. "Of course, Mr. Wilkens managed to save only a tiny number of Tutsi in Kigali, and Americans sometimes ask if his work wasn't like spitting into the ocean. That's true, he acknowledged, adding, "But for the people you help, it's pretty significant."
So we know what what Worcester and Wilkins did. What would WWBevDo?
Carl Wilken's story parallels the story of a Moravian missionary Samuel A. Worcester of Worcester v. Georgia fame. In the early 1800s this missionary took the cause of the Cherokees of Georgia all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, but Andrew Jackson, the hero of the common man in America, said that if Chief Justice John Marshall had an army, he can enforce his decision. The fate of the Cherokees fell to the Commander in Chief in the end, and the result was the tragic removal of the Cherokees to Indian Territory. But what did Worcester do? He walked the Trail of Tears with them and made his home in Indian Territory.
According to Kristof, Wilkens sent his family home, and all other missionaries left. "Of course, Mr. Wilkens managed to save only a tiny number of Tutsi in Kigali, and Americans sometimes ask if his work wasn't like spitting into the ocean. That's true, he acknowledged, adding, "But for the people you help, it's pretty significant."
So we know what what Worcester and Wilkins did. What would WWBevDo?
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Band Parents-"Kendred" spirits
Riffs, breakdowns, CDs $5.00 for 5 songs. Black hair, blue hair, $7.00 for 5 bands.
We are band parents, but not the regular kind.
Many East Cobb and North Fulton parents support their children's bands, but usually they are large marching bands with semi-trailer trucks carrying brass, wind, and percussion. These bands perform on football fields at half-time and in parades at Thanksgiving. Band parents I know spend countless hours raising funds--working concessions, organizing grapefruit sales, distributing chocolate bars. A myriad of projects advance their offsprings' musical passion. Marching bands command committment and achieve accolades.
We are band parents, but for an indie rock band. Indie rock kids perform in venues created from empty strip mall storefronts, community centers, church youth centers, and old factories converted into clubs. One time our son Trevor's band played on a trailer of a semi parked in the back of a church youth center. Indie rock band parents I know haul merchandise "merch" to shows--t-shirts, CDs, stickers, patches, and buttons. They bring lamps to set up in the back of dark rooms so kids can find a dollar for 2 buttons and patch with the bands name on it. Indie rock bands demand commitment and achieve accolades.
My son, Trevor Taylor Dowdy, played with Two Week Notice during his four years of high school. During that time, we went to every show that we could, experiencing a dimension of life we consider priceless. Frankly, indie rock kids can look anywhere from simply thrift store to--well, to the uninitiated band parent, downright frightening. For all of the ferocious dress, among the indie rock kids we persistently find gentle, intelligent, and thoughtful young artists. Many express profound faith in Christ and spend their lives serving Him.
Trevor, delights us with the love for Jesus he holds in his heart. He inspires us with his determination to create and innovate musically. He honors us by sharing the songs he writes day by day. Trevor warms our hearts with his love for his friends. Trevor pleases us with his perceptions about human nature and character. Trevor calms us with his careful driving and firm decision to avoid alcohol and other drugs. He encourages us by making us welcome with a hugs and introductions when we show up at his indie rock shows.
We treasure our time spent with Two Week Notice--Loryn Snell, Hudson and Abigal Philips, Andy Lee, and their kind and dedicated indie rock band parents. We miss seeing them at shows, maybe in somewhat the same way regular band parents miss the excitement of half-time shows and competitions. We remain grateful that Two Week Notice was not so independent that they wouldn't let us have a once in lifetime shot at being band parents.
Last night we went to hear Parksideview, a rocking indie band from Peachtree City that Trevor joined this spring. Ken and I renewed our acquaintance with Jen, a friend we met through Two Week Notice, and met a few new kids. We met Daniel Davidson of Norma Jean who touched us with his gentle spirit. While a young band waled out electronic experiments in the background we shared his enthusiasm for what he saw on his European tour and for old photos. Best of all, we observed his commitment to living and making music to honor Jesus. As parents, we felt a certain peace knowing our son meets guys like this in his indie rock world. So a little shout out to Daniel. Thanks for being open to us.
Tommorow Trevor and Parksideview--Jeff and Jake Turner, and Bobby Kyser pack up the merch box and go on tour sans parents. I am grateful for the Turners and Kysers and grateful for their kids. Quirky band parent facts: Two Week Notice dads were all ministers. Two of them are named Ken. Parksideview dads are all named Ken! Join us as we pray for their tour to bring glory to God, to provide great entertainment, and to be SAFE. We have to include the SAFE part, because We are PARENTS--the regular kind.
We are band parents, but not the regular kind.
Many East Cobb and North Fulton parents support their children's bands, but usually they are large marching bands with semi-trailer trucks carrying brass, wind, and percussion. These bands perform on football fields at half-time and in parades at Thanksgiving. Band parents I know spend countless hours raising funds--working concessions, organizing grapefruit sales, distributing chocolate bars. A myriad of projects advance their offsprings' musical passion. Marching bands command committment and achieve accolades.
We are band parents, but for an indie rock band. Indie rock kids perform in venues created from empty strip mall storefronts, community centers, church youth centers, and old factories converted into clubs. One time our son Trevor's band played on a trailer of a semi parked in the back of a church youth center. Indie rock band parents I know haul merchandise "merch" to shows--t-shirts, CDs, stickers, patches, and buttons. They bring lamps to set up in the back of dark rooms so kids can find a dollar for 2 buttons and patch with the bands name on it. Indie rock bands demand commitment and achieve accolades.
My son, Trevor Taylor Dowdy, played with Two Week Notice during his four years of high school. During that time, we went to every show that we could, experiencing a dimension of life we consider priceless. Frankly, indie rock kids can look anywhere from simply thrift store to--well, to the uninitiated band parent, downright frightening. For all of the ferocious dress, among the indie rock kids we persistently find gentle, intelligent, and thoughtful young artists. Many express profound faith in Christ and spend their lives serving Him.
Trevor, delights us with the love for Jesus he holds in his heart. He inspires us with his determination to create and innovate musically. He honors us by sharing the songs he writes day by day. Trevor warms our hearts with his love for his friends. Trevor pleases us with his perceptions about human nature and character. Trevor calms us with his careful driving and firm decision to avoid alcohol and other drugs. He encourages us by making us welcome with a hugs and introductions when we show up at his indie rock shows.
We treasure our time spent with Two Week Notice--Loryn Snell, Hudson and Abigal Philips, Andy Lee, and their kind and dedicated indie rock band parents. We miss seeing them at shows, maybe in somewhat the same way regular band parents miss the excitement of half-time shows and competitions. We remain grateful that Two Week Notice was not so independent that they wouldn't let us have a once in lifetime shot at being band parents.
Last night we went to hear Parksideview, a rocking indie band from Peachtree City that Trevor joined this spring. Ken and I renewed our acquaintance with Jen, a friend we met through Two Week Notice, and met a few new kids. We met Daniel Davidson of Norma Jean who touched us with his gentle spirit. While a young band waled out electronic experiments in the background we shared his enthusiasm for what he saw on his European tour and for old photos. Best of all, we observed his commitment to living and making music to honor Jesus. As parents, we felt a certain peace knowing our son meets guys like this in his indie rock world. So a little shout out to Daniel. Thanks for being open to us.
Tommorow Trevor and Parksideview--Jeff and Jake Turner, and Bobby Kyser pack up the merch box and go on tour sans parents. I am grateful for the Turners and Kysers and grateful for their kids. Quirky band parent facts: Two Week Notice dads were all ministers. Two of them are named Ken. Parksideview dads are all named Ken! Join us as we pray for their tour to bring glory to God, to provide great entertainment, and to be SAFE. We have to include the SAFE part, because We are PARENTS--the regular kind.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Kristof--a voice of reason
Nicholas Kristof speaks to me. I love to read his column in the NYTimes because he is pretty liberal, but he's--well--kind. I hope he doesn't mind that description, because it may sound very unjournalistic not to be described as bombastic, scathing, cynical, or strident. But in the national media, it's refreshing to read someone intelligent, analytical, but kind. He has spent a good bit of time this year writing on the sex trade in the Far East. While "on location" he ran into some International Justice Mission types, and seemed touched by their comittment. He said something nice about evangelicals.This shows he is not only kind, but courageous. Today he weighed in on the Micheal Moore phenomena. He broaches the Bush as liar rhetoric like this:
"A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.
"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."
Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.
I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding."
Kristof values understanding. Kristof, kind and courageous.
His writing raises hard questions, but I'm sorry, it just has a kind tone to it. Robert Coles (Pulitizer Prize winner who wrote the Moral Intelligence of Children) distills the meaning of morality as basic kindness. So hats off to a liberal with MORALS. Fancy that.
I dont' know how to do links yet, so here's the URL for Kristof today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
"A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.
"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."
Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.
I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding."
Kristof values understanding. Kristof, kind and courageous.
His writing raises hard questions, but I'm sorry, it just has a kind tone to it. Robert Coles (Pulitizer Prize winner who wrote the Moral Intelligence of Children) distills the meaning of morality as basic kindness. So hats off to a liberal with MORALS. Fancy that.
I dont' know how to do links yet, so here's the URL for Kristof today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Zach Blair's skin; Bev Blair's heart
Today Zac Blair, Bev and Bob's gorgeous 20-something ministerial student son, goes under the surgeon's knife. The doctors will excise two lymph nodes and some more skin to check for cancer cells. It seems to me that Zac ought to just be off at Camp Shiloh in upstate New York working with inner city kids in the name of Jesus. Seems that way to Zac, Bev, and Bob, too.
Five years ago on the Friday before Labor Day, Bev called me to say she was starting chemotherapy in the next morning for chronic myelogic leukemia. My husband Ken bought me an airline ticket, and I was there on Saturday morning when the nurse brought that first dose. Hundreds of people prayed for month after month for Bev's recovery from leukemia. After more than a year of frustration and unsatisfactory treatment options, she was able to be part of a "mercy trial" for Gleevec, a new drug that targets only the cancer cells. Last check, the oncologists can't find a red blood cell that tests positive for the disease.
So today, we hit the knee for Zac's skin and Bev and Bob's hearts. May God grant good health and inexplicable peace.
Bev, I wish that could be sitting in that waiting room with you.
Five years ago on the Friday before Labor Day, Bev called me to say she was starting chemotherapy in the next morning for chronic myelogic leukemia. My husband Ken bought me an airline ticket, and I was there on Saturday morning when the nurse brought that first dose. Hundreds of people prayed for month after month for Bev's recovery from leukemia. After more than a year of frustration and unsatisfactory treatment options, she was able to be part of a "mercy trial" for Gleevec, a new drug that targets only the cancer cells. Last check, the oncologists can't find a red blood cell that tests positive for the disease.
So today, we hit the knee for Zac's skin and Bev and Bob's hearts. May God grant good health and inexplicable peace.
Bev, I wish that could be sitting in that waiting room with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
