GAC, SUV, HIV, and IJM


Teaching at a Christian high school in suburban Atlanta provides blogger fodder daily.

Sometimes I wonder why I do it.

Driving twenty-plus miles through Atlanta on I-285 and I-85 twice a day seems stressful to such a soft suburbanite. Then after fighting all that traffic, I spend day after day with these mostly affluent 15 to 18 years olds in all their adolescent glory--plugged into iPods, driving SUVs, and hoping for the Ivy Leagues.

Sometimes I wonder why I do it.

Then there are days like December 1, 2004, World Aids Day.

Courtesy of World Vision, I showed a video to the student body giving a glimpse into the effects of the HIV/Aids pandemic. The response—palpable. The stress we experienced in traffic or in looking at PSAT scores subsided. Helpless in the face of such a crisis, there rose a collective sigh. We briefly discussed a broad array of responses to this enormous problem. For the moment, we decided we could do one small thing. We could do what we all seem to do well—SHOP. Within hours students began taking steps to contact World Vision to shop their “Gift Catalog”.

That’s why I teach at Greater Atlanta Christian School.

These young ones headed to the Ivy Leagues or other great institutions of higher learning will someday lead in business, in medicine, in law, in the arts, and in education. But no matter what field they chose for their careers, they have a vocation. A calling.

They will all be ministers. They will all be priests. And they will serve.

The next day in chapel two boys from the junior class asked students to help them start a campus chapter of the International Justice Mission. www.ijm.org

Spring break 2005 over 200 students plan to travel across the globe on mission trips including a group headed to an orphanage in Namibia.

That’s why I teach at Greater Atlanta Christian School.

To such tender hearts, fertile minds, and willing spirits we can talk about, plan for and work openly toward the kind of leadership to which Jesus calls. It’s a short time in their life and a such a window of opportunity to share the challenge to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.

Doughnuts >Dioxin

The President may regret the doughnuts.

Some of you may regret the President.

But all of us regret Yushchenko's diet of dioxin.

Sad things, frustrating things happen here. But we have to marvel that George W. Bush of the United States joined the ranks of 43 presidencies ascending to power sans violence. Even Election 2000, annoying, disconcerting, and somewhat disillusioning for some, doesn't touch the Ukraine's sad tale of dioxin.

Bush, Dowdy, and the Doughnut



Finally, I have found something George Bush and I have in common. We both gained about 6 pounds during the presidential campaign. We both found this out at the doctor’s office this week, and we both think it may be from eating doughnuts.

NPR did not report what kind of doughnuts Air Force One serves, if their kitchen window boasts an orange neon “HOT NOW” sign, or how the President slipped into this indulgence. However, both the President and I endured a long stressful campaign season. He on Air Force One; me on Taurus Three.

Now the commonality breaks down a bit. For me, budgetary concerns factored in. Add to that a mild sense of entitlement. I drive 20 miles across Atlanta traffic to work. I should be able to buy a good cup of coffee on the way. So attempting to indulge my sense entitlement with my budgetary concerns compelled me to stop going to Starbucks and opt for Dunkin’ Donuts instead. In some sort of voodoo economics I figured I would save money by driving thru Dunkin Donuts.

Okay, I admit, sometimes I thought myself worthy of coffee and a chocolate frosted doughnut.

Okay, I admit, sometimes I thought myself worthy of coffee and two chocolate frosted doughnuts.

Okay, I admit that adding doughnuts to the price of the coffee pretty much negated the budgetary advantage.

So do George and I have some commonality in the overriding themes in doughnut eating? Budgetary concerns? Entitlements? Such weighty issues divide us, I fear.

Maybe stress caused us to turn to the doughnut. For Bush--bearing the weight of the Presidency and the pressure of electoral politics. The trigger for me, I think—I am sure--was seeing John Kerry in camouflage carrying a shotgun and dead birds.

At any rate, George and I are committed to dropping this six and quick.

Don't DeLay--Morality's on the way?

Recently an African-American student asked me why the Republican kids at our Christian high school in suburban Atlanta treat her like she is immoral for speaking up for the Democrats. At times it's awkward being a black person in a red community. What would you tell her?

For example, take the recent rules change in the House. In 1993 the House Republicans wanted to show their moral superiority to the Democrats by saying that House leaders under federal indictment would not be allowed to keep their posts. But when Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader, and his friends were under investigation--the time came to change the rule. Certainly there was some spurious language in the accusations of DelLy's accuser, but the ethics problems for which he was reprimanded were not vacated. Juliet Eilperin's commentary The Trouble With Unity published in Sunday's Washington Post shows the manner in which House Republicans paved the high road. Check out this recent Washington Post editorial: On Rewriting Ethics History .

Back to my student. I told her that the there is a perception that the Republicans are more moral because their platform has a pro-life plank. Plus, the Republicans put an anti-gay marriage amendment up for a vote this summer. It’s always a quandary to know how to discuss such issues in class, because it is very important to be fair, sensitive, and honest. I think about the many sincere folks casting their votes for Bush with the phrases like “culture of life” ringing in their ears.

Here's what I believe: President Bush sincerely cares about abortion and is truly concerned about the social and moral issues related to homosexual marriage.The President will likely use his bully pulpit to continue the culture of life talk and the man and women make a marriage rhetoric for four more years. But the Republican Party? I do not believe we need have an African American shrinking violet in the classroom because her family perceives politics differently than her classmates. I believe this primarily because, in spite of Mr. Bush's personal proclivity for overturning Roe v. Wade and an anti-gay marriage amendment, no one should expect the Republican Party to establish the moral climate for which Christians pine. Because political parties are not about morality. Parties purvey political power. They are about winning elections and governing to continue winning elections.

This article by Dick Morris, political consultant and commentator on Fox News, from The Hill a newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress says to me that the pro-life vote for Bush may be illusionary.


“Thoughts on a Second Term”

Filibusters and judicial nominations. Beware of what happened to FDR in 1937 when, fresh from the most resounding reelection victory since the early days of the Republic, he became filled with hubris and proposed to pack the Supreme Court.

Despite overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the public backlash not only killed the plan but doomed his entire second-term agenda to disaster and defeat. The imperial overreach of FDR’s second term is well-explained by Kenneth Davis in his book Into the Storm.

This election was not won over abortion. It was won over the war on terror primarily and gay marriage secondarily. If the right attempts to twist its meaning to suit its purposes and use it to defang the checks-and-balances system, it will be guilty of its own form of imperial overreach. A three-percentage-point win will not sustain such an overturning of the system on which people of both parties rely to assure moderation.

After giving no hint of so radical a step during the campaign — indeed after keeping it well-hidden — for President Bush to spring it now would be seen as an act of treachery by the many pro-choice voters who backed him because of his international leadership, confident that the filibuster would prevent him from going to extremes in his appointments.

Filibusters, obnoxious as they are to democracy, have acquired an accepted place in our democracy. Just as senators no longer feel obliged to vote against cloture, as they once did out of courtesy to one another, so the public no longer feels that the necessity to attract 60 votes for judicial nominations is too onerous.

If Bush jams through a ban on filibusters on nominations and then jams through Clarence Thomas as chief justice (by itself this would be OK) and then pushes a Thomas or Antonin Scalia clone for the open spot on the court, he will squander a huge segment of the political capital on which he is relying for more important tasks ahead.

If you find that impressive: read this more recent post by Morris: Evangelicals Support Comes at High Price

Back to my student--Her family sees racial healing and healthcare as high moral priorities. Shall I tell her the Republicans are more moral because they have higher standards on ethics? Or shall I say they will avoid treachery by using their political capital on the important tasks like cutting taxes and waging war? I could say it's the pro-life prank.

What would you say?

Perennial


Fridays postThanksgiving saluting tradition
find him
stringing sixties-style colored Christmas lights
gutters glowing
shrubs singing holiday
perennial

Early Easter Sunday embracing the ages
find him
hiding pastel-colored eggs
grass conspiring
leaves whispering hide one here
perennial

Muggy summer evenings accepting Southern hospitality
find him
planting cuttings neighbors offer
stems wobbling
green frames promising color next July
perennial

Long awaited Autumn afternoons celebrating equinox
find him
burying bulbs
daffodils gestating
berm exploding yellow come April
perennial

This fall he left
Said he didn't love her anymore
So who will string clunky colored lights?
Will the eggs still roll in April?
And what does perennial mean now?

Turning Beer into Furniture

Clear November skies chilled by Michigan’s fall winds made early November 1970 seem normal. But it was anything but normal. Thirty-four years ago today, we buried my forty-five year-old Daddy. Everyone kept saying, “He was so young.”

I thought—he wasn’t really all that young. But I was only seventeen.

Tonight my eyes strain to see his copper colored skin, his blue-black hair, and big, broad smile. I think hard and can almost hear his voice, including that persistent clearing of his throat. Thanks to Lucky Strikes, he always cleared his throat, especially when he gave the concluding remark to any discussion at our family dinner table.

When I sit at the dinner table with my boys, I can imagine him sitting with us listening to them, proud of their thoughtful funny repartee. Proud of their passion for Jesus and justice. Ready to clear his throat and make the culminating comment.

Herbert Taylor Choate possessed a zest for learning, for excellence in the performance of any task, and for placing life’s priorities in good order. First, God. Next, family. Third, education and career.

He was only seventeen he left the Cherokee community of Bunch, Oklahoma, joined the navy, and saw other boys throw flames into caves on Iwo Jima. He buried one brother. His other brother came home a boxing barber from the Burma Road. He died a premature death a few years later. Herb came home smoking and drinking hard. For years alcohol dulled the memories. Often sleep came with grinding teeth and nightmares. Deeply inhaling a freshly lit cigarette calmed his nerves. I can still see smoke curling from his lips.

Married, with one little girl, and me on the way, he put his LORD on in baptism, and left the booze behind. Taking to heart the grace of God, accepting the love of my mom’s family and the fellowship of the Van Dyke Church of Christ; he embraced a new lifestyle. Of course, even as a deacon, he still joined all other men for smoke between Sunday school and church.

Someone once asked him, “Herb, do you believe God still does miracles today?”

He said, “Well, I tell you what, I saw Jesus turn beer into furniture.”

I don’t know exactly why he had a heart attack on that November night, but I can make an educated guess. I often think—if he had known that hard drinking for those eight years and smoking for so many more would have kept him from spending an autumn evening around the dinner table trading stories and solving world problems with his grandsons, he would have stopped long before he did.

My Open Blog to Sean Hannity


My Christian friends like you so much; I thought I should listen to your show. So, I tuned in one day recently and heard you interview Anne Coulter. You discussed her new book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). As you and Coulter bantered back and forth, I heard what earned her the review from the Washington Post Book World, as “a fluent polemicist with a gift for Menckenesque invective”. You laughed heartily at her comments and expressed admiration for her writing because it does, after all, have substance. You both poked fun that USA Today gutlessly decided not to print portions of her substantive spew. As I went to Amazon.com to find the book, a chapter title from her book clinched my understanding of Anne Coulter. In reference to Muslim extremist terrorists: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”.

I now understand my Christian friends’ enthusiasm for your work. You are pro-life.

Not long after the segment in which you displayed such deep admiration for Anne Coulter, you interviewed someone from Haiti. Afterwards a good friend of mine told me that you asserted that poverty is a choice, you HATE HAITI, and you wouldn't have your dog's ashes tossed over that country. Perhaps she did not hear you correctly.

You see, I am looking to understand my Christian friends’ enthusiasm for your work. If what she said was true, then I see. It's because you are pro-life.

My Christian friends like you so much, I thought, I should check out your book. That's where I learned that Jimmy Carter=Neville Chamberlain. What a senseless, spineless, mindless, unprincipled man! He believes in pursuing peace. Can't we see the parallel to appeasing Hitler with the razing of settlements on the Sinai Peninsula and a treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted for over 20 years? Silly of that Anwar Sadat to fall for the peace idea. What a cheap solution.

And back to Carter, what kind of man would refuse to negotiate with terrorists, would threaten the Iranian revolutionary government with the full force of the US military if one US hostage was killed, and then wait a year for a peaceful solution? What a disgraceful moment for our country when all of those hostages came home alive and we did not even have a good war to show for it. At least Carter's successor had the guts to negotiate arms for hostages.

I now understand my Christian friends’ enthusiasm for your work. You are pro-life.

Now before my Christian-friend fans of yours write to help me understand more reasons why you inspire them as a Christian, let me pre-empt a possible problem they may see in my understanding. They may need to explain to me that the left-wing liberal media, the left wing comedians, and the left-wing politicians can be mean-spirited and contemptuous too. And besides, don't I understand that there are people out there who want to kill us? But you see, I do understand. Don’t mistake my preference for peace to mean that we cannot engage in just war. It’s just that I do not presume that only the stupid, weak, and senseless see just war much differently than a Crusades redux.

From listening to your rhetoric I now understand: loving your political enemies, expressing kindness towards the poor, and making peace are such insipid secular stands, and you are pro-life.

Grant light, grant strength and patience to all who work for peace*

During the Kennedy adminstration, as the nuclear arms race created a palpable threat, Thomas Merton read a prayer into the Congressional Record.

Here's a portion of it:

Grant light, grant strength and patience to all who work for peace,
To this Congress, our President, our military forces, and our adversaries.
Grant us prudence in proportion to our power,
Wisdom in proportion to our science,
Humaneness in proportion to our wealth and might.
And bless our earnest will to help all races and people to travel, in friendship with us,
Along the road to justice, liberty, and lasting peace…


In your will, O God, is our peace!

To read the complete prayer click here.


*This prayer was published in Thomas Merton Essential Writings
edited by Christine M. Bochen
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 2000

Single issue senselessness

The minister made his case against abortion this morning in a suburban Detroit church attended by my best friend. At the conclusion, he summarized the significance of the issue and then told the congregation that they must vote on the abortion issue. God will hold them accountable for their vote based on that issue. Sound like something coming from the Vatican? No, it was from a “nondenominational” independent church.

It seems to me that at some point, God may very well ask us what we did in the face of the abortion debacle. Yet, I am concerned that the preacher may have fallen into a trap from which logic will not allow escape. Even a high school civics teacher knows that elections do not measure public on opinion on single issues. A vote for a pro-life candidate may feel to voter to be a vote for life, but in today's party structure, the vote speaks to more issues—among them war and peace, human rights, and healthcare for starters.

Obviously, the minister meant that his congregation should vote Republican. Did anyone else observe two pro-choice figures dominating their convention? When Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell was asked why he was not featured, his reply indicated that he did not attract folks like the other speakers, and what really mattered was winning the election. If some moral purity is effected by the election of the Republicans, is the message then that the ends justifies the means? Parading pro-choice people to draw the crowd looks more like bait and switch than furthering the will of God.

The preacher rightly has a passion about abortion, but does he have the moral, spiritual, or any other authority to say that abortion trumps all other moral concerns? Much to the chagrin of some fellow believers, hundreds of Christians, including dozens of evangelical leaders, signed on before the invasion of Iraq to a statement saying that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the “scripture test” including a widely accepted standard for just war.

As important as the protection of the unborn is, what about the thousands of Iraqi dead from American fire in this war? What message of the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is being communicated to the Arab world through our public policies? Justification of the Iraq War is open to passionate moral, political, even scriptural debate. So my question is: how can the minister justify lording his interpretation of political priorities on his congregation? What text does he use to back up such proposition?

For all the well meaning folks out there who desire to please God, honor His Word, and proclaim His Truth, my thought is this: honor His Word by proclaiming what is clearly revealed.

I recall that in Matthew's narrative Jesus spoke of accountability, but among the issues crucial to him-the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, and the stranger, I never remember the verse about voting Republican--or Democratic. If there were only one moral issue, then the preacher may have had a case, but the complexities of today's politics go far beyond a single issue, although there are many highly paid consultants who want church going folks to think otherwise.

Friends are friends for ?

from New York Times Wednesday, October 5
Taken at the Senate Prayer Breakfast 2001. Those were the good old days.

King of glory fill the earth

Fill the place in the rubble where the man pulls out his infant son
Lighten the darkened room where the widow heaves with the loss of her husband
Run down the street with the sister who heard an explosion moments ago
Sit with the Marine in the humvee
Follow the refugees to the camp in Sudan
Pour yourself, your very self into the crowds in Haiti
Walk the streets of Manhattan with the family members haunted by loss

King of glory fill the earth

March into the palace
Fly into the chambers
Join the conference table
Envelope the kings and queens, the prime ministers, the presidents, the Pope, the muftis

King of glory fill the earth--cover all the nations; touch all the people

That we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness

Egregious works as word of the week

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."

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.

"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.

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.”

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 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.