Left to right: My mother Erika Maurer, me, great-grandmother Jenny Christine Maurer, my sister Ellen, my aunt Ada DenBraven, and, finally, Ada's brother, my father Harald Maurer. Evanston, Illinois. Late 1950's.
I've written before about how difficult it has been to grieve my parents. That inability has left a hollow place in me.
A little over a decade ago, at a retreat center for international workers, I promised a therapist that, after our month at this center ended, I would continue to work on this grief.
It's taken some time, but I'm glad to report that I'm finally saying goodbye—first to my mother. It involves speaking to her and my father directly, in the presence of a therapist (a trained and trustworthy witness is important to me)—that is, looking at the place in the room where I imagine my parents to be, asking them the questions I wish I'd had a chance to ask when they were alive, and saying goodbye.
I spent my earliest years with my father's parents in Oslo and then my mother's parents in Stuttgart, before going to Chicago to live with my parents and the two-year-old girl they'd had in my absence—my sister Ellen. Hence this sample from my questions:
"Did they send you photos of me? What did you think?"
I won't list all my questions here. My final questions to my mother: "How would you like me to remember you? What would you like me to remember about you?"
You may be among my readers for whom this kind of therapy is familiar territory. Maybe you've used a similar approach to address painful relationships or unresolved grief. In my case, even though this was my own initiative, I'll admit that I had to overcome some skepticism about the play-acting that seemed to be involved. To my surprise, the longer I stuck with the exercise, the more real it became.
I plan to continue.
I began the day thinking that today's blog post would be personal, and I could take a rest this week from the unfolding calamity of a rogue presidency. Then I saw the photo of five-year-old Liam Ramos, a photo you might also have seen in today's news. I first saw it in this article by the Washington Post's art and architecture critic, Philip Kennicott.
There was more shock to come. Asked about this case, vice president J.D. Vance said, "So the story is that ICE detained a five-year-old. What are they supposed to do? Let a five-year-old child freeze to death?" (Quoting from the CBC report.)
Did it really not occur to Vance or to ICE that there was another obvious option?—not to make the arrest! ... To use their better judgment. To have the humanity to leave these people alone! For God's sake, make a moral calculation (after all, you know where the family lives!!) in favor of the child and family and due process rather than an artificial urgency that inevitably leads to blatant public cruelty.
Canadian prime minister Mark Carney's remarkable seventeen-minute Davos Conference reality check. (And, sorry, PM, your invitation to the Board of Peace has been canceled!)
What strikes me most is how clearly this perspective exposes the spiritual sicknesses we too often mistake for holiness. As someone who loves Christ deeply yet hesitates to call herself a Christian because of how distorted the faith has become in practice, I feel this tension painfully.
Another perspective on distorted faith, from Peter Wehner: In case you were still wondering, "MAGA Jesus is not the real Jesus."
Jeremy Morris on Russia, Ukraine, and the "Western-culpability thesis," with Richard Sakwa as a case study.
John Calvi "had a small miracle occur"—see his year-end letter.
Blues from Canada: Whitehorse's version of "Baby, Scratch My Back."
Slim Harpo's original classic (including the chicken scratch) lives on! I've probably posted more versions of this song than of any other, but so many musicians find it irresistible. (More in coming weeks.)
Sources: top; bottom. Is there a Christian version?
Last week, in the links section of my post, I quoted Adam Serwer's commentary on Federal officials' description of Renee Nicole Good, who had just been shot to death by a Federal officer.
Serwer went on to summarize the situation: "The federal government now speaks with the voice of the right-wing smear machine: partisan, dishonest, and devoted to vilifying Trump’s perceived enemies rather than informing the public."
In a more recent commentary, Serwer's colleague David Frum proposes an explanation for "Why Vance Committed So Hard to the Minneapolis Shooter. The vice president knows what ICE means to MAGA." As Serwer noted, "informing the public" is not the Trump administration's goal. Instead, Frum believes, (links in original)
For MAGA America, ICE is an instrument for cleansing violence. Visit ICE social-media accounts and you’ll see, again and again, videos of armed force against unarmed individuals, against a soundtrack of pumping music. There’s a montage of aggressive arrests in Minnesota of unarmed, nonwhite men, many of them thrown to the ground and cuffed, set to the 1977 hit “Cold as Ice”: “Someday you’ll pay the price.” A dozen heavily armed and armored agents round up a single unarmed woman in a T-shirt and two similarly defenseless men in California. In Indiana, armored agents throw handcuffs and ankle chains on a big haul of men and shove them in a cell, where they can be seen pacing, weeping, or with their heads plunged in their hands.
...
ICE is violence-prone in part because the agency has lowered its training standards and ditched much of its background vetting to meet the president’s grandiose deportation targets. But more fundamentally, ICE is violence-prone because its main purpose has become theatrical. Under present leadership, ICE is less a law-enforcement agency than it is a content creator.
...
MAGA is many things, but above all it’s a movement about redistributing respect away from those who command too much (overeducated coastal elites) to those who don’t have enough (white Americans without advanced degrees who feel left behind). You see that redistribution at work in the Trump administration’s project to devalue medical experts and empower wellness gurus and vaccine skeptics, and in its dismissal of “deep state” national-security professionals in favor of TV pundits.
Vance and his colleagues quickly called the just-killed Renee Nicole Good a "deranged leftist" and "domestic terrorist." Most of us ordinary citizens who oppose this administration may be statistically unlikely to feature in gleeful ICE arrest videos. (Don't count on it! Especially if we're not white.) Instead, we are part of the nefarious "network" that Good belonged to; we're "radical left lunatics." Day after day, the public space is flooded with these messages, which may be shrugged off by the majority of the audiences, but which reinforce the project Frum describes: the creation of content that demeans critics and "redistributes respect."
Most of the target audience may never understand how diverse MAGA's critics are, and how absurd the charges brought against us by those with an interest in making us look super-organized, ruthless, and scary. Many of them will not see the irony that many of us critics are devout Christians, as are many of the people being arrested and deported by those who claim to be defending Christian civilization. But we need to stand up for truth in whatever ways we can, for at least three reasons: first, to defend the very idea of truth and give the lie to these charges; second, to remain sane and resilient in the face of these constant smears; and, third, to preserve a memory of what our semblance of democracy was like before the MAGA occupation began.
To be honest, some critics of MAGA are also pretty handy with insults and invective. Let's not go there. A few days before the second Trump administration began, I asked, "Are we agents of Lucifer?" No, we are not, but there is something demonic about this proto-fascist occupation we face. This evening, I'd like once again to refer back to the ideals of the Lamb's War: We don't search for enemies, we search for prisoners—and do everything we can collectively to free them.
The attempted cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel's television show a few months ago seemed like a Reichstag fire moment on our path to authoritarianism, but this past year now seems to me to have been a seemingly endless parade of such emergencies.
Sometimes I feel as if we're in a more or less permanent state of crisis for our constitutional republic and its paralyzed legislature and overworked courts, and sometimes it seems like we're in an utterly absurdist dream—now NATO allies are landing troops on Greenland!? When will we wake up?
Let's keep up our fierce campaign of ethical vigilance, a mutually respectful and prayerful division of labor (mystics, accountants, artists, journalists, musicians, prophets, healers—we're all needed!), and the miraculous joy of the Lord.
Judy and I recently enjoyed the newest movie in the "Knives Out" series: Wake Up Dead Man. Kristin Du Mez has some interesting reflections on the movie. Don't miss the comments, too.
As an immigrant, I appreciated Heather Cox Richardson's first commentary of the new year.
I woke up this morning, masked man knocking on my door
I woke up this morning, masked man knocking on my door
He says he wants to see my papers, or send me to El Salvador
I said masked man, what gives you the right?
I said masked man, what gives you the right?
He said I've got a gun in my holster, don't you put up no fight
I said masked man, why don't you leave me be?
I said masked man, why don't you leave me be?
He said there ain't no law in this here country, could ever apply to me
I said masked man, don't you take my baby child
I said masked man, don't you take my baby child
He said I'm breaking up your family, that masked man's running wild
So many masked men, running all around my town
So many masked men, running all around my town
They might pull your mother over, and then they'll gun her down
Oh there ain't nothing, that a masked man won't do
Oh there ain't nothing, that a masked man won't do
First he'll come for all your neighbors, and then he'll come for you
Oh the masked man, says he ain't the one to blame
Oh the masked man, says he ain't the one to blame
But he wouldn't hide his face honey, if he wasn't full of shame
I woke up this morning, masked man knocking on my door
I woke up this morning, masked man knocking on my door
If he shoots me or detains me, you won't see me no more
In the aftermath of the seizure of Venezuelan president Maduro and his wife, political strategist David Brock urges Democrats not to give in to a familiar (he alleges) impulse to "oppose first, think later."
Not exactly Trump derangement syndrome, but the effect is the same. I understand the revulsion most of us feel toward President Donald Trump, but Democrats’ first obligation is not catharsis. It is political competence and survival.
If Maduro exported cocaine and cartel violence to the U.S., he belongs behind bars, not in a palace. A large share of Americans will hear “the U.S. captured the head of a drug ring” and think: good. They will not parse legal niceties. They will want to know two things: Did it make Americans safer, and will it stop there?
Who exactly "will not parse legal niceties"? Are they by any chance related to those for whom the U.S. president can do no wrong? Do "legal niceties" include the U.S. Constitution? Is it true that a "large share of Americans" are incapable of disliking a corrupt tyrant (Maduro in this case) while at the same time holding their own government accountable for its actions?
The people who believe that an all-powerful MAGA administration is what's best for the USA remind me of the book of the biblical judge/prophet Samuel. Frustrated by the inadequacies of Samuel's sons, the elders of Israel beg for a king. (1 Samuel 8:6-20; context.)
But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
Back to the year 2026. I agree with the importance of Brock's two questions that he believes a large share of Americans will prioritize: Did the president's decisions make Americans safer, and will he stop there? But I do not believe that Trump's happy supporters will really ask those questions seriously. Will Americans be safer in an international context of imperial spheres of influence instead of the post-WWII rules of collective security? And is there anything in the MAGA movement's record that serves to assure us that it "will stop there"...?
In the future:
Will the Venezuela raid be a model for other left-leaning governments in Latin America (good or bad), or will those leaders whom Trump likes have nothing to fear? (Ex-president Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras, for example.) What about other countries facilitating drug shipments to the USA? Wouldn't more resources for helping addicts reduce the scandalous demand for those drugs?
If the Venezuela raid was strictly a law-enforcement operation, how do we account for the 70-100 deaths of non-criminals killed in the raid? How heartless is it to boast of its success at that cost?
Another will-it-stop-there question: does it help international maritime behavior for the USA to confiscate ships and their cargo? Where's the line between unilateral embargoes and piracy?
Iran, Syria, Somalia, and Nigeria have all been attacked by U.S. forces under the president who wants a Nobel peace prize. Meanwhile, on a quieter note, the best deal proposed by USA's leadership for Greenland right now is for us to purchase the island rather than seizing it, despite repeated denials from Denmark and Greenland that the island is for sale. Where will it stop?
"He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants." I have not even touched the subject of self-dealing and corruption in the current administration, or its vindictive campaigns against critics.
David Brock urges us to display "political competence," by which he seems to mean concealing our ideals to earn the attention of those unwilling to follow his two questions all the way to their evident conclusions.
Timothy Snyder on the raid, its precedents and implications. (Link in original.)
In invading Ukraine, Putin deliberately exploited the language of law, claiming that his aggression was justified by the UN Charter. The point was not to affirm but to ridicule the principles of international law. Russia has worked hard to create a world in which everyone treats international law as a joke. The American government made no effort to justify its extraction of Maduro in terms of international law, which is an obvious Russian intellectual victory—even if the Kremlin itself might be displeased by the consequences in this particular case.
Administration officials’ indifference to facts, to due process, to the dignity of the deceased, and to basic human decency is remarkable. They could have pleaded for patience and said the incident would be investigated—the standard response in such circumstances. They could have even done so while defending the federal agents they have deployed to terrorize areas they perceive as Democratic Party enclaves. Instead, they proceeded to make ostentatiously dishonest statements that they knew would be contradicted by the video evidence available to anyone with eyes to see it.
Quakers Rock the Midwest: Western and Wilmington Yearly Meetings and the New Association of Friends present a retreat for 8th-12th graders, January 16-19, at Evanston (Illinois) Friends Meeting.
I already knew the broad outlines of McPherson's three decades in the public eye as an evangelist, healer, pastor, and founder of the USA's first megachurch. Hoffman's book gives a fascinating and balanced account of her life. She begins the book with one of the most dramatic events of McPherson's life—her disappearance from a Los Angeles beach in 1926—but provides historical, biographical, and theological context for her precedent-breaking career as a whole. The author gives us plenty of material from which to draw some connections with Fox.
One important factor that isn't a parallel is, of course, gender. However we feel about McPherson's claim to be empowered directly by the Holy Spirit, she had plenty of talent, giftedness, persistence, and amazing audacity behind her ascendancy as a woman to a status of, arguably, the most famous Christian celebrity in the USA of her time, far beyond her Pentecostal community. There were occasions when she could draw spontaneous crowds of tens of thousands of people, of whom thousands simply wanted to experience her healing power.
Here are some of the points that caused me to compare McPherson and Fox.
They both emphasized the possibility and importance of the immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. Theologically, McPherson was rather a centrist in the spectrum of evangelical Christianity of her time. She didn't deviate much from the fundamentalism of her early Christian experience, but her presentation of Christian faith emphasized grace and intimacy with God rather than legalism and fear of punishment. I think that many of Fox's evangelistic presentations in his itinerant ministry, and his epistles, could have (with updated English) come from McPherson as well.
They both used the communication channels of their time effectively. For Fox and his companions, it was the printing press, which is where McPherson also started, but she became a radio pioneer as well. (Toward the end of her life, McPherson was researching the possibilities of television.) Both of them published constantly, not only to present their own message, but also to argue with detractors. Fox and his movement were, at times, under attack from the Christian establishment and under persecution by their government. They responded nonviolently but certainly not passively as they flooded the market with books, tracts, and petitions. McPherson's disappearance and subsequent very controversial reappearance led to massive campaigns both for her and against her in the mass media of her times, and in the courtrooms of Los Angeles.
Both Fox and McPherson relied on women gifted in administration, fundraising, and oversight. Aimee Semple McPherson's support and accountability person for much of her career was her mother, Mildred Kennedy. For George Fox, Margaret Fell took on this role, alongside her evident gifts as theologian and communicator, and eventually she and Fox married.
In both cases, they developed leadership structures, with boards and committees, and those structures (with major changes over the years) exist to this day. The Foursquare Church continues as a worldwide fellowship, and so do we Friends. We have dispersed accountability and leadership arrangements compared with the more unified and centralized Foursquare structure, and we don't have one official statement of faith as Foursquare does, but we've both managed to take a fellowship that began with a single powerful personality and make it durable.
This leads to another similarity. Both movements have succeeded in honoring their founders without exaggerating their status as heroes. At the end of Claire Hoffman's book, she emphasizes this point about McPherson; there's little evidence of a personality cult around her in the present-day Foursquare Church. Neither is she hidden; she gets full credit for her role in starting the church, but is not an object of adoration. Fox's status among us Quakers is rather ambiguous; we quote him when it suits us, but often leaving out the full context of his intended meaning. In both cases, some of these leaders' more extravagant behaviors and claims have been downplayed since then. Speaking in tongues and healing continue to be expected in Foursquare fellowships, but Fox's accounts of miraculous healings (such as those included in Fox's Book of Miracles) have not led to similar expectations among us.
The expansion of the Quaker movement in Fox's lifetime was remarkable, although in the succeeding centuries we have lost momentum numerically, to say the least. It may be too soon to draw comparisons with Foursquare's growth. Nor did we ever have megachurches or anything resembling McPherson's Angelus Temple. The differences between our two movements may be just as fruitful to explore as the similarities; I just wanted to point out those similarities as I closed the covers of Hoffman's fascinating book. What instructive differences and similarities occur to you?
Something even older: here's an interesting article by Carey Mcwilliams on "cults" in California, from the March 1946 issue of The Atlantic. It was cited in the notes of Claire Hoffman's book.
Another year's worth of "useful theology from a Quaker-shaped Christian," Mark Russ.
Sergey Kadyrov's audiovisual Christmas card from Elektrostal, Russia. Link to video.
Methodists organize Christmas Eve vigil at ICE facility, Portland, Oregon. Source.
For me, the constant theme for this year has been faithfulness to Christian discipleship in a country under occupation.
Enough of these posts over the past year have been on this theme, so it's not necessary for me to belabor it here. I'm just grateful to be part of a faith community that has not surrendered to the intolerable.
Two of this year's high points for me involved my relationship with the land where I was born. In July I was present for the departure of the sloop-replica Restauration, sailing from Stavanger to New York City on the 200th anniversary of the original departure of the first organized emigration of Norwegians to the USA. And in November I received word that my application to regain my Norwegian citizenship had been approved. (It had been lost when I became a U.S. citizen at a time when Norway didn't allow dual citizenship, which it now does.)
By long practice, my last post for 2025 is a selection of the year's posts, one per month....
My 1975 visit to Russia began even before I left London. Shortly after I boarded Aeroflot's IL-62 to Moscow, before I had taken my seat, the airplane began taxiing. The two seats next to mine were occupied by two delightful middle-aged women who had boarded in San Francisco and who now helped wedge me into my seat. Almost all the floor space was taken up by their numerous bottles and packages of goodies (apparently no need to secure carry-on items!), but after a bit of rearranging, I was fine. Soon they were offering me all kinds of yummy pastries, and insisted on adding cognac to my coffee.
It is no surprise that many Americans have not heard of the "network of networks" that compose Independent Charismatics, particularly those centered on Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation. (See this post, Are we agents of Lucifer?, for a brief introduction.) Those of us who just catch occasional glimpses of Pentecostal and charismatic subcultures may find them either absurd or disturbing, especially if we rely on video clips of "preachers gone wild" and the like. We are therefore likely to underestimate the appeal and reach of those subcultures.
Ideally, by paying taxes, we citizens are simply upholding a covenant we have with each other. We have made promises to each other—"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (preamble to the U.S. Constitution), setting up a government for these purposes and assigning that government, through our legislature, the practical tasks needed to fulfill those promises. We know that these tasks cost money, so our legislators make a list of those costs and institute sources of revenue, including taxes. That's the covenant: to decide on the tasks needed for the "general Welfare," from which we all benefit, directly or indirectly, and to pay our fair share for those tasks
Looking back at the first principles I proposed back in November, are they adequate for this era of flagrant and gleeful cruelty? I still feel strongly about not dividing our country into pro- and anti-Trump populations, and resisting the degradation of civil discourse. What other disciplines and practices should we consider? For myself, I'm constantly drawn back to Jesus, who was himself mocked and whipped before being crucified. What can we say to those who proclaim faith in Jesus even as they mock and whip others and look to their MAGA audiences for approval? The case for actual evangelism seems more urgent than ever.
Of course the USA is not the only country in the world whose citizens, or at least some of them, believe they live in "the greatest land of all." And, they might even be able to explain why they believe this. In the case of the USA, my idealistic preferred explanation to justify claims of the USA's greatness is John Gunther's famous line that the USA is "a country deliberately founded on a good idea"—an idea whose most succinct expression might be the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: "We the people...."
As an aspiration it is powerful, and it's part of our notorious American exceptionalism, but in these fractious times, are "we" still "we"? And as for "the people," is our government still, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "of the people, by the people, for the people"?
One thing seems clear to me about American patriotism. If it becomes detached from that "good idea," then it degrades into cultish compulsory slogans, chiefly useful for attacking one's political enemies.
As I got more and more acquainted with Quaker ways, I learned that the process of realizing that one "belonged" had various names, especially "convincement" and "conversion." In my own life, conversion came first, earlier that same year, when my reading of the Sermon the Mount, Matthew's version, led me to trust Jesus. I concluded for myself that conversion was a matter of opening my eyes and heart to an inward light that could illuminate a path through life. Becoming convinced, on the other hand, meant that, at least in my specific case, the companionship of Quakers provided the best, most direct guides along that path.
All this was no random accident, I realized. My family's chaos (combined, ironically, with its cult of obedience) and the public agonies of the Viet Nam War era, had already led me to nonviolence and a rejection of authoritarianism. I couldn't say where worldly contingencies and the Holy Spirit's guidance merged in my case. But once I realized that I didn't want to practice my newfound faith all alone, a peace church with almost zero hierarchy was bound to appeal. I wanted to go public. I wanted to belong officially!—whatever that meant.
"... We all hold critical roles...." [Libby Willcomm, on working to rescue now vs working for systemic change.] Exactly. And here's what I would love to see: that "mutuality" would also become mutual accountability and mutual trust. The next time the question of how to prioritize our resources comes up, I hope I'll remember (or better yet, someone else will remember!) to invite us to go around the group and ask how we arrive at our priorities, and how we make our contributions accordingly.
Maybe you have ways I've never heard of, to address the systemic causes or the most effective methods of direct relief. Unless we talk, I might never know. Even if I don't sign on to your priority, I can pray for you, and support you in the direction you've chosen, knowing that our whole community will then be more effective in keeping God's promises ... rather than one-upping each other on which of us have chosen the better path. I think it's also good to let each other know how we arrive at the amounts or forms of giving that we choose.
[Lamorna] Ash makes me think about what a conversation between Francis Spufford and Flannery O'Connor might be like. Her survey of Christianity in the UK ranges from rigidity with a happy salesface, to bass-driven ecstasy, to personal histories of toxic power games, to encounters with mysticism ancient and modern, to utter serenity, and everything in between. Her 60 interviewees have variously been converted, disillusioned, reconverted, with all levels of investment in making—or not making—their personal experiences and confessions congruent with the institution they're in at the moment. She candidly reports how this research and writing project is affecting her own life, even as she awaits a diagnosis on her mother's symptoms that suggest dementia may be coming.
She is not simply reporting on what Christianity looks like to some of her Generation Z contemporaries. She's also wrestling with Christianity's own primitive and sometimes compelling strangeness, and its multifaceted persistence. She thinks about the difference between the Nicene theologians wrestling so deeply with the nature of Christ, and those Christian thinkers of our own era who can't get beyond sex.
[An "EXCELLENT post" from "your favorite blogger."]
Two days ago, I had a chance to hear Howard Macy read his draft chapter on "Blessing Enemies" from his forthcoming book with the working title Living to Bless. This chapter of his book is based on Matthew 5:43-48, but not only: Howard traces the "love your enemies" theme throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible.
Howard's full chapter is a compelling lesson in why and how we bless our enemies, while not denying the dangers they may pose. Here's the challenge for me: its teachings can be applied to our fractured world this very day, if we're willing.
Yesterday morning on our public radio station I heard Meghna Chakrabarti open her On Point program with these words:
It would later be called the Secret Speech, but on February 25th, 1956, a cold morning in Moscow, no one knew what to expect. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stood before the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and did the unthinkable.
For a few wild moments, before she went on to explain her reasons for referring to this speech, my memories flashed back five decades to my student years at the Institute for Soviet and East European Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa. In those years, I studied Russian language and literature, Russian history, and the politics of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. The "secret speech" was a landmark event in Soviet history, and I remember being fascinated by the speech itself and the varied commentaries on Khrushchev's motives, what he should have said, what he should not have said, and the uneven progress of the destalinization efforts that followed.
We Quakers haven't exactly gone through a civil war, but we have had a number of severe divisions, as a result of which (as Kevin [Camp]pointed out) we're often appealing to the same history and the same Quaker language and drawing very different conclusions. Kevin's post urges us not to let divisions demoralize us, and I agree.
In two periods of my service with international Friends organizations—ten years with Friends World Committee for Consultation and seven with Friends United Meeting—I visited hundreds of Friends communities, and I found among them many Friends who, with varying degrees of stubbornness, would fit Kevin's descriptions of people as different as chalk and cheese according to their preferred interpretations of core Quakerism. But over all those years, I caught glimpses of progress as well. Maybe we won't be reading from the exact same page anytime soon, but there are many Friends who are at least looking at each other's favorite pages....
There's a Russian phrase, both precise and vague at the same time, that translates to English as "in times like these...."
In times like these, we write about Friends' service in Russia with love and enthusiasm tempered with discretion. We don't give names of people and partner organizations. We do emphasize our nonviolent and truthful principles, just as we "harmless and innocent people of God" did in earlier turbulent times—the years of our movement's origin.
As a former member of the board of Friends House Moscow, I appreciated receiving this report on the meeting held this autumn in southern France. I'm grateful for the permission to use it here, with one or two edits. Links were added by me.
Video: On his radio and streaming-video show Full Contact, the acid-tongued Vladimir Solovyov says the mission of Russia is to save humanity on a civilizational level, countering the evil West. Along the way, he makes a point about Donald Trump and Greenland: If the USA deems the annexation of Greenland is necessary for our security, why shouldn't Russia carve itself a piece of land from its neighbors for the sake of Russian security?
On violence and the Bible: John Kinney at Spokane Friends Church. From earlier, here's an interesting exchange among Anabaptists: Why Conrad Kanagy is not a red-letter Christian, and Spencer Bradford on why "Is God violent?" isn't the right question.
A Christmas rerun. One of the comments on this video of a contemporary Norwegian Christmas song: "When I hear this song, it's Christmas... Thank you for that, Oslo Gospel Choir."
There's a Russian phrase, both precise and vague at the same time, that translates to English as "in times like these...."
In times like these, we write about Friends' service in Russia with love and enthusiasm tempered with discretion. We don't give names of people and partner organizations. We do emphasize our nonviolent and truthful principles, just as we "harmless and innocent people of God" did in earlier turbulent times—the years of our movement's origin.
As a former member of the board of Friends House Moscow, I appreciated receiving this report on the meeting held this autumn in southern France. I'm grateful for the permission to use it here, with one or two edits. Links were added by me.
Asked about the massive amount of work the FHM meeting entailed for them, both Miranda and Eli responded in the same manner: “It is lovely to see Maison Quaker so full. It is rare to have such a large group of Friends present all at one time. This makes it really special for us.”
The task of the board was to discern the future strategy of Friends House Moscow. This was no easy challenge. Given that the war in Ukraine shows no signs of ending any day soon—astonishingly, there has already been nearly four years of fighting, rather than the three or four days many commentators had predicted—nothing about the work of FHM can be taken for granted. The board thus needed to answer tough questions. Should we continue the work? And if we should, how do we do so practically, given all the challenges it now faces?
Our deliberations started with a look back in time through the lens of Sergei Nikitin’s history of Quaker relief in early twentieth century Russia, noting that there has been constant Quaker interaction with Russia for more than a century. We then examined how our personal motivations for this work live into the Quaker Testimonies of Peace, Simplicity, Integrity and Equality, before pivoting to look at the current political environment in Russia. We considered how these changes have affected the relationships of Friends to Friends House Moscow, asking whether or not there was continuing support from local and yearly meetings in Europe and the U.S. We agreed that there is still support.
Tight finances mean that FHM cannot do all it would like to, nor meet all the needs of those approaching it for help. Three days of discernment led us to the conclusion that we should continue to support the refugee centre, bolster our publishing work, and maintain our support for the language club.
Three priorities
The refugee centre continues to help the socialisation and education of children whose families have come to Russia in search of a better life and greater security. We have been supporting the Centre since the mid-1990s. The refugees and other migrants come from a wide variety of countries. Once in Russia, they face many challenges, and often need to keep a very low profile, which makes the centre so critical for them.
Our publishing efforts remain central. We have published 22 titles in Moscow, following translation into Russian. “Best sellers” include Plague, Pestilence and Famine by Muriel Payne, The Fruits of Solitude by William Penn, and Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster.
We will continue to support the language club. Over the past year we have conducted hundreds of language lessons for students who wish to develop confidence is speaking in public in another language. We view it as a sign of hope that students wish to continue learning another language and that cultural contact with other European countries has not stopped completely.
The way opens
By the time Friends gathered for meeting for worship on Sunday, which included members of the local meeting, board of Friends House Moscow had already spent two days in contemplation and debate, chewing over the difficult issues facing the organisation. There was still a further day to go, but by the time of meeting for worship, we were feeling positive about the future of FHM.
The final day was something of a threshing meeting, as we needed to match our finances to our priorities. Sterling efforts by those of us who understand spreadsheets and IT gave us all a clear understanding that, whichever way up we looked at things, they did not square—there simply was not enough money in the pot to do all we wished FHM to do. We the leading to continue the work, we concluded the three days by committing ourselves both to the budget and to urgent need to raise additional support.
Perhaps the most important support that Friends House needs is the energy and vision of people who may have never heard of this program, and might not speak Russian, but who recognize the need for Friends House and its potential for healing, reconciliation, and encouragement in times like these. If you have follow-up questions or ideas, write to me, and if I don't know the answer, I'll find someone who does. Also see the related link below.
In The Friend: some context for the board meeting described above.
Homeland Security (USA) is proposing to require certain tourists coming to the USA to make available their social network posts for the last five years and all e-mail addresses, personal and business, over the last ten years. Here's the form to read the details and make your comments. In the list of "newly proposed changes" to the data required from travelers, see especially (3) "Mandatory Social Media"; and (4) "High Value Data Elements," requiring data from family members as well as travelers themselves. Deadline for comments: February 8.
The promise of Genesis 3–4 is that despite our best intentions we will inevitably cause ruptures (such as on my second to last day on the field when in a wave of cultural exhaustion I exploded on my closest friends because they asked for money). The aim of cross-cultural service is not solely to avoid such things, though it’s worth our best effort. It is to be sent as ambassadors of the entire Ephesians 2 gospel, true ministers of reconciliation who abide the often mortifying work of repair—the costly reweaving of trust.
Sergey Kadyrov's music, and his scenes and holiday decorations from the cities of Noginsk and Elektrostal. Instant nostalgia, of course. Thank you, Sergey! (The cafe at our former workplace, the New Humanities Institute, appears briefly starting at 1:12; three views altogether.)
