Showing posts with label Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas. Show all posts

09 July 2026

The tax covenant—idealism and reality

St. Matthew, the tax collector.
Source.

I remember Walter Mondale's acceptance speech as the Democratic party candidate to challenge U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 general election—particularly these lines:

By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two‑thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

The idealism in these few sentences (about the need to reduce the deficit by increasing revenue, and the pointed willingness to be candid) did not serve Mondale well in his losing campaign. But I admired the thought.

In my blog post last year on the tax covenant, I summed up the ideal of righteous taxation this way:  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.

Now we all know it's not really that simple. The best machines can get sand in the gears, and no human organization is completely free from inefficiencies and waste. Worse than that, when you have big streams of money going by, there'll usually be some people with buckets, trying to catch some along the way. That's why we have audits and inspectors general, but even in the best systems, we know that we won't achieve total perfection in getting the revenue to its promise-fulfilling destinations. Even so, by and large, the tax covenant can still hold. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the federal government ran a surplus four times, taking four small bites each year out of the federal debt.

The reason I'm so stubborn about preaching up this covenant is that for generations, populist politicians have been trading on the unpopularity of taxes. (Just think of how unpopular tax collectors were during New Testament times, although it didn't help that, in those times, the tax collectors themselves took a cut from the revenue.) It's convenient for those politicians to overlook the link between revenue and the legitimate expenditures approved by the people's representatives. I want that link to be strong and evident.

Then along comes a figure of such monumental disregard for common decency and legal norms, along with an animal magnetism for which J.D. Vance's ten-year-old epithet of "cultural heroin" is not too strong. It turns out that this personality can drug even legislators to the point of impotence. He has now gained the U.S. presidency a second time, despite the Founding Fathers' warnings against the rise of demagogues who rise by "flattering the prejudices of the people."

I'm guessing that, if you're read this far, you are probably not a follower of this figure and his MAGA movement. But how does all this specifically endanger the tax covenant?

We are (or should be!) willing to pay for the expenditures that our elected legislators have approved, and for the means to reduce wastage and corruption in the process. (If we don't like what they've approved or how the money is spent, we should be ready to replace those legislators and/or strengthen the safeguards.) But what should we do when the money is redirected or expropriated by the most powerful man in the system?

What if millions and billions of our tax money are being misspent to:

  • replace a congressionally-mandated bipartisan 250th birthday celebration for the country with a celebration centered on the president, partly using money diverted from the bipartisan events?
  • demolish the East Wing of the White House, deceptively promising that private contributions will finance the replacement?
  • repair and refurbish the National Mall's Reflecting Pool through a no-bid contract, announcing grandiose goals for the project at a fraction of the still-increasing cost?
  • pay for operations at the U.S. southern border, including stretches of the border wall, with money intended for military housing and schools?
  • pay his own properties to house his security details for his numerous golf holidays?
  • upgrade a gift airplane from another country (a gift already of dubious legality), to bring that airplane up to Air Force One standards? (At least $400 million, perhaps much more.)
  • begin a war of choice with Iran?

Few of these acts, taken singly, are unique to the present administration, but the scale is unprecedented. Among the rest of us, it's the cynicism generated by not knowing where our tax money is actually going that worries me. And aside from such direct defiance of legislative decisions, we see an apparent utter lack of concern for the transfers of wealth from the 99% to the 1% resulting from the "Big Beautiful Bill" and the lack of attention to the national debt.

Finally, there are all the instances of corruption, self-dealing, and conflicts of interest that come across our news channels, perhaps beyond our ability to keep track. But it's worth paying attention, if only to keep referring back from today's swamp to the cleansing vision of that most basic American covenant: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. For that ideal, I'll stubbornly continue to resist the cheap wisdom of cynicism.


Brian Baugus on a biblical view of taxation.

Rosa DeLauro on Trump's record of corruption.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington lists some of the president's conflicts of interest.

My own thoughts on hope and cynicism.


Nancy Thomas: The Lord's Prayer for Ukraine.

Kristin Du Mez on the Moscow, Idaho, pastor whose influence reaches the Pentagon.

Cape Verde's goalkeeper Vozinha: Amy Young's World Cup parable.

God Bless the Grass: The Lamb’s War as Endless Revolution, a presentation by C. Wess Daniels, available online on August 10, 7:30 p.m. Eastern time.

Michael K. Marsh on Abraham, Isaac, and sacrificing our certitude.


Canadian content! The Whitehorse version of "Baby What You Want Me to Do?"

21 May 2026

Spinning Scripture

Last Sunday the National Mall in Washington, DC, hosted a nearly undiluted festival of civil religion and Christian nationalism, "Rededicate 250."

The event was framed as a national prayer service linked to the USA's 250th birthday. You will not be surprised that this "national" event was predominantly led by evangelical Christian celebrities and a few congenial others, including one representative of a religion other than Christianity (Rabbi Soloveichik of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City).

I was planning to write this evening about the incongruities of Sunday's spectacle, but Russell Moore in Christianity Today has already done an excellent job, particularly in addressing the use of 2 Chronicles 7:14—in its actual biblical context, not as a tagline for American civil religion.

We do not come to God by way of a National Mall stage, an Oval Office video, a remembered founding, or a reclaimed country. We come through a torn veil, by blood, to a throne of grace. And we come not through a mascot but through a mediator. We can’t “rededicate” ourselves any other way but that.

(For more about Rededicate 250 in historical and constitutional context, see Heather Cox Richardson's commentary from last Sunday. Here's a video of Donald Trump's recorded Scripture reading  at Rededicate 250.)

It's important to detach 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 from its adoption by Christian nationalists and look at the powerful content it really has. I'd like to do that as a set of prompts for individual and communal self-examination—or, to put it another way, as a set of Quaker queries.

First of all, the Temple-centered context, and the focus on Solomon as the audience for this pronouncement, mean we should go much wider than these few verses. But for now, I'll just start with verses 13 and 14.

13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (NIV)

Comments and queries:

IF: God sets up a conditional commitment. Query: what happens if Solomon and his people don't keep their end of the commitment? Is God implying that the rain or locusts or plague could return? See verses 19-22 for a variety of other consequences.

My people, who are called by my name: Solomon is the head of the united theocracy of Israel. The most immediate identification of "my people" would be that nation, whose worship of their God has just been closely linked to their new Temple and to the successors of David on Israel's throne. The words of Jesus and Paul have grafted us Christians into "my people," but nowhere in the Bible is any other nation-state, including the USA, given exclusive rights to see itself as more "God's people" than anyone else. Query: Do you identify with the people "called by my name"?

Will humble themselves and pray and seek my face: There are many scriptural models for what this looks like (Examples: Psalm 131, Matthew 6:5-6, Luke 18:9-14.) Query: when we pray as a community, can we stay focused on God, with healthy humility, rather than on spectacle? How? Could this be how we respond to suffering, ours and others?

Turn from their wicked ways: Query: who is to do this turning? In this Scripture, God is specifically asking for Solomon and "my people" to decide to turn from evil, not necessarily Democrats or Iranians, or other convenient targets of the day.

Then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin: In 2 Chronicles 7, God is specifically referring to God's attentiveness to the Temple. How and where does God hear from you and your repentant community? (See 1 Peter 2:4-6.)

I will ... heal their land. Awkwardly, God isn't necessarily promising to heal the land from the people's misuse, but to heal it from the plagues and droughts and locusts that God apparently used to get their attention and, we hope, lead them to seek God's face. For what, in your own time and place, do you seek healing? For what do we as a community, seek healing? What is our own commitment to heal the land of our misuse?

Let's please remember that when we use biblical texts in public, we need to be honest about the original context. That's especially true if we are being tempted (or being paid) to exalt or condemn today's nations, leaders, and current enemies, using sacred texts to juice up our political rhetoric. We are certainly free to propose reasonable analogies, but not to do so with arrogance, and not to decree unbiblical limits to God's attention, love, and grace.


Esther Greenleaf Murer's Quaker Bible Index has a fascinating page devoted to 1 Peter chapters 1 and 2. Scroll down to 1 Peter 2 for references to early Quaker understandings of "temple."

George Fox, "You are the temples of God...." 


"Where is the loophole in that Scripture?"

Tom Tomorrow. (Note inflation.)
Clipped from source.

Please read this "pre-message" from John Kinney's most recent sermon at Spokane Friends Meeting.

I imagine that many of you with tender hearts have thoughts similar to mine. How many more times can my heart be broken before there is nothing left to break? A few weeks ago, two civilian contractors delivering water for the UN children's fund were shot dead by Israeli troops in northern Gaza, UNICEF said on Saturday, expressing fury over the deaths. The Israeli military said troops saw "two, armed terrorists" approaching, so they "opened fire". The army said the incident was "under review". I often think about the bombing of the Iranian Elementary School. One hundred and fifty students ages 7-12 killed. After the first Tomahawk missile hit, the survivors were moved to a still standing prayer room. The strike was a triple tap. The second tap destroyed the prayer room. The third tap destroyed anything that was left. The “incident is under review”. So far 850 Tomahawk missiles have been used at a cost of $2.6 million each. Total missile cost =$2,210,000,000. As of the end of April the war cost was estimated to be $200 billion. I am one of 152,000,000 people in the US that filed a tax return. If spread out evenly, my contribution to the war works out to be about $1300. The department of war greatly appreciates my financial support. I am complicit. Luke 6:27-28: But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. Please tell me. Where is the loophole in that scripture? Can it be spun so there is a work around? I pray for peace and I pay for war. I pray for peace and I pay for war. I am having a difficult time coping with my hypocrisy.

You can find John's full message here on Spokane Friends' Web site.


What's the best television show for children? I don't know, but here's my nominee for the best article on the subject.

Nancy Thomas's new Web site, with links to both of her blogs, as well as information on her books and articles.

Elderchaplain Greg Morgan on ALS and hope.

Ben Richmond's inspiring versification of selected epistles by George Fox is about to hit the streets. We can pre-order from Barclay Press or Amazon.

Source.  

"Who's been talking?" Canada's Whitehorse.

23 April 2026

Whose faith? Whose practice? (part two)

Vatican logo (source); Quaker star (source, adapted)

When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the vicar of Christ.

With these words, Bishop James Massa, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, responded on behalf of that conference to U.S. vice president Vance's criticism of the Pope.

(The full statement is here.)

You probably won't be surprised that my eyes immediately went to the words "universal Church." There's a certain confidence in that formulation, as there is in Massa's words "vicar of Christ." Leo XIV's words, and James Massa's explanation, are rooted in the Roman Catholic identity as an uninterrupted witness to the apostle Peter and to Jesus himself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church carefully explains the Catholic peace testimony, as we might call it, in its commentary on the biblical Fifth Commandment and specifically in its notes on "Safeguarding Peace." 

Last week I advocated seeing our Quaker books of "Christian faith and practice" as not just being for internal use, but as our advocacy for a way of Christian discipleship that we recommend to the whole world. In offering these recommendations in good faith, we're also ready to receive, also in good faith, the recommendations of others committed to following Jesus in ways that may differ from ours. It's in that spirit that I took a look at the Catechism, the Catholic book of Christian faith and practice, and its teachings on war and peace as Leo XIV and James Massa explained them to the world.

Pope Leo doesn't have formal authority over Quakers beyond that of a brother in Christ, but in the wider economy of the followers of Christ, he's in a peculiar position. Beyond his formal authority among the over one billion Catholics in his communion, he has worldwide visibility and influence. Not only is he in the center of worldwide webs of ecumenical relationships (not counting his linguistic, tennis, and auto-mechanic credentials), but his persistence in advocating peace has won him many admirers among people who never thought they'd be saying kind words about a pope.

Many of our books of Quaker faith and practice support our teachings on spirituality and discipleship with quotations from the full range of Quaker experience since our earliest days. We're saying, in effect, that there is historical and scriptural substance to our teachings. The Catholic Catechism does the same, drawing on a history that is (speaking institutionally) five times longer than ours.

That seniority doesn't require exaggerated deference; they may have been wrong about some things five times as long as we've existed! We've come to some very different conclusions concerning such central issues as the functions and qualifications of priesthood. I would personally not affiliate with a communion that has a list of gifts and offices for heterosexual men and a shorter list for everyone else. However, "good faith" requires me to study what's behind those differences as well as our places of unity.

I don't share the Catholic doctrine of "just war," because we Quakers, at least those who identify with the Richmond Declaration of Faith (1887), cannot see a Christian license for any war whatever. Earlier, during a period of persecution, Quakers declared that ...

The Spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.

(A declaration from the Harmless and Innocent People of God, called Quakers, 1661; the full text is very worthwhile reading.)

However, a close study of the Catholic just war doctrine reveals how much effort Catholic theologians put into finding clear ways to limit war—to the point where, functionally, they arrive at almost the same point we do. There is no place in Catholic doctrine for aggressive war or for targeting the innocent. Therefore we have a basis for powerful collaboration, and a reason to take heart when our influential brother the Pope speaks for peace.


Pope Leo also loves movies.

In our Irony Department, given the MAGA criticism of Pope Leo, Church-state separation is a ‘lie,’ says Trump's Religious Liberty Commission chair.

Juhyun Nam, Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsAI policy is built for oversight, not crisis. That needs to change. (AI policy is another major interest of the pope.)

How a small Quaker meeting has helped shape Kalamazoo (Michigan, USA) for nearly 80 years.

What's happening at the Friends Incubator for Public Ministry: A lot! From the many programs and activities, I particularly enjoyed seeing Pam and Ron Ferguson on "being released" as ministers, and Paul Anderson on Margaret Fell's ever-relevant Women's Speaking Justified. And there's a reminder about the Kickstarter campaign that needs just $3000 more to make its important goal.

Nancy Thomas on Library Week, Poetry Month, and a special place that has no Internet....

Friends United Meeting's Pentecost Devotional booklet is available here for download. (I contributed an essay.)


Mavis Staples will take us there, with Rick Holmstrom on guitar.

12 February 2026

Remembering Bishop Seraphim Sigrist

Wassily Kandinsky, Autumn in Murnau, the cover photo on Seraphim Sigrist's Facebook page.

Source: Union of Orthodox Journalists
Source: David Sipress, New Yorker
via Seraphim Sigrist's Facebook page,
commenting on his own back pain.

... [T]he gifts of the Holy Spirit are revealed in community. As such, they are for all the community, and so one gift does not quench the others, even when, as happens often, they are opposite. So the analytical does not quench the emotional, the gift of tears does not quench that of laughter, the gift of the spiritual elder does not contradict that of the psychologist, the gift of ecstasy does not stand in disharmony with that of calm.

—Bishop Seraphim Sigrist, A Life Together: Wisdom of Community from the Christian East

Bishop Seraphim Sigrist (Orthodox Church in America) died last Saturday morning. There must be many people all over the world who are going through what I'm feeling now. Yes, it's true that we believe that "he fell asleep in the Lord," but he gave us so much wisdom and care and sheer fun that I, for one, can't help feeling sad and very sorry for us.

I never met him in person. The closest we came to meeting each other was when I visited the Pleasantville campus of Pace University to conduct marketing interviews at a time when he was working in the library. We actually met through a Facebook chat when he contacted me to consider joining an ecumenical fellowship that, during the peak COVID years, was meeting online. That invitation led to, among other things, five years of correspondence that I'm very grateful to be able to revisit anytime. We chatted about Japan (where he served as Bishop of East Japan, and where my mother was born and raised), our experiences of Russia, several mutual friends there, the intersections of Eastern Orthodox and Quaker Christianity, authors and artists we both admired, and the joys and puzzles of ecumenical life. We sent each other many links over the years; it was he who told me that Friends Journal had published an interview with the Norwegian author Jon Fosse, whom he was reading at the time.

Looking over that correspondence, I am amazed at my own openness with him in writing about my family and early life. I've no doubt that many others found him to be a person of surpassing empathy as I did. And some of you lucky people knew him for far longer than my five years.

His scope of knowledge, interests, sympathies, and ability to detect unexpected affinities and hidden kinships across all those fields was amazing. And he frequently made those connections with gentle playfulness.

In his positive review of Bishop Seraphim's book Theology of Wonder, the Christian Reformed scholar James Peyton wrote words that ring very true, more generally, of what I came to know and love about our friend. In the Calvin Theological Journal (pages 479-481), Peyton wrote,

There is no question that the author is a gifted theologian: It is clear that Bishop Seraphim is well-acquainted with a wide spectrum of views and controversies, both among Christians of various stripes and with the views of practitioners of other faith traditions throughout the world. However, he never makes such familiarity the point of his presentation or of any of the sections; indeed, he wears his extensive learning lightly. He is not concerned to show us how much he knows, although he knows a great deal: He refers deftly to the understandings current among Hasidic Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and various kinds of Muslims. He cites with considerable dexterity literary figures from various cultures, across many centuries, and in a host of genres. Unostentatiously, the author weaves these all into a seamless tapestry that invites readers to appreciate that "all things (considered in their depth) led into eluctable mystery" (93): Bishop Seraphim is concerned to show us how much he does not understand—or, better put, what no one can comprehend. In the best traditions of the rich Eastern Orthodox tradition in which he stands, this little book offers a contemporary—and very accessible—mystical theology.

Theology of Wonder is available from St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Eternal memory!


Source: LiveJournal

Seraphim in his own words, over the years: his LiveJournal.

UPDATE: A beautiful tribute to Seraphim from his friend Michael Meerson, who writes,

Maybe he truly was a seraph cast among humans, sent on some mysterious mission. A seraph on earth would move awkwardly in crowds, his wings more hindrance than help, yet he would ache constantly for the divine presence he had known before. That longing defined Seraphim. I have never met anyone so profoundly nostalgic for heaven.

(In Russian.)


The fourth Global Ecumenical Theological Institute (GETI) in Wadi El Natrun, Egypt—an Eastern Orthodox perspective. (How I wish I could talk about this report with Eden Grace!)

Micah Bales asks a key question: Who is in charge here?

You've heard of virtue-signalling. Now we have vice-signalling and vitriol-signalling.... (Skip these links if you want to stay on the sunny side of the street.)

Kristin Du Mez, Bruce Berglund, and the Moscow Playbook.

Writer and poet Nancy Thomas on the writing vocation, technological interruptions, and ... what rhymes with Forsythe?

Yougov statistics: Super Bowl vs Winter Olympics, and how book-reading is faring in the USA (not well!).


This time, our "Baby Scratch My Back" version comes from Otis Redding (audio only with slideshow). It's probably my favorite version strictly for vocal performance. Musicians: Booker T. & the M.G.'s (Steve Cropper, Donald Dunn, Al Jackson Jr., Booker T. Jones) along with pianist Isaac Hayes and a horn section including Wayne Jackson, Charles "Packy" Axton, Andrew Love, Floyd Newman, and Sammy Coleman.

08 January 2026

"A king to lead us"

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.


Related: Iran, biblical realism, and perpetual war.


A different take: Perry Bacon's reflections on the politics of the Venezuela raid.

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.

Also, Nataliya Gumenyuk on the war in Ukraine, via Timothy Snyder: What if Trump wants Goliath to win?

On Renee Nicole Good and the smear campaign: First the shooting. Then the lies.

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.

Greg Morgan (Elder Chaplain), Gabby, and hope.

Nancy Thomas's unexpected adventure. (Best wishes, Nancy!) And her Advent poems part 4, "The Star" and "Refugees."


Corey Harris, "Didn't My Lord Deliver Daniel?"

04 December 2025

"The beautiful Russia of the future," part three

Previously:

"The beautiful Russia of the future"
"The beautiful Russia of the future," part two
Beautiful future or dead end?


"A flag of peace and freedom"—a design for a post-colonial Russian flag. Source.

Since the death of Alexei Navalny, I've not written much here about the theme of the "beautiful Russia of the future." I continue to think about Russia often, and am in touch with some of our friends and colleagues of our years in Elektrostal, but the ongoing war, and the repressive political context, has complicated these relationships, to my sorrow and frustration.

However, I was reminded that this state of affairs won't last forever, Here's the communication I received today, written by two old friends, that reminded me:


Planting Seeds for Healing

A brutal war is raging in Ukraine and near the border with Russia. Will there be a winner in this conflict? I think not. In war, everyone loses. Both sides have lost many lives. The destruction in Ukraine is immense.

All wars eventually come to an end, and this one will not be an exception. When this war is over, the reconstruction begins.

However, it is not just the infrastructure and buildings that must be rebuilt. It is the lives of the people that will need restoring and healing—a return to mental and physical health. For every soldier who is killed, many lives are affected—parents, children, siblings, spouse, friends—and their lives will never be the same. Some sources estimate over one million killed plus many other wounded. There will be a great many people on both sides with unimaginable losses who suffer from trauma, stress, depression, hatred, grief, shame, regret, and many will carry unthinkable physical injuries for the rest of their lives.

Healing is a long-term process which will require dedicated professionals and volunteers who believe that, with compassion and understanding, it is possible to do healing work with individuals and groups. This process begins now in anticipation of the eventual end to this terrible war and the normalization of travel: willing professionals must be located; a sustainable program developed; volunteers trained; money raised for transportation, office space, supplies, outreach.

There is a registered non-profit in the US that has been supporting projects in Russia and Ukraine for 29 years. Its supporters believe that an intense effort will be needed to answer the call for help from both sides in this war. They want to be involved and are looking for others who want to engage with the creative and inclusive process of assessing needs, connecting with the people in both countries, developing programs, raising funds, and implementing such healing.

Knowledge of the Russian or Ukrainian language is not necessary.

If you would like to help in this effort or know someone who might be interested, please contact planningforpeaceandhealing@gmail.com.


I can vouch for the authors of this invitation and hope that, if something stirs in your heart, you'll get in touch with the authors through that e-mail address.

Quakers have been involved in Russia and Ukraine for many years, dating back to Peter the Great. I know personally some of those who now carry these concerns for healing, but the majority of them are now 70 or more years old. If there are younger Friends with a concern for this part of the world, I'd love to hear from you. (johan@canyoubelieve.me.) And so would those who wrote the invitation above.

When I started studying the Russian language in high school in Evanston, Illinois, I didn't feel alone. It was great fun to go to the University of Illinois campus in Chicago on May 15, 1971, for the Illinois State Russian Contest, and see a whole lecture hall full of high school students with similar enthusiasm. (I won a "Superior" certificate!) 

Stats for high school students of Russian then and now are hard to find, but college level enrollments have taken a dive since those years. At their peak (1990), there were about 44,500 students of Russian in the USA. (I wasn't one of them; I majored in Russian at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario.) By 2021 the number had gone down to 17,598. And that's before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which I'm sure made the language even less popular among those from non-Russian backgrounds. In my high school years, the Cold War (and the alarm over Sputnik I) gave some of us a sense of urgency, but the current grievous situation hasn't had the same effect.

As writer and critic Dmitri Bykov noted back in 2022, commenting on the full-scale invasion,

It is clear that Russia crossed many red lines. It cannot live any longer as it did in the past. The world will no longer see [in Russia] a place of spirituality, a place of great culture, a place representing victory over fascism.

That may all be true, now and for some time to come, but all the severe judgments, indictments, cultural boycotts, social and economic isolation, and other consequences that this nation has brought down upon itself through coercion, passivity, and toxic cynicism, I can't help continuing to cherish the vision of a "beautiful Russia of the future." And a key component for recovering that beauty is the gift of healing.


Nataliya Gumenyuk: What if Trump wants Goliath to win?

Kristin Du Mez on Epstein's web.

George Demacopoulos on Orthodoxy as masculinity.

It may well be the case that young adults in the United States view Christianity as an impediment to women’s equality, a view amplified by the “Orthodoxy as Masculinity” narrative. But that is not what Orthodox Christianity proclaims.

Nancy Thomas in her Mil Gracias blog: Naming the baby: Advent Poem 1.


Rest in peace, Steve Cropper. Time is tight.

27 November 2025

Thanksgiving shorts and links

... for those who celebrate on this day, and anyone who likes the idea.

Source.  

I'm grateful for a wonderful time in London with our son, and for safe travels back to the USA on two airlines I'd never heard of. Both airlines—Vueling and LEVEL—are owned by the same company that owns British Airways, Iberia, and Aer Lingus, and both serve Barcelona, Spain, through which we flew to get to our transatlantic destination, Boston. Although Vueling's A320 had the tiniest pitch of any airplane I've ever flown in, with my knees pressed into the seat in front of me, I was thankful for a reasonable fare for a one-way transatlantic trip.


I'm grateful for the wedding that was the occasion for coming back to the USA through Boston. Our nephew Ben Cabezas married Chris Rainville last Saturday, in Hampstead, New Hampshire. Among the many blessings resulting from the wedding was the biggest reunion of extended family that I've experienced for decades. Best wishes to Ben and Chris, and thanks for the wonderful occasion and reunion. On the most basic level, I'm incredibly grateful for family, wherever they may happen to be today.

Our next stage of travel is planned to start tomorrow: Amtrak trains from Boston to Chicago and then Chicago to Portland, Oregon. We made this trip several times during our Russia years, and are looking forward to those days of continental sightseeing through train windows and the Empire Builder's observation car, along with plenty of time to read and to do my daily Norwegian language homework.

One wintery wrinkle: significant snow predicted along our Amtrak route.


I'm grateful that this is a holiday post, and I can end this post a bit early, compared to my usual length! It's time to celebrate.


Elizabeth Meyer on baking pies in God's presence.

Diana Butler Bass: "This Thanksgiving, we do not give thanks. We choose it."

Becky Ankeny on having trust that is based on the character of God.

Micah Bales on adulting in the Kingdom. "This is really good news for us who are just trying to be adults in a world that feels like it’s flying apart."

A tribute to sweet potatoes (one of Judy's Thanksgiving specialties).

Even leopards give thanks, according to Nancy Thomas.


"Take My Hand Precious Lord" in musical and spiritual context, with Rev. Robert Jones.

19 November 2025

Dual citizen—at least

My first passport photo,
with Oslo district police stamp.

My German grandparents and brand new me,
at my Norwegian grandparents' home in Oslo.

It was a year ago, on November 21, 2024, that I began the process of regaining my Norwegian citizenship. Two days ago, I received a notice from the Norwegian government that began with the word "Congratulations." It was a notice that I'm once again a Norwegian citizen.

I was born a Norwegian citizen, but when my parents both became U.S. citizens and, later, had me naturalized as well at age 10, I became subject to the Norwegian rule that didn't permit dual citizenship. When that rule was changed, they set up a procedure for former citizens to apply for citizenship once again.

So I applied and paid the fee on that day in November last year, and on the same day I began the search for the necessary documentation of my or my parents' U.S. naturalizations. Most of the year was taken up looking for those documents, but we finally got them, thanks to the genealogy department of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. That was the most expensive part of the process, but ultimately successful.

It would have been easier if I had inherited my parents' own copies of their naturalization papers, but somewhere in all the drama of their lives after I left home, those papers were lost.

I also had to apply for a certificate of conduct from the Norwegian police. I left Norway before the age of two, and have been back for only brief periods since, so I haven't had an opportunity to be noticed by the police, but all the same I was glad to get it in writing. (I'm thankful for their patience with me; having optimistically—twice!—misjudged the time it would take to get naturalization records from the U.S. government, I ended up applying three times for that certificate, each of which was good for three months.)

Then I gathered up all these documents. and Judy and I took Amtrak to the Norwegian consulate in San Francisco to hand them in. About five weeks later, I received the good news.

Now that I'm a dual citizen, it's fair to ask why I went to all this trouble. After all, I'm already a resident of my favorite planet, and a grateful subject of the Prince of Peace. All I can say is, all my life I've had Norway in my heart, and I've always believed that one's public connections ought to reflect one's inner reality. (Furthermore, I never realized as a child that this particular outward connection would be cut. I just knew that my alien status delayed our family at the U.S. port of entry whenever we returned to the USA from abroad.)

Maurer family grave,
Old Aker Church, Oslo.
I remain very loyal to the USA and its values. In the language of my parents' naturalization documents, I remain "... attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." I see no conflict in gratefully claiming, at the same time and with equal loyalty, my deep roots in the place where I was born, and the joy and completeness I always feel when I return to that birthplace.

And finally, with a Norwegian father, and with a German mother who was born and grew up in Japan, and other relatives in Norway, Germany, Canada, and South America (at least!), I will always cherish all of my favorite planet.


We're about to be on the road on Thursday, so I'm posting this a day early. Hope to post again on (U.S.) Thanksgiving.


I continue to re-learn my mother tongue.

Source.  

Journalist Elena Kostyuchenko loves her country, according to the title of her very moving, often distressing book, but it's a complicated love.... I recommend the book, but it's not fun material. Maybe this review will help explain. I'm not sure Kostyuchenko's book conforms to my foreign ideas of how to write about Russia, but then she has seen and endured many things I've not, and she's not on a mission to correct us.

Heather Cox Richardson: "Sugar dating," Epstein, and Abraham Lincoln's warnings about "the same old serpent."

On her blog, Life in an Old Growth Forest: Reflections on Aging, Nancy Thomas is exploring the dark part of the forest the way she knows how, by writing.

Marcelle Martin and Windy Cooler on the role of discernment in public ministry: an introduction to faithfulness groups on the Friends Incubator for Public Ministry Web site, and more information on their January 7, 2026, online conversation.

Are you thinking about going to seminary? (I did, more than half a lifetime ago.) If so, you might benefit from this panel discussion, The Pros and Cons of Seminary, at Public Friends.


Norwegian Soulband, covering Sam Cooke: "A Change is Gonna Come." (A repeat, but it seemed appropriate on several levels.)

30 October 2025

Hope is not just for eternity

Photo by Judy Maurer, edited.

I've been seeing and hearing a lot about the theme of hope recently. Sometimes the message is "hang on to hope!" Sometimes it's more like "I've given up hope." It's made me think about how hope relates to reality and to faith.

The USA has been through some rough times in its nearly 250 years as a country, but in my lifetime, this may be the scariest. In previous crises, the danger may have been high (my first memory of national danger was the Cuban Missile Crisis) but at least there seemed to be competent people in charge. Now the people in those top posts seem to have a lot more fun generating crises than managing them. And some of them presume to bless this scene in the name of the Prince of Peace.

In fairness, neither corruption nor crises are anything new. The genocide in the Gaza Strip and in Al-Fashir, Sudan, are just the latest examples of what God already knew in this scene after Noah and the animals disembarked from the ark:

Genesis 8:20-21 (My emphasis) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humans, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez really brought this biblical realism home to me last summer, as I described in this post, The long defeat, part one.  She was listening to a sermon by Len Vander Zee. As she tells it,

Len was quoting Celeborn and Galadriel in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, saying: “together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.” Tolkien expanded on this in a letter to a friend: “I am a Christian….so I do not expect history to be anything but a long defeat, though it contains…… some glimpse of final victory.”

In 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about the contrast between hope and reality in his own experience, shortly before charging his audience with the ministry of reconciliation:

2 Corinthians 4:8-12, 16-18 We are afflicted in every way but not crushed, perplexed but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed, always carrying around in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For we who are living are always being handed over to death for Jesus’s sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us but life in you.

...

So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For our slight, momentary affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen, for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.

Death continues to roam the globe, among guilty and innocent alike, shredding credibility from those preaching too glib a picture of hope. I remember a blunt statement by T. Canby Jones: (paraphrasing from memory): Genuine Christian pacifism requires coming to terms with one's own death.

So: does hope have anything to do with today's reality? Yes, I believe it does. If we hope for good outcomes, and work toward them, we're not required to seek a guarantee that everything will change for the better. Hope doesn't require denying reality or concealing failure. Somehow I'm sure that in God's economy, no act of kindness goes to waste, but we may not see the fruits ourselves.

I love this quotation from Evelyn Underhill, via the Daily Quaker Message for October 24, "Love cannot be stopped."

One of the holy miracles of love is that once it is really started on its path, it cannot stop: it spreads and spreads in ever-widening circles till it embraces the whole world in God. We begin by loving those nearest to us, end by loving those who seem farthest. And as our love expands, so our whole personality will grow, slowly but truly. Every fresh soul we touch in love is going to teach us something fresh about God.”

I quoted Paul saying "...what cannot be seen is eternal." I think this is where hope and faith are related. In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer says, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." My own hope is for God to see a reason to modify that reflection in that Noah's Ark story, because it will turn out that humans might cease being inclined toward evil. I have no idea when and how enough of us will head Paul's call to become ministers of reconciliation, and  enough hearts will be changed, so that cruelty is banished from human community. The apparent lack of realism in this vision doesn't mean that I shouldn't hope in that direction; it's just that I recognize that there will almost certainly be many cruelties and many deaths between now and its fulfillment, and I shouldn't pretend otherwise or gloss it all over with Christian clichés. 

Maybe what I'm really asking for is the borderline between earth and heaven to begin melting, as in Revelation.

In the meantime, I gain hope just by reading the list of heroes of faith in the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the letter to the Hebrews. Today I saw something new to me in one of those heroes... Hebrews 11:11: And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. Sarah and Abraham had faith that literally bore fruit as God had promised. I believe Jesus' promise to me that he is trustworthy; therefore I take him at his word and trust him. 

The traditional interpretation is that the only sure hope is for eternity, but I am impatient, and I believe that the more we hope, the more we'll get "some glimpse of final victory" even in this present age.


Related: 

Sowing in tears.

Valiant for the Truth.


Another view of hope at Got Questions.

Stephanie Phillips, The Noise of Certainty and the Voice of Hope.

Philip Gulley, If America Were Great (1). "Do you know what it means to be a Christian? I don’t need to tell you this because you already know. But I’m worked up, so I’m going to say it anyway." ...

Sarah Thomas Baldwin asks, "Are you in the wilderness?"

Nancy Thomas, Poems of the Incarnation (1).


The great Homesick James in 1970, "Dust My Broom."

04 September 2025

First principles 3.0?

I, Johan, "Mr. Dignity and Decorum," a.k.a. "your favorite blogger," am starting this EXCELLENT post with a confession:

I read the "Newsom University" post from California governor Gavin Newsom's press office via x.com, and was unable to suppress AUDIBLE MIRTH.

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. 

For example: Shouldn't we find ways to bless those in our own government and society who have apparently abandoned the constitutional mission to "... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [that is, "We the people"] and our posterity..."? Some of the people I'm referring to, and daring to classify as "enemies," engage in what's been called "gleeful cruelty"—the very opposite of blessing—and that public glee provokes in me (and apparently in Newsom's office) an almost irresistible temptation to RESPOND IN KIND.

Another case study: Among many other current calamities, we have the reality of Afghanistan, a nation whose Taliban leadership has gone out of its way to alienate much of the planet, is now in great need of assistance for the casualties of this week's earthquake. In so many places, the command to love enemies and bless those who harass us has immediate application.

In Howard's words,

Don’t answer in kind. Don’t make personal attacks, either directly or indirectly. Telling others about how rotten your enemy is seems like revenge. As does name-calling, even in your own thinking, since it keeps hurt and anger fresh. Certainly be careful with humor since, especially in our time, it is too often used to embarrass or demean. Importantly, living in love and blessing also frees us from the damage to ourselves that enduring bitterness and anger invite.

—Howard Macy, Living to Bless, chapter 8, "Blessing Enemies." Italics are mine.

Awkwardly enough for mirthful me, I've written something consistent with this on my own blog. Here is one of the "first principles" I republished upon Donald Trump's November 2024 electoral victory:

3. Resist the degradation of civil discourse. Do not use condescending mockery of anyone, or of their diets, appearance, or class origins. Don't mock their faith communities, although it's perfectly fair to propose contradictions between their publicly-proclaimed faith and their behaviors or policies.

Are those first principles adequate in an era of mutual trolling and unrestrained satire?

Another commentator, Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in Berlin, is thinking along similar lines, but his specific concern is misuse of the label "fascist":

The ‘fight against the right’ is often portrayed by the left as a matter of life or death, as democracy versus fascism: if the fight is lost, then it would spell the end of democracy and fascism would reign again. That was the stark warning published in a global manifesto signed by 400 intellectuals.

But does this framing actually work? Will it help to defend democracy and win back lost voters? Probably not. In fact, it may do more harm than good. [See full article.]
...
In short, the best tool to defend democracy is open, calm debate rather than fear-driven fascism framing. We should specifically illustrate successes as well as the problems and dangers. Above all, extremists need to be included in these debates.

In the face of all this dignity and decency, however, Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi points out:

Newsom has grasped what so many other Democrats are loth to admit: you can’t keep playing by the same old rules when the other side has ripped up the rulebook.

A generation ago, George Lakoff was advising us not to let the opposition frame the argument; perhaps the use of salty satire helps break their frame? Or maybe there are two streams of rhetoric that should not be confused, because they're for different audiences:

  • Honest (i.e., non-manipulative) rage and outrage linked to the violation of the standards we thought ought to prevail by virtue of our common citizenship and founding values: rule of law, due process, separation of powers, and government of, by, and for the people. Are we not to make our distress clear, and assure others that we are seeing the same crazy things they're seeing? Don't we need some of that righteous anger to fuel our efforts to get out on the street and prevent or at least witness the ICE dragnets?
  • Direct expression, in our own diverse voices, of the values we uphold and intend to defend, and their Scriptural and civilizational bases, and our curiosity at what motivates our opponents to abandon those values. Doesn't our shared humanity, our commitment to "regard" others as we regard Christ, require us to make that effort, to express that curiosity, and to learn from them why they don't apparently see the need for mutual blessings?

But can we truly avoid confusing these two tracks? The danger with the first track, shared rage and distress, in its full range of expression (such as Newcom's trolling) is that it can fool us into thinking we can stop there—that outrage and mocking and mimicking the worst behavior of our opponents, somehow constitute positive resistance and activism, simply because we have the short-term pleasure of feeling like we've struck a blow for righteousness. Worse: for the sake of that gratification, we've reinforced the very alienation that got us into this mess in the first place.

What do you think? Where is the balance for you, if "balance" is even a valid goal? In our era of gleeful cruelty and mutual trolling, how do you handle honest distress without getting frozen into an "enemy" mentality?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.


Related:

Tom Nichols: Gavin Newsom's parodies are riling people up....

Margaret Sullivan: Two can play at that game.

Regarding, part four: Closer to home.

The Beatitudes and Resisting Evil: this is a sermon by Becky Ankeny that has the same direct application as Howard Macy's chapters. After recounting a bloody period of Burundi's history, she continues,

You can see why I’m jumpy today about current events. I think about various possible scenarios and what I can or should do.  Maybe you folks do, too. So today, we will look at two of the Beatitudes, bearing in mind that Jesus spoke to an occupied people, ruled by the Roman emperor and his governors, and locally oppressed by the military. Any rebelliousness was mercilessly put down and the rebels crucified. Therefore, I believe these Beatitudes can help us negotiate our way through our realities.  

Matthew 5:6-7

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. 

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.


If you're in or near Bremerton, Washington, this Sunday, the Bremerton Friends Worship Group is meeting.

It's church coffee hour ... what's an introvert to do? (Review of Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture by Adam S. McHugh.)

This uncomfortable thought occurs whenever I catch myself plotting Sunday morning escape routes. Aren’t church gatherings supposed to offer a foretaste of heaven? McHugh might reply with reasonable alternatives to self-reproach: Perhaps, after worship, most introverts prefer holy silence, quiet prayer, or deeper dialogue to shooting the breeze in a noisy foyer.

Yet my own inward journeys of reflection suggest a less flattering answer: I don’t always love God’s people as I should. I treat them as roadblocks to reading books or watching Sunday afternoon football. 

Yair Rosenberg on the MAGA influencers rehabilitating Hitler.

How serious was the GPS outage that may have affected the EC's president Ursula von der Leyen's landing in Plovdiv, Bulgaria? Or is this a case of some of us wanting to believe the worst?

Nancy Thomas thought about simplicity and integrity while shredding paper.


Once again in honor of the late Leonardo "Flaco" Jiménez... The Texas Tornados' version of "96 Tears."