Showing posts with label discipleship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discipleship. Show all posts

02 July 2026

More on Quaker culture and "density envy"

Thirteen years ago I wrote a post on "Quaker culture." I had just read a novel whose Jewish and Catholic characters were described with lavish details from their Jewish and Catholic religious cultures—rituals, architecture, thought patterns, built up, elaborated, and passed on from generation to generation over many centuries. I wondered if our Quaker religious cultures aren't a bit thin by comparison.

I've recently read two more novels with dense religious settings and the same thought occurred to me. Given the temptation toward Quaker exceptionalism among some of us, maybe a bit of modesty would do us some good!

Of course it's not that simple. A beautiful and rich culture can honor God, and can do so through so many emotional and sensory channels that go far beyond the doctrines and propositions that were hallmarks of that highly contentious period of English history when we got our start. (Come to think of it, doctrines and propositions, and our conflicting feelings about them, continue to exercise us Friends to this day!) But those rich, dense, beautiful cultures can, at their worst, also exclude, entrap, and alienate.

Those two newer novels illustrate this beauty and this hazard in very different ways. I highly recommend both of them. The one I read first was Niall Williams's Time of the Child, set in a rain-soaked village in the west of Ireland in the year 1962, the year that, among other things, the first television arrives in the town. At the center of the story is an agnostic general practitioner who attends Mass faithfully, and whose relationship with the parish priests is fascinating. Also in the center of the story is his eldest daughter, who serves as his receptionist; his other two daughters have moved away. Almost every important action in the story is somehow linked, whether by intention or habit, to the region's Catholic culture and faith. I loved this story so much that I hope you'll read it without further commentary from me, so I can avoid revealing its compelling and gradually unfolding plot. Williams, in all the novels of his that I've read, somehow manages to convey love with extraordinary depth but without sentimentality.

If you still need a bit more detail to be persuaded, here's a review.

The other novel is Kate Riley's Ruth. I think it is a small miracle that this book even came to be published. It is by turns deadpan and laconic, reverent, snarky, sad, and wicked funny. Ruth's story is a near-lifetime compressed into a chain of telling incidents from a life lived in an Anabaptist commune, with similarities to Hutterite and Bruderhof communities. Ruth understands the rules, until she doesn't. Her son doesn't. She loves her husband, and despises his annoying habits. In the community she's loyal and skeptical, a total insider who is somehow not trapped. 

For a time, the community seems oddly totalitarian, but the leaders confess their inadequacies. Misdeeds can lead to temporary shunning, usually on a voluntary basis! Travel to the outside world is permitted when necessary—for example, to meet and pray "with a Quaker colloquium at the Wyndham Sault Ste. Marie." "In the van Ruth had erred in wondering aloud whether Quakers might love peace more than they loved Christ, which she'd read somewhere and liked the sound of. No one responded."

(Talking about people behind their backs is not permitted in the community, but, just between you and me, it's worth listening to Ruth!)

Here are two reviews: Englewood Review of Books and Anabaptist World.

If you've read either of these books, or this post reminds you of other books you'd recommend, I'd love to know!


If I were to live in a high-context religious community, I think I would want these two needlepoint mottoes on my wall:

"Christ is the 'yes' to all of God's promises." — St. Paul.

"All knowledge is local, all truth is partial." — Ursula K. Le Guin.


Related: Ohio Byways; Core sample of a Quaker culture; Games, sports, comedies....


Rachel Muers does an amazing job of describing Friends faith, practice, worship, and diversities in a compact, even-handed, and well-organized article for the St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, with lots of useful links. Thanks to Jim Fussell for the reference.

Kristin Du Mez, Live Laugh Love, and the librarians.

Ashley Wilcox on "Alaska in my bones," and the example Anchorage provides us.

Adrienne LaFrance wishes happy 100th birthday to Mel Brooks, "the funniest man who ever lived."


Kelly Zirbes and her band Kelly's Lot perform "Ship." Kelly's tour dates include Klamath Falls (July 25), Burns OR (August 5), Spokane (August 10), and Portland OR (August 12, with Carolyn Wonderland).

18 June 2026

Tomorrow will take care of itself

Source.  

The occupation of the USA by Donald Trump and his movement has now continued for 514 days and twelve hours. Whether by design or impulse, he and his Project 2025 allies seem to find new ways nearly every day to enrich themselves at our nation's expense, subvert our laws, ignore our courts, divert our taxes, weaken our international reputation, betray former allies, insult former presidents and other leading citizens, reduce civil and environmental protections, shoot and bomb at will, exalt racial purity, lie about our nation's history, and misrepresent our patriotism and our faith.

Peter Wehner, in "The Apotheosis of Donald Trump," provides a sobering and helpful inventory of these realities.

This constant flow of transgressions, along with the evidence that millions of our fellow citizens see nothing to complain about beyond the president's unfortunate vulgarity, can wear down even the sunniest idealist. When "our" side also resorts to gross malice, it doesn't help! Maybe it's for these reasons that this biblical advice, in King James English, has recently been echoing in my brain:

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

This is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, specifically the verses (6:24-34) where we are told not to worry about our basic necessities but strive for God's kingdom and righteousness.

Most modern English translations translate "evil" (κακίᾳ) as "trouble" or"troubles." Sarah Ruden has "aggravation." ("Today's aggravation is plenty for today.") For some reason I like the English word "evil" here. In Jesus' voice the whole line seems to have a hint of humor or irony.

The full passage seems to suggest that we can overcome anxieties about our basic needs through faith in God, who knows what we need—and wants us to depend on God rather than the illusory security we might be tempted to get via wealth and worldly power. 

On the other hand, Jesus doesn't tell us that we should not worry about others or simply forget about the future altogether. In addition, there are other places in Scripture where planning and policy are addressed. In this same passage in Matthew, we are to care about God's kingdom and God's righteousness. Further on in Matthew, addressing the people and the nations, are we sheep or goats? As for becoming too passive and today-focused, there's Proverbs 6:6-8:

Go to the ant, you sluggard;
    consider its ways and be wise!
It has no commander,
    no overseer or ruler,
yet it stores its provisions in summer
    and gathers its food at harvest.

And as regards policy, there's Joseph's advice to Egypt's pharaoh to prepare for the famine that's coming in seven years (Genesis 41:33-36): (here I have in mind those who argue that government has no role to play in caring for the people's welfare...)

"And now let Pharaoh look for a discerning and wise man and put him in charge of the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of abundance. They should collect all the food of these good years that are coming and store up the grain under the authority of Pharaoh, to be kept in the cities for food. This food should be held in reserve for the country, to be used during the seven years of famine that will come upon Egypt, so that the country may not be ruined by the famine."

Here's the lesson I'm drawing for myself from all of this—and please tell me if this is helpful of if I'm on a tangent:

  1. Don't ignore today's evil; pay attention to what is going on in the world today that's not consistent with a vision of God's care for us all, and God's righteousness.
  2. But then take it all directly to God. Confess freely to God both gratitude and distress. Ask how my gifts and temperament fit into God's picture.
  3. Tomorrow, start the day fresh by being grounded in God's presence so that tomorrow's evil doesn't already turn me sour! I'm much more useful to self, family, and the world if I'm not obsessed and addicted.
  4. Be prepared to join and support communities that plan and advocate for the longer term, but above all remember to live one day at a time.

Related: Biblical realism. A song of quiet trust. Division of labor. Under occupation.


Robert Reich charges Donald Trump with a rolling coup. (Is this a fair charge?)

Thanks to the creator of this spreadsheet, with its many details and contact information for U.S. legislators, governors, other officeholders, and news media.

Instagram video: Why do children of Christians become socialist?

I was feeling sorry for my half-Norwegian self when our temperatures here in Portland, Oregon, reached 95 degrees (F) a couple of days ago. A friend in Pakistan reminded me of another reality.

Nancy Thomas and a thirty-year-old memory of AI's forebears trying to tempt her with canned letters for "virtually every situation you can face in the church." (I remember this when she first wrote about it in Quaker Life. It's great, though sobering, to be reminded.)

The real harvest: Micah Bales on the day-to-day ministry of Jesus, and its implications for our role.

It’s a really big deal that God hasn’t simply jumped in and fixed our problems for us without involving us in the process. I want us to really grasp what this means for us as human beings: This means that we matter. Our lives and actions are important. The salvation of the world is coming about not merely through the Spirit’s action in the world. God in his wisdom has decided that our world is to be redeemed and transformed by the working of the Holy Spirit in us.

McKinley James, with Mark Wenner on harp. "Blues With a Feeling."

11 June 2026

Debates worth having, continued

Source.  

And our meanest Christians tend to piously and publicly worship Jesus as their King, because that’s considerably easier than following his inconvenient teachings.
—John Fugelsang, Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds.

Last week I looked at a specific debate... True or false? ... Christians are called to change themselves, not systems. I agreed that it is necessary to start with ourselves, but that some of us may then be led to challenge systems. I appreciated Marshall Massey's responses in that post's comment section.

That original debate sprang from an assertion by Texas Senate candidate James Talarico and a rebuttal from one of his Christian opponents. It seemed like a textbook example of a conflict between two different understandings of Christian faith and practice—a conflict that has heated up in the USA's current political context, in which white Christian nationalists seek to dominate the country.

For a while it has seemed that the alliance between some evangelical Christians and far-right politics was defining the public face of Christians in U.S. mass media. Secular audiences could be forgiven for concluding that our Good News was actually bad news. For those seeking to offer different, more attractive and more honest expressions of our faith, help is coming in the form of both diagnoses and resources.

Some of these resources have actually been around for a while, but are worth mentioning now. Here are just a few examples, mostly from a quarter of a century ago or more:

Are there any you'd add?

More recent, reflecting the situation we find ourselves in now:

Of these last three, Fugelsang's book is less diagnostic and more of a resource: specifically, biblically-based counterpoints to the truth claims of white Christian nationalism. It's the book I've spent the last couple of days with, trying to decide whether to recommend it here.

The person who told me about this book often engages, sometimes at surprising length, with MAGA Christians online. The MAGA participants are often surprised at encountering biblical literacy among those who challenge their claims, and it is with this goal in mind—equipping the humane left wing of the Christian movement with biblical responses (and, more importantly, biblical context)—that Fugelsang wrote his book.

Separation of Church and Hate is divided into several sections corresponding to most of the principal controversies that mark these debates.

  • Jesus and Paul
  • Biblical literalism
  • Feminism
  • "Thou Shalt Not Hate the Gays"
  • Abortion
  • "Illegals"
  • Poverty and poor people
  • Sex
  • Capital punishment
  • Gun control and the worship of "Warrior Bro-Dude Jesus"
  • "Thou Shalt Not Hate Jews, Muslims, or Even Atheists"
  • White supremacy

John Fugelsang is not a biblical scholar, historian, or theologian, but he interviewed several of them in the process of assembling this book, and his acknowledgments include some familiar names. Within each of those themes, he gives some background for the controversies within that theme, and also lists typical claims made by Christian nationalists, and suggests responses. I'm guessing that you would already have anticipated many of his recommendations, but this book doesn't take a reader's familiarity with the Bible for granted. One of the good features of this book is its value as an introduction to the depth of biblical resources for justice, grace, mercy, and radical love. And in the process, he comes up with some flashes of insight that may delight you as much as they did me.

Fugelsang anticipates that his audience will include all sorts of readers, including people altogether outside Christianity, and Christians who don't share some of his interpretations. Here's how he explains his purpose: 

[The book is] ... a guide to everything the haters got wrong. It focuses on Christianity through the teachings of Jesus, known to some as the "red letters" of the bible. And it'll show that if you're debating an authoritarian Christian on almost any subject that divides us, Jesus probably has your back. Whether you're a believer, agnostic, or atheist, whatever you think about politics, you're going to have to deal with these people at some point. they want to control the level of freedom in US society based on how they pick and choose from the Bible. It's going to be increasingly vital to dismantle their supernatural authority by elegantly pointing out that they don't really follow this Bible they claim to base their lives on. And you'll be surprised at how good it feels, too.

Personally, I hope I'm not in this conflict simply because it feels good to one-up anyone, but there's nothing wrong with modest confidence in one's desire to uphold the reputation of the Gospel. A related note: Fuglesang is, among other things, a comedian, and I sometimes find his jocularity a bit off-putting. (Note the subtitle!) Maybe you won't. It doesn't diminish the book's usefulness. However, at times it introduces a bit of dissonance when, on the one hand, he proposes excellent guidelines for pursuing dialogue in a courteous and receptive spirit, but then he himself uses some spicy nicknames for the people he's helping us oppose.

On balance, yes, I'm glad I have it.


Here's the review that appeared in Friends Journal. And in Popmatters.


Peter Wehner's urgent take: "American Christians Face a Choice: The faithful can still repair the wreckage they have wrought."

Lindsay Winslow Brown on the Pentagon's religious affiliation codes.

Becky Ankeny, "Lifting the Weight." ("What Big Bad John did for the miners reminds me of what Jesus does for us every one of our days.")

Kristin Kobes Du Mez on defining evangelicalism—what interests her about this theme, and what doesn't.


From a bootleg album of J.B. Hutto and the New Hawks performing in Warsaw in 1982: "Rock Me Baby." (Audio only. Listen to the enthusiastic crowd!)

04 June 2026

A debate worth having

Render unto Caesar... 'Denarius of the Emperor Tiberius, commonly referred to as "the Tribute Penny".' Source.

St Peter (7th century icon). Source.

A recent exchange on Facebook began with a quotation from U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico:

We as Christians are called to do more than charity. We are called to challenge the system that made the charity necessary.

The response:

Christians are never called to change systems. We are called to change ourselves.

The next two participants in the exchange explained why they felt that Christians should challenge systems. I have my own reasons for agreeing with them, but before I go into those reasons, I want to say why that "never called to change systems" commenter should also be heard.

We are called to change ourselves, and to be changed by our relationship with God. In his preface to George Fox's JournalWilliam Penn put it this way, describing the marks of authenticity among early Quakers:

I. They were changed men [sic] themselves before they went about to change others. Their hearts were rent as well as their garments; and they knew the power and work of God upon them. And this was seen by the great alteration it made, and their stricter course of life, and more godly conversation, that immediately followed upon it.

II. They went not forth, or preached in their own time or will, but in the will of God, and spoke not their own studied matter, but as they were opened and moved of his Spirit, with which they were well acquainted in their own conversion.

It was in this spirit that George Fox testified that "Christ has come to teach his people himself." In this same spirit, he resisted persuasive invitations to join the Commonwealth forces in the civil war against the forces of Charles I. If he had agreed, he would have been freed from prison. While he was still in that prison, he also felt led to protest against capital punishment for minor crimes, and (not surprisingly) against cruel prison conditions.

These are the points that perhaps the "never called to change systems" commenter and I might agree on:

  • Being Christian is not a solo act. In changing ourselves and our world, we are part of a community that prays and studies and offers discernment to each of us, activists as well as those of other temperaments. "... And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets," 1 Corinthians 14:32, context.
  • Most people struggling for revolutionary change sooner or later resort to coercion. For those called by Jesus to love their enemies, and by Paul never to return evil for evil, the illusion that we can make others' lives better through force, whatever the driving ideology, is not an option.
  • It is also not an option to label something "Christian" with manipulative intent, trading on the emotional strength of religious language, references, behaviors, or symbols when the Holy Spirit is not part of the performance. (See this post for my cautions about using public meetings for worship in a protest context.)

On the other hand, here are some of the reasons Christians (when mutually accountable to each other) should work on the level of systems as well as selves.

  • Paul's letter to the Ephesians, in chapter six, has a famous passage about spiritual warfare and "the whole armor of God." "...Our struggle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). We are called to identify and oppose bondages of all kinds, on a systemic level, but only after having the "whole armor" for what we Quakers have sometimes called "the Lamb's War."
  • Within the mutually respectful and mutually accountable division of labor that is the Church, some of us are prophets. The biblical model of prophecy includes announcing God's judgment and God's promises to all who will listen—sometimes a whole city, sometimes a whole country, sometimes a whole generation. The rest of us may have gifts that overlap into prophecy (such as the gift of evangelism), but all of us are part of the prophets' discerning community.
  • Jesus told us to "Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s." As citizens we participate in our country's support and governance, in part by obeying laws and paying taxes, and in many countries, doing our part to choose our leaders. Although we are working as citizens to preserve some systems and perhaps to change others, our values and ethics, and consequently our vision of good governance, reflect our faith as disciples. (NOTE: I'm not saying that Christians are the only ones who have such values and ethics!!) 
  • On a related point: when Caesar trespasses on God's territory—for example, when the authorities told Peter and John that they had to stop speaking or preaching in the name of Jesus—obedience to God takes precedence: Faced with the authority's demands, "... Peter and John replied, 'Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to [God]? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.'" (Acts 3:1-4:31.)
  • Finally, on a mundane level, as soon as a congregation (even a house church) actually gathers for worship and education at set times and places, they are interacting with the systems. Do they need permission to meet? Do they own property? Do they require security? Are they allowed to feed people and provide shelter? What happens when they decide to shelter immigrants? Do they stand up for people of other faiths who desire the same freedoms?

This post was prompted by an exchange I saw on Facebook. Now it's your turn; is there anything you'd like to add or correct?


Related: 


Randy Boyagoda on Leo XIV's new encyclical: "The Pope's admirers are missing something."

Today's Daily Quaker Message: How to be a Peace Troll.

The Wittenburg Door, reprinted from 1999: Reconstructionist crusaders don't fool God.

William Yoder on Franklin Graham's "Festival of Hope" in Minsk, Belarus.

New from the World Inequality Lab: their Global Justice Project.

The Global Justice Project attempts to set out a new vision for global progress in the 21st century: grounding human development and equality in planetary habitability. It explores the conditions under which the world could move toward this horizon and traces an economically and ecologically consistent transition path from 2026 to 2100.

Its authors tell The Guardian: A good life for the 99% isn’t a pipe dream: it can be done. Here's how.


"Highway 51 Blues" with Charlie Musselwhite and Kid Ramos.

30 April 2026

Remembering John Perkins (1930-2026)

Source.  

The apostle Paul, before his conversion, knew all about fighting. He condoned extreme violence—and maybe even participated in it. After his encounter with Jesus, though, he became the kind of man who would endure violence at the hands of others without returning blow for blow. When Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy, “I have fought the good fight” (2 Tim. 4:7 NKJV), he was not referring to anything he had accomplished with his fists. My prayer is that as I approach the end of my days, I too will be able to say that I have come to understand what the “good fight” is and that I have persevered in that battle.

John M. Perkins, Dream with Me: Race, Love, and the Struggle We Must Win.

John Perkins reached the end of his days among us on March 13 of this year, in a new season of privilege, xenophobia, racism, and Christian nationalist heresy. Just yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court's reframing of partisan gerrymandering took the remaining teeth out of the Voting Rights Act (under the guise of strengthening that act's constitutionality).

In this new environment of enthusiastic racism whipped up by national leadership and expressed in near-daily waves of social media noise, it is easy to feel very discouraged or just plain numb. This is why I've wanted to return to the words and vision of John Perkins, to be reminded and reassured that his immense legacy is still ours.

The book that I've been re-reading, Dream with Me: Race, Love, and the Struggle We Must Win, was one I first read just months before our time in Russia came to an end. When Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election (the result announced in full view of our students in our Mass Media class at the institute in Elektrostal) and began his xenophobic administration the following January, we knew we were in for a rough time. Reading John Perkins' book was encouragement we needed.

Today his words are even more important to keep before people of goodwill. In his book he doesn't just explain his central principles (such as relocation, reconciliation, redistribution), he candidly talks about the costs and heartaches of a life lived by those principles, the lingering regrets he had and mistakes he made, and above all, the central role of love. He makes it clear again and again that he does not want to be the hero of his own story; and to illustrate his point, he gives many case studies of churches and leaders who have embodied the vision of a multicultural church.

As he reinforces throughout his book, he's not opposed to parachurch agencies, but his vision is intensely focused on the local church. He wrote, "I want worship and justice to be done in the same building"—and his stories often make that point.

I first met John Perkins in 1975, in Jackson and Mendenhall, Mississippi, and I tell that story here and here. The next time I had a chance to talk to him was during his visit to Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1981. Our final visit came in 2007 not far from where we live in Portland, Oregon.

Here are a few more samples of his vision for our churches and our discipleship:

I think one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible is found in Revelation 7:9–12. It says, 

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen.” (NKJV) 

All nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues will be together, praising and worshiping God in unity. I long for the day when this vision becomes reality. I long for a kingdom in which we aren’t divided over issues of culture or hatred of the past. I hear people arguing about everything from church pews to worship songs to old cultural traditions, but we need to start getting beyond this stuff. 

Acts 17:26 declares that the people from every nation are “made from one blood” (NKJV), so we are all one race. Issues related to ethnicity and tribalism may divide us, but we have to start recognizing that we are one race—the human race. The problems that divide us are surmountable. We have been given a clear picture of what this kingdom is to look like—multiethnic, multicultural, multigenerational, multiclass—and we need to be on the side of that coming kingdom now. 

No, we are no longer in a society in which white church councils have meetings about whether to even let black people enter the doors, but we still live in a time when the majority of churches today do not look anything like John’s vision in Revelation. But people like Bryan and Eugene [two of his case studies] give me hope that we might become one as Jesus prayed we would. Their thriving congregations and the many people catching hold of their visions remind me that there is a cloud coming up over the lake, even if it is only the size of a man’s hand. The people who gather together and worship at CCDA [Christian Community Development Association] and the energetic church planters who are part of these other conferences show me that the rain is coming. And be prepared for when it does, because if it is anything like what happened in Elijah’s day, this little cloud is about to take over the entire sky—and the heavy rain will come.


Part of the reason the church in America faces some of its current challenges is because of where we live and how we see the gospel message. The fullness and adequacy of the gospel is a message of togetherness and love across ethnic barriers. Churches that understand the fullness of the gospel and the greatness of God will serve people best. It’s also important to understand that our problems are always multifaceted. Areas such as economics, behavior, family, and customs all stop us at the door to truth, when in reality, we should view these in light of God’s justice. 
We need to create an environment where truth can be told. Of course, we need the Holy Spirit to guide us in this task, but I think that can happen. This is really what our worship should be all about—seeking and telling the truth. Ideally, both the preacher and the congregation are there for this purpose. They should hope to hear and discover truths about themselves, about society, and about doing life together. And then, in the midst of seeking and telling truth, we find God’s presence.


"This is really what our worship should be all about—seeking and telling the truth." Thank you, John Perkins, for this vision!


Polls, war, corruption, and gerrymandering: Heather Cox Richardson sums it up.

More from Heather Cox Richardson: her comparison of Donald Trump's speech on the occasion of the British king's visit, and Charles III's own speech.

Ukrainian journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk's own country "has been under occupation, dogged by corruption and war. Yet even I’ve been bewildered by the way the US seems to be fracturing.... What I see now in the US is a profound inability to discuss seriously how the state can serve the public good."

Among the places in the USA she visited as a journalist is Wilmington, Ohio, where we lived during Judy's time as financial aid director at Wilmington College.

This coming Sunday at Reedwood Friends Church and online: "The Bible and the Blues: a comparison of biblical laments with African-American blues," with Daniel Smith-Christopher, LaRhonda Steele, and Ed Snyder. 9:30 a.m. Available later on Reedwood's YouTube channel.

LaRhonda Steele, a Blues and gospel singer and songwriter, is recognized as one the region's best rhythm and blues vocalists. She has been dubbed "The First Lady of Portland Blues"—a title of leadership that she lives up to as she shares songs that carry forth directly from her soul and spiritual life-force.

She currently fronts the LaRhonda Steele band, is music director of the nonprofit Portland Interfaith Gospel Choir, and is music director of Portland Center for Spiritual Living. LaRhonda regularly lights up the stage at the Waterfront Blues Festival, Alberta Rose Theatre, and clubs around town.

LaRhonda’s voice can be enjoyed on recordings of national and international artists including Gino Vannelli, Curtis Salgado, Lloyd Jones, Mary Flower, and Norman Sylvester, to name a few.

—Reedwood Friends Weekly

More from Rick Holmstrom:

16 April 2026

Whose faith? Whose practice? (part one)

Editions: London Yearly Meeting, 1959 (my copy);
Britain Yearly Meeting, 2013.

I received my first book of Quaker faith and practice in 1975, when Ottawa Friends Meeting accepted me as a new member. Canadian Friends of that era had adopted London Yearly Meeting's Christian Faith and Practice for that purpose, alongside their own loose leaf supplement entitled Organization and Procedure.

British Friends, in the renamed Britain Yearly Meeting, published a new faith and practice book in 1995, now entitled Quaker Faith and Practice.

The word "Christian" was not exactly being deprecated—the full title of the book is Quaker Faith and Practice: The book of Christian discipline of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain. It may be tempting to interpret the title change in terms of the post-Christian trends among some British Quakers, but that's not what interests me today.

I suppose that in either case, Christian or Quaker, the prevailing assumption was that these books are for internal use among Friends. This is who we are, more or less. But what I like about the title Christian Faith and Practice is another interpretation entirely, one I have no permission or evidence to propose: this way of faith and life is not just for us; it's recommended for all Christians.

This way of thinking rubs against the ecumenical/interfaith spirit of our times. It paradoxically conflicts with both the modesty and diffidence of contemporary Quakers on the one hand, and our sectarian exceptionalism on the other. But it makes sense to me to interpret these books as our contribution to an ecumenical conversation: this is how we are trying to live with Jesus at the center of our communities; how about you? Can we learn from each other? Are we ready (with kindness) to point to each other's strong places, and each other's defects, blind spots, and worldly accommodations? Ideally, we Quakers are not forming yet another community of self-contained "enthusiasts" (in Ronald Knox's sense) but are eager participants and ecumenical allies in turning the world upside down in the Lamb's war against all forms of oppression.

I don't know how George Fox and his companions would feel about my interpretation of the true audiences of our "faith and practice," but one of his late interpreters, Lewis Benson, once told me, "I don't have an ecumenical bone in my body." He firmly believed that Fox didn't intend to organize a new sect, but to revive or reconstitute the entire Church. However, as Knox points out, the reality is that most reform movements, inside and outside the established confessions, have similar ambitions, so it's up to us to keep the lines of conversation open with all of them rather than tending to our own exclusive conceits.

The work of our late Friend Eden Grace at the World Council of Churches is a wonderful example of these kinds of conversations. Given the range of concerns among Friends worldwide at this grave moment in human history (speaking of ecological as well as political and economic challenges), there probably won't be many of us who will be called to make ecumenical conversation a priority. But if you are one who happens to understand "Christian Faith and Practice" as a contribution to a potentially unlimited audience, I hope these words are encouraging.


Related: Meditations on sectarianism; Functional ecumenism; Core sample of a Quaker culture, Are Quakers part of the Church? Your thoughts and links are very welcome.

To be continued next week in Part Two: Pope Leo XIV and "just peace."


Bill Samuel's list of online books of faith and practice.

Grace Spencer (Prospect): Disagreement among Friends. ("Keep or dilute God?")

Eden Grace: Quaker and ecumenical essays. Her Swarthmore Lecture (2019) with video and transcript.

George Demacopoulos (Orthodox Christian Studies Center): Is Donald Trump the Arius of American Democracy?

Gerrit De Vynck and Nitasha Tiku (Washington Post, gift article): Can AI be a ‘child of God’? Inside Anthropic’s meeting with Christian leaders.

Nancy Thomas, Poems of the Beatitudes, part one, part two, part three.

Kristin Du Mez comments on Keri Ladner's newly published book American Dominion, and provides us an excerpt. (Also see link to today's live episode of The Convocation Unscripted.)


"...When I heard that song, I said, 'Man, it's just what my soul needed.'" Eric Bibb remembering Lightnin' Hopkins performing "Needed Time" in the film Sounder. (Here's Lightnin' Hopkins' version.)

09 April 2026

"Do not hold on to me." (A guest post.)


During our years in Russia, we celebrated Easter with our friends there according to the Orthodox calendar. This year, Easter on that calendar is this coming Sunday. Easter blessings to all of you who are in the midst of awaiting Easter Sunday on April 12.


Screenshot from Mary Magdalene. Source.

A few days ago, Friend Ellerie Brownfain sent me her thoughts about Easter. I loved them! I hope and imagine you may find them as insightful and helpful as I did. With her permission, here they are:

Easter Message

There is a moment in John's account of Easter morning that I keep returning to. Mary Magdalene has come to the tomb before dawn and finds it empty. She weeps. Not for joy. Mary weeps because she believes someone has taken the body of her teacher and she does not know where they have laid him.

Turning, she sees a man standing nearby and assumes he is the gardener.

I have to say, if I had been there, I might have made exactly the same mistake. Though probably for different reasons. I cannot grow anything. Not even succulents. I buy the seeds and I read the instructions and I have genuine hope every single spring. And then somewhere between hope and harvest the plants just give up on me. But I keep trying. Every year. Because there is something in me that believes growth is worth the effort even when I have clearly lost the argument.

So when I read that Mary looked straight at the risen Christ and saw a gardener, I feel a kind of kinship with her. I know what it is to show up hoping something will grow and be surprised by what you find.

Mary says to him, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him and I will take him.

This is a deeply human impulse. She is not looking for a miracle. She is looking for a way to say goodbye.

And then the man says her name.

Mary.

And she knows.

Mary reaches for him. And he says something that has always struck me as one of the most important lines in all of scripture. He says, do not hold on to me.

Do not hold on to me.

I want to sit with that for a moment because I think it is near the center of what Easter asks of us.

Mary came to the garden looking for the Jesus she had known, the teacher who walked the roads of Galilee, who ate with her, who taught her, who died on a Roman cross. Wanting to recover him. Wanting things to go back to the way they had been.

And the risen Christ says, do not hold on to that. I am not returning to what was. I am going forward. And you must go forward too.

. . .

This is the thing about resurrection that we can miss if we are not careful. We can treat it as a restoration story. The happy ending after a terrible Friday. The tomb is empty, the crisis is over, and life resumes. But life did not resume. Not the old life. The resurrection did not restore anything. It transformed everything.

But resurrection is not restoration. It is transformation.

Paul makes this plain in his letter to the Romans. He writes that we who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death. We were buried with him. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Newness of life. Not the old life resumed. Not a return to what was before. Something genuinely new.

Paul is talking about baptism but he is also talking about the shape of the Christian life itself. We do not follow a historical teacher who is safely in the past. We follow a living Christ who is present and active and always calling us forward.

George Fox understood this in his bones. When he spoke of Christ having come to teach his people himself, he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant that the risen Christ is here. Available. Present in the gathered meeting, present in the conscience, present wherever two or three are gathered in his name. The resurrection was not only a past event for Fox. It was a present reality. Christ is alive and moving in this moment.

The resurrection is not just something that happened to Jesus. It is something that is always happening in this Society of Friends. Christ is always being raised in us and among us. And we are always being called to walk in that newness.

So what does this mean for how we live? I want to name three things.

. . .

The first is this. Resurrection frees us from the tyranny of the way things were.

Mary could not have gone and told the disciples if she had stayed in the garden holding on. Letting go of what she came looking for was the only way to receive what was actually being given. And then she went. The first preacher of the resurrection. That is not a small thing. The first person sent to announce that Christ was risen was a woman whom the other disciples initially did not believe.

She carried the news to people who would not even believe her. She could only do that because love recognized love. She heard her name and she knew him. And knowing him was enough.

We do this too. We hold on to how things used to feel. How our families used to be. How our faith used to be simple and clear and certain. We come to Easter looking for something to retrieve rather than something to receive.

The risen Christ says, do not hold on. Something new is being offered. And it requires your hands to be open.

This does not mean that what we have lost was not precious. Mary's grief was real. The disciples' grief was real. Ours is real. But resurrection says that grief is not the destination. The garden is not where we stay.

. . .

The second thing resurrection means for how we live is this. We are sent.

Jesus does not tell Mary to stay in the garden and rest in the warmth of this moment. He tells her to go. Go to the brothers and sisters. Tell them what you have seen. You have been given this not only for yourself but for the community.

Easter is not a private experience. It pushes us onto the road to speak and to act. But what action? That is the question we must bring to God in prayer and carry into the silence of our own hearts. The risen Christ commissions us but he does not hand us a script. He trusts us to listen for what we are each being called to do and to go do it.

What have you seen? What has the risen Christ given you that was meant to be shared? That is an Easter question worth sitting with in the silence.

Because the risen Christ does not appear to Mary so that she can have a beautiful private moment. He appears to her so that she will go. So that the news will travel. So that the locked room where the frightened disciples are hiding will have its door knocked on by someone who has seen something they need to hear.

You have seen something too. This community has seen something. The question Easter puts to us is whether we are willing to go and say so.

. . .

The third thing I want to name is perhaps the most personal. Resurrection means we are not defined by our worst moments or our deepest losses. And if you doubt that, look at who Christ came back to. He came back looking for his disciples. The ones who had run. Peter had denied Jesus three times and wept bitterly over it. They were in hiding, behind locked doors, afraid and ashamed and probably not sure what to do next. Easter morning does not erase any of that. The gospel does not pretend Friday did not happen. But the risen Christ did not seek out the faithful and the steady. He went looking for the ones who thought they had failed him.

But it says that Friday is not the last word. Death is not the last word. Failure is not the last word. Grief is not the last word.

The risen Christ appears first to the ones who are weeping. He shows up in locked rooms where frightened people are hiding. He walks alongside two disciples on the road to Emmaus who are so deep in their grief that they do not recognize him until he breaks bread with them. He meets people where they are and then he moves them forward.

This is not cheap comfort. It does not minimize the weight of suffering. It does not tell us our pain is not real. It says our pain is real and it is not the end of the story.

Paul puts it this way. If we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. United with him. Not observers from a safe distance. Participants in the same movement from death to life. That is what we are being invited into this morning.

I want to close by coming back to Mary standing in the garden.

She heard her name spoken by someone she had believed was dead. She recognized him. She reached for him. He told her not to hold on. And she went.

There is a whole life of faith in those few verses. We come to God carrying our grief and our need and our desire to make things go back. We encounter the living Christ in ways we did not expect and often in places we did not think to look. We want to hold the moment. And the Christ we encounter is always sending us forward into something we cannot yet see.

Do not hold on. Walk in newness of life. Go and tell what you have seen.

That is the Easter message. Not a return to the garden we remember but a commissioning to become people who have met the risen Christ and cannot stop talking about it.

— Ellerie Brownfain


You may have experienced a deluge of writing concerning the war with Iran and the events of the last few days. In lieu of a list of links that's no better than what you no doubt already have, and will inevitably go stale in a matter of hours, I'll just offer you this fascinating and disconcerting conversation on Donald Trump's "wishcasting."

Diana Butler Bass: "Don't let the tomb overtake the resurrection."

Heather Cox Richardson on journalism and an unhinged president.

Sergey Radchenko renounces his Russian citizenship, and why, and what next....

Consider supporting this Kickstarter campaign to fund art for the Friends Incubator for Public Ministry's new book, Constellation of Witness: Quaker Stories in Public Ministry.


Gospel blues from Kee Eso Pitchford, with thanks to Daniel Smith-Christopher for the introduction.

"If you want me to love my enemies, I'll say yes."

02 April 2026

Artemis II

The Artemis II astronauts; their lunar mission began yesterday.
(Left to right: Jeremy Hansen, Canadian Space Agency; NASA astronauts Christina Koch, Victor Glover, and Reid Wiseman. Photos: crew: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani; launch: NASA/Michael DeMocker.)

Did you know that a lunar spaceflight began yesterday, with a crew of four astronauts aboard?

If so, did you care?

I couldn't help caring. As I've written before, space exploration has fascinated me since childhood. But ever since the Apollo project (1961-1972) made lunar spaceflight practically routine, I've been impatient about our next grand goal. After Apollo, low earth orbits just weren't all that impressive. (If the earth's diameter were the height of an average adult male, spaceships in low earth orbit would pass only a couple of inches over his head.) But we've seemingly lacked the ambition and focus to send people beyond those two inches.

It's not that we haven't done some incredible things in space by means of robotic explorers who've already traveled distances that crewed spacecraft aren't likely to reach for perhaps centuries. Some of them, such as the Hubble and JWST projects, have extended our vision into time/space up to just about the theoretical limit of the early universe.

As for money spent on space exploration, our legislators have poured vast amounts into equipment. Since it began in 2011, the Artemis program of heavy-lift rockets and Orion spacecraft has thus far produced two launches, including yesterday's, but it has cost something like US$ 69 billion. The immediate costs associated with yesterday's launch ran to about $4 billion. Despite its bloated costs and gigantic delays, every argument to replace the Artemis launch vehicle with more economical and project-focused alternatives has run up against congressional defenders determined to preserve the associated jobs in their states and districts. These debates have mainly occurred among insiders, because even these astronomical (sorry) costs haven't earned the attention of the ultimate funders—the taxpayers.

(Speaking of human spaceflight expenditures and delays, I won't even mention the problems of the Boeing Starliner.)

The alternatives to those traditional government-owned and -funded programs are the public-private collaborations that produced the SpaceX and Blue Origin spacecraft, among others. But to quote Amy Shira Teitel, "...it's opening the door to an era where NASA could become a contracting agency, funneling its budget to billionaires" instead of providing the leadership and focus of NASA's first decade of human spaceflight and its amazing record of successes in uncrewed exploration.

Again, I share Teitel's concern about the Artemis program in its larger context, if there even is a larger context:

...We have two landing missions or we have four landing missions. Then what? You know, like there's still that big question of what comes after that. And I just feel like we're almost kind of kicking the can down the road a little bit. Like, great, we can have a couple more missions. We can get a bit more science. Um, but then what? We're just delaying having to make a big decision about whether or not to retain this over-budget rocket or try something different or pass it off to commercial partners. It feels like that's an inevitable point that we're going to get to. (From this video.)

Exactly. If we are looking forward to establishing a moon base, as has been proposed, there's not much practical planning evident for how that will happen, given the current maximum of four more Artemis launches (if sticker shock doesn't hit us first!), or even a coherent attempt to persuade us that such a base is a worthwhile project on the way to some specified greater goal. 

And I'm sorry, vague references to China aren't enough. President Kennedy at one point suggested replacing a U.S.-only Apollo project with a collaboration with the USSR and other nations. Is anyone designing a 21st-century version of his vision?

In the meantime, I'm following the Artemis II mission more or less constantly, and hoping very much for its safety and success, but I admit that it's not the same unmixed devotion I had for Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.


Eric Berger has a somewhat more positive take on Artemis II...but his title points to the lack of public excitement: Why is NASA bothering to go back to the Moon if we’ve already been there? And while you're on the Ars Technica Web site, see Stephen Clark's NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks—there’s a reason why.

Nancy Thomas and her "super-salad" moments.

Mike Farley on Sein zum Tode. "Death is an old friend."


All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi, Kenya. "Jesus, Remember Me...."

05 March 2026

Convergence in the Trump era

Back when I was first interested in Russia and the Soviet Union, in my mid-teens, physicist Andrei Sakharov proposed a new twist on Marxist determinism: that, among other factors, the demands of industrial management, the rise of consumer demand, and the danger of nuclear annihilation would cause the great rival superpowers to take on each other's better traits and eventually converge. The resulting societies would feature both rational economic planning and freedom of thought.

Sakharov did not live to see much of the "end of history" phase and the idealists' disappointments in both superpower camps—both with their individual fragilities and their discontented peripheries. The year 2000 featured secret bargains, manipulations, dangerous theatrics, and general confusion in both Russia and the USA, with Vladimir Putin and George Bush ending up on top. Not exactly the convergence that Sakharov had in mind.

In both systems, the neocons (creatively defined for my purposes!) relatively quickly demanded the right to define reality for the rest of us. Putin arguably was ahead in this development, as he and his allies slowly but surely extinguished independent media and built the cult of the indispensable leader. "Putin is Russia, and Russia is Putin," proclaimed Vyacheslav Volodin, currently speaker of the State Duma, in 2014. And since that year, just in terms of government process (setting aside the ultra-nationalist intellectuals and church leaders who are his favorite influencers), Putin alone is the stubborn owner/driver of the war in Ukraine.

The USA's equivalent developments, although far less linear and absolute (we did elect two Democrats in those years), have reached the point where Donald Trump can assert to a journalist that "MAGA is Trump" and that, in starting yet another war, he faces no opposition in true MAGA.

In this Russian bookstore, someone put the Constitution
in the fantasy section. (Originally used here.)

Both of these countries' constitutions nominally have power distributed among several branches. In Russia, the legislators and judiciaries go through the motions of their jobs but, when the stakes involve the interests of those at the top, they see no point in resisting.

Our situation may be less bleak: the judiciary still displays some independence, but the president's party's majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress mostly continue to fall in line. In the present case of Iran (and Israel and most of the Persian Gulf states), what the president wants is what he gets. Iran is, of course, just the most recent target of U.S. bombs and artillery in the past 13-1/2 months, after Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran (June 2025), the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela. In almost every case, Trump gave the orders personally and did not deign to invite Congressional consent. And now he supposedly gets to decide personally who will be the next leader of Iran.

One of the lonely critical Republican voices in Congress, representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, points straight to the constitutional illegality of Trump's process, as reported in The Guardian:

Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of the United States. As our military engages them, they do so justly. [sic] Unfortunately, they are not yet doing so constitutionally.

For some, this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants? That’s not what our constitution says.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution, and most Republicans' unwillingness to defend it, is at the heart of several of today's crises as we transition from a republican democracy to a personalist authoritarianism. Due process and equal protection of the law came into the Constitution after a terrible Civil War, but today's legislative timidity in the service of throwing out immigrants is shameful. So is the attempt to organize a permanent governing majority through federal legislation, when the Constitution makes it clear that the states are to make election rules.

In 1967, a group of anthropologists contributed papers on war at a conference of the American Anthropological Association. The resulting book, War: the Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression, opened my eyes to the possibility of studying war as a human behavior just like many others, subject to the same disciplines of observation and analysis totally apart from the myths, justifications, and deference it usually gets in real life. One of the contributors proposed that societies are usually either in a "relaxed" state or a "mobilized" state, and anthropologists should study the process by which a society goes from one state to the other. A respondent pointed out that, in modern conditions, most of society can remain in a "relaxed" state while specialists conduct wars on our (supposed) behalf, often without ever seeing their opponents, not to mention the collateral damage. To me this raises a question that I hope you can help me answer: how do we mobilize, not in favor of war, but in favor of our Constitution, before our "relaxation" becomes utter and permanent passivity?

Or, as one of our Moscow friends used to say to us, ironically, "Welcome to Russia!"


Related: "The Cult of Personality and its Consequences."

Living without lying.

A special brand of patriot.

The Bible, MAGA, and a new mission field.


OK, so Kristin Du Mez has some evidence we've not all fallen into a complete stupor.

Conor Friedersdorf wants to know who the USA is at war with right now.

Sojourners Faith and Practice Forum ... a forum for "civic discipleship."

George Lakey on the relationship between prayer, aging, and getting arrested. (Part of a wonderful series on "Aging and Quaker Spirituality.")

Nigel Biggar proposes nine intellectual virtues, and the costs of neglecting them. Thanks to Faith on View for the link.

Please read this lovely tribute to Bishop Seraphim Sigrist, whose passing I noted with great regret on February 12.

Ukraine's Pacifists in a Country at War. (One of them is a faithful participant in this weekly meeting to pray for peace, whether or not his electricity is working.) I encourage you to include them in your prayers.

Speaking of Friends World Committee (previous link), the Section of the Americas has opened up registration for its annual sessions on Saturday, March 21. This year the sessions will be 100% online.


Once again, another version of "Scratch My Back." I've presented this one at least twice before, but it takes me back to Chicago like no other.... Illinois Slim does the chicken scratch.

19 February 2026

Are you serious?

Heard last Sunday, describing the USA's current presidential administration:

"These are simply not serious people."

Our visit to Berkeley Friends Church last Sunday included several intense conversations after the meeting for worship, on all sorts of subjects. That's when the "serious people" comment came up.

It made me think: what do we mean by "serious people"?

Serious: Octavia Spencer on playing God in The Shack.

About fifteen years ago, our Moscow Friends Meeting needed a new place for our weekly worship gatherings. Misha Roshchin and I were the clerks of the meeting, and we scouted out several possible locations. As we approached one of them, we had been having a light-hearted conversation, but then Misha reminded me that we were shortly to meet the head of the organization whose space we were hoping to use for our events. Time to quit the banter: "She needs to see us as serious people." ("Солидные люди....") By the time we entered her office, I think we were paragons of dignity, or close to it.

My working definition of "serious people," which I'm very eager for your help in refining, would include these features:

  • people who approach life, work, and relationships thoughtfully, with a sense of purpose, responsibility, and depth
  • their humor is disarming and perspective-setting, sometimes a bit self-deprecating, but never insulting or demeaning
  • they clearly want to bless their communities rather than serve themselves or a narrow segment of those communities
  • they are ready to advocate for and commit to their promises, and have the competence to make those promises believable
  • they are known for their trustworthiness, their refusal to "feign certainty" (see "Dea Cox and the 'people strategy'") and their willingness to acknowledge mistakes.

In the context of leadership, whether local or national, we need serious people, to build in seasons of growth, to provide and demonstrate stability when things are shaky, to anchor us in crisis ... and to lead with candor and transparency at all times.

Does this mean the rest of us can coast? Not at all. It is up to us, the people, to retain the ability to spot and choose serious people for positions of responsibility, to expose lack of seriousness, and to demand reform or replacement. But is that happening?

I fear that many of us have long since figured out that "these are not serious people," that it is apparently useless to apply the old standards of seriousness to them, and we are therefore not sufficiently shocked when those people keep behaving incompetently at best, with industrial-scale cruelty at worst, and with utter disdain for elementary ethics most of the time. Barack Obama frequently points out how much trouble he would have been in if he'd done anything at all as president to politicize the Justice Department, for example, but now we have already become accustomed to the daily wreckage that unserious people are doing to our government.

In today's atmosphere, it's not surprising when some Trump administration critics mimic that lack of seriousness, expressing their understandable dissent with insults, exaggerations, premature conclusions, rude caricatures, classism, and intellectual laziness. It's a time of crisis; we need to lead ourselves with the same degree of seriousness that we demand from leaders.

Note: By "not sufficiently shocked," I do NOT mean flipping over into stupid forms of outrage, however self-gratifying that might be. Biblical realism should already have prepared us that outrages will happen, but when they do, they must be confronted.


In checking to see whether "serious people" was an adequate translation for the phrase Misha used in Moscow ("Солидные люди...."), I enjoyed revisiting a couple of other translation posts I've made in the past: "kind"; "normal"; "untranslatable words." For more fun along these lines, read Adrian Wanner's The Bilingual Muse: Self-Translation among Russian Poets, especially his chapter on Vladimir Nabokov, starting at paper page 112, PDF page 123. 


The Atlantic's Adam Serwer: "Do not be cynical about Jesse Jackson: He was never the caricature his critics wanted him to be."

Jesse Jackson was one of the great preachers of our times, eloquent in text and voice. I had the great pleasure of hearing him in person fifty years ago at the Arch Street Meetinghouse in Philadelphia, at an evening session of the Bicentennial Conference on Religious Liberty, where I was serving on the nonviolent security team for the conference. There's one line I'll never forget: "Racism won't kill us because cynicism got us first." That might have been the moment that my commitment to resist cynicism began, which has been a theme of mine ever since. As a Gospel preacher, a political motivator, an organizer, a serious person in every way, Rev. Jackson was a memorable force for good.

NBC in Chicago remembers Jesse Jackson.


William Barber on Jesse Jackson: Prophet of America's Possibility.

Henry Farrell's brief theory of very serious people.

Right Sharing workshop on "The Power of Enough": March 14, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Tigard Friends Church. Informational poster here in PDF format—please post and spread the word!


A recently unearthed and restored Freddie King performance from France in 1975 will soon be published, according to Guitar World. In the meantime, another of his performances in France: