Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts

19 June 2025

Belonging to Friends

Speaking with my mentor, Deborah Haight, at
Canadian Yearly Meeting 1976. Also in the frame,
Duncan Wood (at right), Katharine Wood (behind
Deborah). St. Thomas, Ontario.

My very first experience of a Quaker meeting took place in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 11, 1974. In my diary entry for that day, the headline was "My first visit!!!" There were 24 of us altogether in that four-sided meeting space, including two relatives I brought along for safety, since I was very nervous about this unfamiliar thing called "church." (If you've been following this blog for a while, you know that I grew up in an anti-church family.)

I needn't have worried. By the time the hour of silence (during which there were four spontaneous messages arising from various participants) came to an end, I knew I belonged.

As I got more and more acquainted with Quaker ways, I learned that the process of realizing that one "belonged" had various names, especially "convincement" and "conversion." In my own life, conversion came first, earlier that same year, when my reading of the Sermon the Mount, Matthew's version, led me to trust Jesus. I concluded for myself that conversion was a matter of opening my eyes and heart to an inward light that could illuminate a path through life. Becoming convinced, on the other hand, meant that, at least in my specific case, the companionship of Quakers provided the best, most direct guides along that path.

All this was no random accident, I realized. My family's chaos (combined, ironically, with its cult of obedience) and the public agonies of the Viet Nam War era, had already led me to nonviolence and a rejection of authoritarianism. I couldn't say where worldly contingencies and the Holy Spirit's guidance merged in my case. But once I realized that I didn't want to practice my newfound faith all alone, a peace church with almost zero hierarchy was bound to appeal. I wanted to go public. I wanted to belong officially!—whatever that meant.


Despite my inherited suspicion of the religion industry, I came to realize how important a concrete sense of belonging was to me. As I found out, that led to another term in Quaker culture: "membership." With indecent speed, I applied for membership in Ottawa Meeting. I was interviewed and accepted into membership in less than ten months after that first visit. My fiftieth anniversary as a member of Friends was June 5 of this year.

The following summer, July 26-31, 1976, I attended my first ever Quaker yearly meeting sessions, at Alma College, St. Thomas, Ontario. There I found out that perhaps my yearning for membership was not universal for Canadian Friends. The subject of membership was one of the hot topics of the yearly meeting sessions—specifically, should committee service be limited to members?

Although it was clear that Friends were split on the issue, I was impressed by the civility with which Friends on both sides put their cases, and by presiding clerk Philip Martin's care in guiding the process without putting his own thumb on the scale. Friends eventually approved a decision not to limit committee service to members in most cases. After the decision had been adopted, Philip spoke personally of his deep concern that weakening the concept of membership was a dangerous precedent.

Much more recently, during my academic year in Birmingham, England, I attended a monthly meeting in which an application for membership was approved for a long-time attender who was 85 years old. He stood up and, with a twinkle in his eye, conceded that his application was a bit late in the day.... To which I can only add that temperaments vary! For me, at age 21, ten months to seal the deal seemed like forever. But those dear Ottawa Friends, almost before the ink was dry on my membership certificate, put me on a Yearly Meeting committee and sent me as a representative to what was for me a life-changing experience, a triennial conference of the Friends World Committee for Consultation.


A link to the Kindle version.

I found a somewhat different but very fertile understanding of convincement, conversion, and membership in a recent Pendle Hill Pamphlet, Matt Rosen's Awakening the Witness: Convincement and Belonging in Quaker Community. In particular, he suggests putting convincement first, something like an inward baptism, or as he suggests with a phrase sometimes used by early Friends, they "received the Truth in the love of it."

(Unfamiliar with Pendle Hill Pamphlets? Here's an introduction.) 

Rosen's description of convincement has, indeed, the fragrance of conversion already in it, as if it would be unnecessary or unhelpful to make too fine a distinction between the two. Convincement can also have an element of conviction, a realization that God's grace has been denied or resisted up to that point.

In Rosen's exploration of convincement stories from Quaker history, we see that it might also involve decisions that will involve commitment and sacrifice. To embark on the Quaker path in the early years of persecution certainly did involve personal risk. Even now, risks are there, ranging from mystics facing ridicule among the militantly secular, to financial sacrifices for war tax refusers, and jail time for prophets engaged in civil disobedience or evangelists in closed societies.

What distinguishes conversion in Matt Rosen's pamphlet is its progression beyond the point of convincement. 

As convincement leads into lifelong conversion of the heart, and as the heart is turned around, one slowly becomes “established in the Truth.” One learns to recognize and follow the voice of the inward Teacher and learns to hear this Teacher speaking in the experience of others. Convincement is an initial step. Some early seekers were convinced of the Truth by itinerant preachers but did not “grow up in the Truth” once those preachers left town. They were not settled on the foundation they had been pointed to. So, part of the work of publishing Truth was helping to establish the newly convinced. This meant encouraging and supporting community, grounded on the promise of Christ’s presence in the midst as gatherer, leader, priest, prophet, and friend.

As powerful as my initial conversion seemed to be (and its precedence in my own life, having happened before I began attending Friends meeting), I cannot say that I'm still just riding the momentum of that experience. Learning to pray without ceasing is still the aim of my life, and, fifty years later, success still varies. So, for me, Matt Rosen's reflections ring true.

His observations on membership are equally interesting.

Historically, Quakers have understood membership to be a covenant relationship between an individual and a meeting community. Membership is a little like a marriage. The member commits to supporting the community, to growing in fellowship, and to being accountable for their gifts, and the meeting commits to supporting the Friend in ways both pastoral and practical. The process of applying for and being welcomed into membership recognizes that someone already belongs to a community, just as a Quaker marriage recognizes what God has already done in the life of a relationship.

My suggestion, then, is that membership and convincement can come apart. It could be possible to be a member who is not a convinced Friend ... and it is possible to be a convinced Friend not in membership....

Rosen notes that the earliest generations of Friends did not have formal membership at all. (And in the context of persecution, there would hardly be an incentive to claim to be a Friend except on the basis of actual convincement.)

The structure and significance of meetings and membership may change, as they have before, but convinced Friends will recognize their Guide in the experience of others and seek each other out. Truth doesn’t stand or fall with our current structures. I experience this as a liberating realization. As Sydney Carter reminds us in the “George Fox” song, “the Light will be shining at the end of it all.” And if that is true—if, like Fox, we are not building one more religion—then we have time to stop and listen, to experiment and re-imagine, trusting that the Light does and always will shine in the darkness, and that come what may, even if we are pressed on every side as the early Friends were, the Light will not be overcome. The foundation will stand. And all people will be drawn to God in God’s good time— rescued, guided, and knit together by the Divine hand.

I recommend Matt Rosen's pamphlet as a good resource for looking at the interplay between conversion, convincement, and membership in your own faith community and in the full variety of experiences and temperaments among you.


Screenshot from source.  

Next in the USA's bombsites? Rick Steves wants to help Americans get to know Iran.

Matt Fitzpatrick seems to think that you can't assassinate your way to peace.

Dana A. Williams on what it was like to be a writer whose editor was Toni Morrison. (And here's an article I linked to in an earlier post, Toni Morrison's rejection letters.)

Steve Curwood interviews Rev. Mariama White-Hammond: Juneteenth Plays a Role in Environmental Justice for All.

A Yougov survey tells us what we already suspected: men are more likely than women to rate themselves as above average in their sense of humor, intelligence, confidence, and self-awareness. (!) (However, most people I know personally seem to be above average in not claiming to be above average.)


Blues from Denmark. Michelle Birkballe, "Cry to Me."

03 October 2024

"If you strike us..."

Source.  

For several days, I've been thinking about Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations General Assembly. The specific words that pulled at me were these: "I have a message for the tyrants of Tehran: If you strike us, we will strike you. There is no place—there is no place in Iran—that the long arm of Israel cannot reach. And that’s true of the entire Middle East."

(My italics.)

I'm not going to evaluate the whole speech, which is based on the unquestioned assumption of Israel's total innocence and victimhood in the region and at the UN. For just one example of the one-sidedness of the speech, its "blessing" does not take into account the treatment of Palestinians. Their existence in limbo has been prolonged indefinitely because Israel's leadership for generations has seen no advantage in resolving this cruel anomaly. The resulting inevitable bloody clashes, as each side "teaches lessons" to the other, are exploited as just another proof of Israel's victimhood.

Right now I'm more interested in the words, "If you strike us, we will strike you." On one level, that's the history of the human race. In any long-standing conflict, each side says these words to the other, taking turns with every action and reaction. It's true that one side's case may have more justice than the other's, but rarely do we see 100% good fighting 100% evil. Each side, however, usually portrays the conflict in those terms.

The politicians who raise the banner of "If you strike us..." are speaking to at least two audiences—the enemy and their own voters. The enemy doesn't need this information; they already assume the customary game is going to continue. The voters are supposed to understand that these politicians are their heroes, doing their heroic job to defend them, and deserve to remain in office.

What the "if you strike us" politicians are not making clear is the moral implication of their threat. "If you strike us, there must be death and destruction on your side. Our only choice is to kill people. We hope guilty people will die, but innocent people will also die. Instead of finding a more creative and lasting response to your attack, one that saves people on both sides of our conflict, we prefer to waste those lives."

In my fantasy world, Netanyahu's speech would have included ways that Iran could be part of "the blessing" and that the grievances of Palestine's allies could be addressed. (After all, the treatment of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are the ostensible reasons for the current hostilities against Israel.) To go even deeper into fantasy, he could also have admitted that Israel is not always innocent.

Those would be politically hazardous steps to take. When Barack Obama told international audiences that the USA was not always innocent, he was endlessly attacked by his political adversaries for "apologizing for America." Netanyahu's own political situation is far more precarious, and he would probably not survive the revolt within his coalition that would result. But the space might well open up for a wiser approach to the present conflicts.

In 2007, an ecumenical delegation with Quaker participation went to Iran and met with counterparts there, including an Iranian ambassador who quoted a proverb: "Build a bridge to me, and I'll build 99 bridges back to you." How many innocent people must die for lack of serious bridgebuilding?


The rhetorical strength of the "If you strike us" language, presented without any references to moral implications, depends on people accepting it as true and obvious. Christians particularly ought to be saying, in season and out of season, that it is not true and obvious at all. We are not to return evil for evil. (1 Peter 3:9; context. Romans 12:17; context.)

We might think that all we need to do is put more energy and creativity into evangelism, making the world more aware that paths to genuine peace do exist, that we are not trapped in endless rounds of counterstrikes, and there is a global community that has arisen around a Prince of Peace who has overcome death. I agree. But of course there's a problem with that. The awkward question arises: do we Christians ourselves believe that we are not to return evil for evil? After all, "if you strike me I will strike you" is Donald Trump's own attitude to conflict, and God knows how many Christian followers have become admirers of his belligerence. Apparently it turns out that it's hard to believe in Jesus.


Related:

The first rule of gracious correspondence.

Iran, biblical realism, and perpetual war.

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer."


Juan Cole, writing before the current stage of the Israeli-Lebanese war, described how U.S. president Joe Biden's Mideast strategy was disastrously falling apart.

Bloomberg's Matt Levine: Is there a way to automate (via AI) the things we like about Warren Buffett?

The Bell's commentary on Russia's record military spending plans, and possible consequences.

Speaking of Russia: Fadu Abu-Deeb on the Orthodox Church, its Babylonian-Byzantine legacy, and the prescient warnings of V.S. Solovyov (1853-1900).

Katherine Hayhoe at Lausanne 4 (the Fourth Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization) on creation care as an issue of faith.

Elder Chaplain Greg Morgan on leaving home and learning the ways of mortality.


A video from Charlie Musselwhite's front porch, with Aki Kumar on harmonica and Kid Andersen playing bass.

09 January 2020

January shorts


Peace on the bridge. This evening, I joined the crowd lining the north side of the Hawthorne Bridge here in Portland, Oregon, USA, in a demonstration linked to MoveOn's "National Day of Action." No speeches or grandiose programming, just citizens telling our government that they do not have our permission for war with Iran. At a time when our nation's top officials seem to treat congressional oversight with contempt, this concern should unite Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, in a common defense of our Constitution: no president may commit the nation to war without the consent of Congress.

Note repurposed sign, "NO IRAN WAR."
I was glad to see that there were people willing to be out in the 40-degree ((F) weather for an hour, lining a busy thoroughfare during peak commuting time, waving signs at the cars and buses and encouraging each other in the process.

On the other hand, I'm still puzzled at the apparent passivity, even near-invisibility, of today's peace movement in general. And where are the evangelical Christians? The peace movement is one of the most obvious mission fields and community-building opportunities for discipleship-oriented believers. It's a wide-open chance for Christians to disprove the widespread charge that they've (we've) sold our precious legacy for the counterfeit legitimacy promised by the Trump cult.





Hebron in Abraham's time
Going public. I was grateful to Ministerios Restauración (the Hispanic Mennonite church that meets in what used to be the First Friends meetinghouse here in Portland) for their invitation to me to speak last Sunday about my three months with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron, Palestine. It was my first opportunity to speak publicly about those experiences.

I decided to begin by putting Hebron's location in the context of the biblical patriarchs. At least four times in Genesis, God promises Abraham and his family that the nations of the world will be blessed through them because of Abraham's obedience: Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4.

Even after the centuries of conquest and reconquest, and the current realities of an illegal occupation, I chose to believe (I told the congregation) that the promises to Abraham remain in force.

Please contact me (johan@canyoubelieve.me) if you'd like me to visit your church or meeting to talk about the promises and realities of Hebron.



My return to the USA after the months with CPT in Hebron was not exactly smooth and seamless. Gratitude for being home alternated with missing our team immensely, and even with guilt for the ease with which I could leave.

Obviously, as any pastor or counselor who deals with retired missionaries could tell you, there are no simple formulas for easing re-entry. But Judy found a method that, for me, has worked wonders. She invested in good speakers, the first real high-fidelity speakers, at least by our standards, that we've ever bought in our decades of marriage: Edifier R2000DB bookshelf speakers. She chose them based on reviews, and I'm now happy to confirm the positive press they've gained.

To provide input, I can plug the speakers into my Amazon Fire or my phone, or I can use Bluetooth to play files from my laptop's hard drive. On a hunch, I dove into the stuff we still have in storage from our pre-Russia lives, and dug out our old DVD player, which we no longer use in this era of streaming video. To my delight, it still worked. Turns out it has an optical audio output that I'd never even noticed. The speakers came with the necessary cable and optical input, so now I can play all our old classical CDs without disconnecting the other inputs.

However, most of the time, I just play streaming audio from several reliable Web stations, to which service I've dedicated an old Chromebook that I hardly ever use anymore. Out of hundreds of choices, I've bookmarked four classical stations:

NRK Klassisk, Oslo.
Radio Orfei, Moscow.
RTE Radio Clásica, Madrid.
All Classical Portland.

When I'm listening to the Oslo station, it reminds me of happy childhood hours in my Norwegian grandparents' living room, with the music interrupted at regular intervals by the melodious voices of Norwegian announcers.

The old DVD player takes care of my blues and gospel requirements, thanks to years of collecting and making my own home-burned compilations, but what I can't find there is almost certainly on Spotify.

$250 for speakers isn't an amount we can part with very often, but on the other hand, given our health care finance system, that amount might pay for just two hours of counseling. I know that's not actually a fair comparison, but I can vouch for the mental health benefits of having good music in the air.



What we need to be faithful in a time of panic and extremism: Mike Farley testifies to the central importance of the Real Presence.

Russell P. Johnson writes for Martin E. Marty's Sightings: How war bypasses morality. Example:
Leaders in a military conflict may approve of a military action because, while it may not be morally perfect, it is better than doing nothing. These comparisons serve to make a morally objectionable action seem like the only viable option.
Let's suppose that domestic and international law are a form of applied morality. How might we assess the killing of Soleimani in light of legal norms and precedents? (A Lawfare podcast.)

Iran and the American conscience: Was Iran responsible for hundreds of American deaths? Why do some evangelicals advocate war with Iran?

A newly-identified trio of galaxies dates 95% of the way back to the origins of the universe. What are they telling us about how the galaxy was reconfiguring in that era?



Flávio Guimarães and Álamo Leal with Steve Guyger.

10 May 2018

Iran, biblical realism, and perpetual war (old posts remixed)

Source.  


A new day, a new crop of ominous headlines. Iran, Israel, and Syria are featured prominently, not for the first time. We get a glimpse into U.S. involvement in Niger. (By the way, what other country has an "Africa Command"?) Saudi Arabian air strikes hit central Sana'a, Yemen. The world waits to see how North Korea will play its nuclear chips in upcoming negotiations. (Will they really agree to an honest denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and will the USA also agree to the exact same condition?)

The first time I offered the following Bible study on perpetual war, it was early in Barack Obama's presidency, but I saw little to change as I checked it over for today's post. As a case study, I've drawn from another post -- this time on Iran -- still within Obama's first term. It's all for one purpose: to remind us that the powers and principalities seem organized around perpetual war. Followers of the Prince of Peace need to continue our prayerful vigilance. We need to learn to live, worship, testify, play, resist, create, heal, and celebrate in the unsentimental assurance and joy of biblical realism.



Source.  
Biblical realism and perpetual war

Lots of smart people have been busy redefining the word "war." Maybe it once referred to lethal combat between nations or sharply-defined groups, with declarations and surrenders, truces and treaties. We Quakers were taught by our elders and our books of Christian discipline that war, and preparations for war, were inconsistent with discipleship. Sane citizens of all political persuasions at least united on wanting peace for ourselves and our children, imagining and working for the day that the country's war would end.

Now, things have become fuzzy. In particular, guerrilla warfare, counter-insurgency, low-intensity warfare, and the so-called stateless actors have changed the nature of warfare. In these bizarre times, a wealthy power like the USA can actually pay people not to shoot at our forces -- and take political credit for the resulting reduction in violence -- and at the same time define many detainees at bases abroad as implacable enemies and hold them for years without effective due process.

It's a crazy world, and it presents urgent challenges for believers.

The challenges of wartime faithfulness to the Prince of Peace may be increasing, but at root those challenges are not new. They are still extensions of the same old patterns of human sin, about which the Bible has always been refreshingly realistic:
  • In 1 Samuel, chapter 8, the Hebrew people ask Samuel to appoint a king over them, so they can be like other nations. God tells Samuel to respond to the people with an explicit warning as to what this means: (verses 11-18)
    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 menservants and maidservants 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, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.
  • Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
  • Psalm 14:2-3 (The Message):
    God sticks his head out of heaven.
    He looks around.
    He's looking for someone not stupid—
    one man, even, God-expectant,
    just one God-ready woman.

    He comes up empty. A string
    of zeros. Useless, unshepherded
    Sheep, taking turns pretending
    to be Shepherd.
    The ninety and nine
    follow their fellow.
  • More realism: Ecclesiastes 5:8: "If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still."
  • Romans 3:10-17:
    As it is written:
    "There is no one righteous, not even one;
    there is no one who understands,
    no one who seeks God.
    All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one."
    "Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit."
    "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
    "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
    "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    ruin and misery mark their ways,
    and the way of peace they do not know."
    "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
  • Ephesians 5:11-14a: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible...."
  • Ephesians 6:10-18:
    Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
  • James 4:1-2: "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God."
Biblical realism not only prepares us for the prospect of perpetual war, it equips us to confront some of its specific features.

Back in 1961, Eisenhower warned about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex. "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," he said, "can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." But part of today's challenge is that it is extremely difficult for citizens to stay "alert and knowledgeable." Here are some of the reasons:
  • The policies of permanent war are rarely discussed in accessible public forums. If Tom Hayden is correct, military thinkers are focusing on a "long war" with a fifty-year time horizon. When have you heard a congressional debate about this? "The way of peace they do not know."
  • Some of the specific methods used in this long war are even less likely to be discussed openly--everything linked to "torture," to the "dark side" ("for it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret"), to the methods that made Gen. Stanley McChrystal's reputation as a can-do commander for the Afghanistan-Pakistan front.
  • We routinely forget our Biblical realism when we recount American history. Over and over again, we put our trust in glib experts whose collective reputation for accurate forecasting and sound management stands at near zero. We are overawed by the nesting bureaucracies and crisp technocratic orgnames of the Pentagon, as if the new cult of the Zen Warrior armed with a PhD, precision drone airplanes operated from Colorado, along with the naive goodwill of Americans who have entrusted their sons and daughters to this machine, can make up for fatal levels of hubris and lack of a shared moral center.
  • "National security" has been raised to cult status; it justifies everything from rude treatment of airline passengers to pre-emptive warfare. However, a super-nation that has established military and economic trip-wires all over the globe cannot help but hear alarms constantly. Only genocidal civil wars in central Africa, apparently, do not trip loud enough alarms, but a self-serving politician in the country of Georgia can summon billions of dollars of US weapons to aim at Russians. When do we discuss the "national security" of a just world, and of health care, educational reform, and environmental sanity within our own borders? "You yourselves have become his slaves."
Biblical realism allows us to confront perpetual war by reminding us that the hearts of nations as well as individuals are inclined toward deceit, and the Bible doesn't make an exception for us. This is why it is so important for us to demand clear definitions of loaded terms such as torture, enemy, national security, bases, experts, extremism, terrorism, and patriotism. Yes, it's hard to keep up with Eisenhower's expectation of an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry," but it should not be for lack of trying.

Biblical realism allows conservatives to make common cause with progressives, as long as both sides are willing to have some of their favorite oxes gored. For example, progressives might have to be willing to see what conservatives see, looking around the world -- evil exists, sworn enemies exist, and a sentimental, mindless isolationism provides no security for anyone by any definition. Imperialism and an unceasing search for geopolitical and economic advantage is an unsustainable policy (progressives are right about that) but, what ARE sustainable policies? Are there some among us who would be able to work on that question, confronting the realities of a fragile, unstable, angry, and often ecologically oblivious set of global actors? Christian conservatives are beginning to realize that they can't only be conservative when it is convenient. If you believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, doesn't that cover the Bible's teachings on wealth and poverty? Immigration? Peace? Loving one's enemies?

The same skepticism that conservatives like to train on bleeding-heart idealists might also help create a more critical and careful examination of wealth, power, the possibility of structural injustice, and the possibility that some enemies might even become friends -- and at less expense than it would take to kill them.

Both progressives and conservatives, unfortunately, get too caught up in their own identities, rather than using their philosophies as analytical disciplines and sources of inspiration. Checking to see if someone puts out the right cultural signals, shares the same visceral dislikes of certain politicians ("who makes you hear the dog whistle?"), and laughs at the usual stereotypical jokes about nutcases--all that builds false community, not true national security.

Biblical realism challenges liberals and progressives alike with thousands of years of evidence that its diagnosis of the human condition is absolutely right. Power corrupts, period. When people try to go it alone without God (with or without a religious cover -- see Jeremiah), disaster results. Here's where we can start a conversation that crosses the divisions: Conservatives have years of experience with the protection of individual rights and promotion of individual responsibilities; progressives have years of experience promoting a vision of sustainable interdependence. Together, we face a new challenge -- a system of undeclared perpetual warfare that arguably poses a spiritual, economic, and political danger to all our children, and our global neighbors' children. What can we tell our children together -- or will we keep the walls up, conspire to give them only half the picture?

Right now, if I look at the momentum that's already been built up for the "long war," a more or less permanent state of imperial armed vigilance in some of the world's most troubled regions, it's hard to feel much optimism. In part, that's what makes this a spiritual issue. For Friends, especially, I hope and pray for a new burst of creativity and (humble) confidence. We have progressives and conservatives already in close quarters in our tiny global family; we have political scientists, mystics, evangelists, social critics, libertarians, economists, poets, scientists, even veterans and a Quakers' colonel! .... I'd love to believe we could rehearse and model what a biblically-rooted, ethically-shaped, prayer-driven revival might look like -- one that not only transforms individuals, revealing Jesus to many people and communities without hope, but also equips us to confront and replace the vision of perpetual warfare.



The case of Iran 
(from "Idealism and realism: the case of Iran")

Source.  
It's hard to imagine a crazier policy proposal for the U.S. government than to initiate or support an attack on Iran, but some Israeli sources say that their country has already been given a tacit go-ahead by U.S. president Obama. Others, while skeptical of success, feel that hot rhetoric is fueling a war-momentum that may become hard to resist. Our own Friends lobby in the USA, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, is urging us to help legislators resist this rhetoric and support legislation that prioritizes diplomacy.

With all the enthusiasm for war that features prominently in U.S. political life these days, it took a comedian and his fake news program (Daily Show [updated] link) to expose the opportunism behind so much of this truculence on all sides, and to call on everyone to calm down. A calmer atmosphere might help us all to consider some of the complex sides of the concern about Iran:
  1. Hawks! Remember Robert McNamara's first lesson of war ("Empathize with your enemy") and ask yourself what the world looks like from Iran's perspective. The nations that have the power to destroy Iran have (a) nuclear weapons, and (b) pre-emptive-strike defense doctrines. Furthermore, Americans and Israelis don't even question that we and our nuclear weapons and angry politicians are self-evidently on the side of the angels. In other words, no other country can justify having the kind of defenses against us that we maintain against them. Is our use of drone assassin airplanes, our falsely-hyped war against Iraq, our support for dictators whenever convenient, and Israel's peremptory and often lethal occupation policies, consistent with this angelic assessment of ourselves? Аre we as trustworthy as we want our adversaries to be? If not, why should Iran be weaker or more angelic than us -- simply because might makes right?
  2. Doves! The case is not at all clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, even though its main proclaimed enemy, Israel, already has them. Nuclear weapons are hard to build, hard to deploy, hard to store, and extremely hard to deliver! -- and that's not even considering the political cost of having them. However, what if it's true? What if Iran's leaders don't simply want to get the theoretical capacity to develop weapons eventually (something every medium-sized power in a hostile neighborhood would probably like, rightly or wrongly) -- what if they actually want the weapons and are crazy enough to deploy them? Our analysis as disciples of the Prince of Peace can certainly be based on nonviolence, but it should never be based on wishful thinking. What do idealists concretely do in the actual presence of evil?
  3. Presidential nominee candidates say that the time for talk is over. Is it, however, true (as the FCNL FAQ sheet for Iran asserts) that "U.S. and Iranian officials have reportedly spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct, one-on-one talks in more than 30 years"? [Update: recent FCNL statement.] There is a strange political and intellectual laziness -- or maybe it is cowardice -- in official U.S. circles about vigorously pursuing high-level contacts with Iran in favor of trying to guess what their official pronouncements really mean. (See "The first rule of gracious correspondence.") Maybe there are secret communications all the time, but communication that does not influence public perceptions and rhetoric eventually is useless.
I'd like to see more proposals along the lines of Thomas Buonomo's "green energy" proposal for Iran -- offering a blessing to Iran that has the added advantage of offsetting (or challenging) Iran's nuclear-fuel option. This proposal alone is hardly enough to calm down war fever, but it is the sort of proposal that can remind us what's at stake and that we're not trapped! The search for alternatives to war should get as much enthusiasm and resources as are devoted to promoting war--in fact, more.



This post has grown far too long. Instead of my usual batch of righteous links, I'd like to recommend one site that has been a reliable resource for my permanent war watch: Tomdispatch.com.

With that, let's go directly to music ... another repost.

"Clothes Line" is a song we'll probably never use for a classroom gap-fill exercise! (Historical background on this song here, but Rick Estrin and the Nightcats have made it their own; I've never seen them not perform this song.)


06 December 2012

More thoughts on the hyphen within

Happy New Year
and Merry Christmas!

(Today we bought our Christmas cards
from the friendly staff at our local
post office.)
This card is published by Art Design.
Can you be fully a Friend and fully a member of another confession?

On a private blog entry (so I'm not quoting), I read about a person who claimed Quaker membership but was also a member of a liturgical church. The blogger commented that it was hard to imagine both claiming and rejecting ceremony, both claiming and rejecting direct non-mediated communion with God, and both claiming and rejecting equality. (The liturgical church excludes women from some leadership roles.)

This is not a unique case. I know Friends in Russia who find themselves in a similar situation--participating faithfully for years in Friends worship and community, while also holding fast to their Russian Orthodox identity. The Western mentality, to risk a generalization, prefers a clear choice, but I'm not surprised that people here feel no pressure to choose.

In my comments on that blog, I tried to distinguish two sets of questions. First of all, are Friends really a full-service Christian church? That is, in the Quaker faith and the Quaker community can we find what we need for a healing and saving relationship with God throughout the full cycle of life from birth to death? Is there a full-bodied concept of worship, of discipleship? Are there ethical teachings, and so on? Or do we simply provide a forum for adult intellectuals along with a space for meditative practices and social activism? Reviewing our history and today's worldwide family of Friends, the answer is clear: with all our inadequacies, we are a genuine church, a full member of the worldwide family of Christian communions.

Admittedly, this confidence may be harder to maintain when one's own group is tiny and far from other Friends. Another possible source of confusion about this reality is when we forget the transforming importance of George Fox's proclamation that "Christ has come to teach his people himself" with all its potential to provide a whole new basis for church structure and practice--a whole new understanding of Gospel order. Friends arose to cleanse and refresh and intensify Christian faith, not to weaken and relativize it. Our skepticism was originally focused directly at presumptuous leadership and its self-serving theologizing, not at our Lord.

Once we agree that Friends can provide the full spectrum of resources that one would expect from a church--support for relationship with the Creator, and support for our relationships with each other and the world around us--maybe we can think more about the second area of questioning: the situation of those who want to be 100% Quaker and, for example, 100% Eastern Orthodox. For someone who has grown up in Orthodox culture, whose spirituality has been formed by the extraordinary depth and beauty of that culture, who honors this precious family legacy, and who feels at home in the liturgy, I can't imagine rejecting the attempt to unite these allegiances. It might be hard work, but bless you for trying!

Something truly sad arises only when that choice to stay in two confessions simultaneously is made as a result of a judgment (perhaps subconscious) that Quaker faith and practice really doesn't provide any sort of equivalent value in worship, discipleship, and spiritual legacy for the full cycle of life. "Quakers are fine for meditation and social activism--within a sort of Western middle-class comfort zone--and so I better hold on to my other affiliation in light of these inadequacies." I would certainly agree that such a truncated view of Friends faith and practice seems like very thin fare compared to the extravagant beauty of the ancient liturgical churches. But here's the secret of Friends' own extraordinary richness: it is rooted in what all Christians hold in common, unfettered by human dogma, hierarchy, furniture, or ceremony. It is nothing more or less than this: Christ in us. There's no lock or confessional monopoly on this treasure that we are bound to respect. Instead, "I give you a new commandment, to love one another." Outside of that divine economy, honestly, all I can see is poverty.



A few years ago, I wrote about the "hyphen within" from a slightly different angle, thinking about the dilemmas of being hospitable while holding fast to our identity. And this recurring discussion reminded me of a post two years earlier in which I recommended Albert Fowler's Pendle Hill Pamphlet, Two Trends in Modern Quaker Thought, published in 1961. That pamphlet came back to me today as I thought about the thin-ness of a disconnected Quakerism.



David Niyonzima in an interview on the American Friends Service Committee site: "Called to Relate." (Five years ago, a talk by David Niyonzima provoked these reflections on being "absurdly happy.")

Allison Deger, "Israel's annexation moment has arrived."

"Obama in Tehran?"
The urge to control that reality [Iran's crossroads location] lies at the heart of Washington’s policy in the region, not an Iranian “threat” that pales as soon as the defense spending of the two countries is compared. After all, the U.S. spends nearly a $1 trillion on “defense” annually; Iran, a maximum of $12 billion -- less, that is, than the United Arab Emirates, and only 20% of the total defense expenditures of the six Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council....
"How NASA might build its first warp drive." Thanks to Lynn Gazis-Sax for the link.

A modest summary: "After a year of protest, a different Russia beckons."

"Have you ever considered that giving can be a luxury?"



From Chicago Blues: A Living History, Billy Branch:

One More Mile (Billy Branch) from Larry Skoller on Vimeo.

16 August 2012

Radical hope

Link to "radical"--an interactive entry on visualthesaurus.com
As I implied a couple of weeks ago in my comments on the "Whoosh!" vision in Britain Yearly Meeting, I'm often skeptical about the use of the word "radical." It's like the word "passion"--I just hate to see a good word lose power through overexposure.

As the thesaurus app on the right indicates, "radical" is an adjective for something "far beyond the norm" or "markedly new" or "revolutionary," and is closely linked with the word "root." But in popular use, it sometimes seems to mean "something that irritates conservatives" or "some slogan or theory that enhances my self-image as a progressive person without requiring much actual risk." Tell me if this isn't fair.

In the specific case of some Friends in Britain Yearly Meeting and elsewhere, "radical" seems almost synonymous with "post-Christian"--which seems a very conventional stance to me--very consistent with the surrounding culture. In the best case, this use of the word "radical" seems to have an aspirational, if-only quality to it: we'd like to believe we can live a simpler, more egalitarian, more mindful, more spiritual-not-religious lifestyle; and even if we're not there yet, that word can stand in for our intentions in the meantime. At least it differentiates us from those still living in Christian ignorance.

I'm aware that I'm really on the edge of caricature and unkindness here, but please comment and fill in what I seem to be missing. In the meantime, let me propose that there has probably never been a place of significant Christian influence on this planet, where that influence has not been accompanied by truly radical change: education, health care, huge improvements in the status of women, and weakening of totalitarian structures--even when the earthly agents of that influence have seemed ignorant and highly inadequate, perhaps even unaware of the full extent of the changes they were helping unleash.

(See Vincent Carroll's and David Shiflet's brief and readable book Christianity On Trial:
Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotryfor a systematic exposure of many myths and cliches about Christianity's supposed racist, sexist, anti-intellectual, and anti-environmental record. And, over twenty years ago, David Stoll's Is Latin American Turning Protestant described the radicalizing impact of the Bible on missionaries who started out as conventional conversionists but who became agents of social justice.)

Often these deep shifts have taken decades and generations, but here and there a movement has arisen that has given history a push. Quakers were such a movement; they (we) catalyzed major campaigns for freedom of religion, social justice, prison and mental health reform, due process, conflict resolution, impartial aid to combatants and refugees, abolition of slavery, the right to refuse military service and military taxes, and promotion of equal rights. Many of these campaigns involved civil disobedience, as a result of which many were imprisoned and some died. Nobody could argue that the Friends who initiated and supported these campaigns were flawless disciples, but they had made crucial connections between the Lordship of Christ and its ethical consequences--connections that made the risks of radical discipleship worthwhile.

So much for our past. But today, somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 billion people on our planet remain in extreme poverty; slavery and oppression are far from eradicated; most governments and warlords still believe in lethal force to solve conflicts; institutions of "national security" are becoming ever more sophisticated and pervasive; and Mother Nature's willingness to absorb our pollutants may be coming to an end. The Bible makes it clear that we are God's ambassadors of reconciliation, but that to engage in this witness, this Lamb's War, requires whole-life dedication. What hope do we have for a radical witness in our future?

First, I continue to resist calls to evangelical machismo. (I interpret Bruce Arnold's recent blog post, "The early Quakers and the fire within," as making a similar point: the home hearth fires are as important as the wildfires.) The first task of our meetings and churches is not to mass-produce prophets and activists, but to become places where the Holy Spirit can form us all according to our spiritual gifts. When our meetings are places where we trust God to order our worship, our church governance, our outreach, and our family lives, then we can sort out the divine division of labor by which those who truly are the prophets and activists will be found and supported.

Secondly, I nevertheless hope for a major revival within and beyond Friends. Christian Peacemaker Teams, Occupy Wall Street, Friends of the Light (Michigan), the Catholic Worker movement and Catholic religious, the Plowshares Movement, Voice of Calvary, and many other groups and churches can serve as incubators, models, and catalysts. Under the influence of prayer, Bible study, intervisitation, a firm rejection of elitism and glib categories, and an ever-increasing mutual respect, I hope that the old boundaries between activists and the bulk of our congregations can be melted down. This to me feels like radical hope.



Desperate Theologian introduces and summarizes Scot McKnight on "The Radical Message of Jesus." (See the video, too.)

Christian comedian Mark Lowry has his own take on Jesus' radical message. "I read Matthew 23 and I put my name in there...."

Rebecca Tucker: "We need to need. We need to need God. We need to need our friends and family emotionally. But we also need to need our neighbors in tangible, forgiveness-provoking ways."

Grace Biskie, "I believe God expressly asks us to love people who are different than us."

Robin Parry on the post-Christian Olympic closing--specifically John Lennon's "Imagine."

Friends Committee on National Legislation (USA): "Escalating threats of Israeli attack on Iran." And Mondoweiss' "Iran hysteria watch."

Robin Mohr's blog celebrates its seventh birthday.



The Ghent Legacy, "Just a Closer Walk with Thee."


15 March 2012

Idealism and realism: the case of Iran

It's hard to imagine a crazier policy proposal for the U.S. government than to initiate or support an attack on Iran, but some Israeli sources say that their country has already been given a tacit go-ahead by U.S. president Obama. Others, while skeptical of success, feel that hot rhetoric is fueling a war-momentum that may become hard to resist. Our own Friends lobby in the USA, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, is urging us to help legislators resist this rhetoric and support House legislation that prioritizes diplomacy.

With all the enthusiasm for war that features prominently in U.S. political life these days, it took a comedian and his fake news program (Daily Show link) to expose the opportunism behind so much of this truculence on all sides, and to call on everyone to calm down. A calmer atmosphere might help us all to consider some of the complex sides of the concern about Iran:
  1. Hawks! Remember Robert McNamara's first lesson of war ("Empathize with your enemy") and ask yourself what the world looks like from Iran's perspective. The nations that have the power to destroy Iran have (a) nuclear weapons, and (b) pre-emptive-strike defense doctrines. Furthermore, Americans and Israelis don't even question that we and our nuclear weapons and angry politicians are self-evidently on the side of the angels. In other words, no other country can justify having the kind of defenses against us that we maintain against them. Is our use of drone assassin airplanes, our falsely-hyped war against Iraq, our support for dictators whenever convenient, and Israel's peremptory and often lethal occupation policies, consistent with this angelic assessment of ourselves? Аre we as trustworthy as we want our adversaries to be? If not, why should Iran be weaker or more angelic than us--simply because might makes right?
  2. Doves! The case is not at all clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, even though its main proclaimed enemy, Israel, already has them. Nuclear weapons are hard to build, hard to deploy, hard to store, and extremely hard to deliver!--and that's not even considering the political cost of having them. However, what if it's true? What if Iran's leaders don't simply want to get the theoretical capacity to develop weapons eventually (something every medium-sized power in a hostile neighborhood would probably like, rightly or wrongly)--what if they actually want the weapons and are crazy enough to deploy them? Our analysis as disciples of the Prince of Peace can certainly be based on nonviolence, but it should never be based on wishful thinking. What do idealists concretely do in the actual presence of evil?
  3. Presidential nominee candidates say that the time for talk is over. Is it, however, true (as the FCNL FAQ sheet for Iran asserts) that "U.S. and Iranian officials have reportedly spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct, one-on-one talks in more than 30 years"? There is a strange political and intellectual laziness--or maybe it is cowardice--in official U.S. circles about vigorously pursuing high-level contacts with Iran in favor of trying to guess what their official pronouncements really mean. (See "The first rule of gracious correspondence.") Maybe there are secret communications all the time, but communication that does not influence public perceptions and rhetoric eventually is useless.
I'd like to see more proposals along the lines of Thomas Buonomo's "green energy" proposal for Iran--offering a blessing to Iran that has the added advantage of offsetting (or challenging) Iran's nuclear-fuel option. This proposal alone is hardly enough to calm down war fever, but it is the sort of proposal that can remind us what's at stake and that we're not trapped! The search for alternatives to war should get as much enthusiasm and resources as are devoted to promoting war--in fact, more.



More on Iran from bitterlemons.

Christ at the Checkpoint: Statement and a Messianic response to the conference.

Punishing and defending Pussy Riot after their "performance" in Christ the Savior Cathedral: Some news coverage to think about.

I'm not quite ready to say goodbye to Dr. House, but I'm grateful for eight years of material to draw on for illustrations of faith, corruption, redemption, and ethics. The show is ending; is the time right?

Three evangelical blind spots. And her.meneutics on "The best naked pregnant woman on a magazine cover."



Little Charlie and the Nightcats, appearing in Poland back in 2004, give a wonderful performance of "Clothes Line" (starting at 0:55). It's a delightful song--although you can imagine how hard it is for students when I use it as a listening-comprehension exercise! (Compare with this version, also excellent--Kid Anderson on the guitar instead of Charlie Baty.)

19 January 2012

Conflict and a wider perspective

Indonesia comes to
Elektrostal
The Historical Museum hosts
a visit by dancers and musicians
from Indonesia
A Russian ensemble welcomes
the visitors
Indonesian diplomat addresses
the gathering
City official presents visitors with
a statuette of city founder Nikolai
Vtorov
The Fingers--excellent Indonesian
jazz band


The Institute in its
winter outfit
I was once part of a Crane MetaMarketing creative team helping a public education project on behalf of civil justice. As we and our partners strove to frame an engaging message, we encouraged them to zoom back from their focus on statewide challenges, out to the national "tort reform" scene, and beyond that, to the founding values of the American nation and its ideals of "fair play."

It seems to me that the impulse to zoom back, take a wider perspective, is always important when we try to understand conflict. If we go wider, maybe some of the words and categories we use too glibly can become unstuck from their captivity to specific interests. Tort reform is a great example: on whose behalf is the law being "re-formed"? Advocates of this reform say that frivolous lawsuits and astronomical judgments must be curbed, but rarely reveal their sponsors' interests in being insulated from the consequences of damaging behavior. So they'll select the most scandalous anecdotes that support their position. (I'm sure that their opponents, the trial lawyers, are going to emphasize the unfairness of marginalizing actual victims--the ones who actually suffer from "reform"--and say less about their own economic interests in suing early and often!) We formed messages to empower citizens to zoom back and look at the actual goals and values of civil justice rather than the claims and counterclaims of biased activists. We didn't want audiences to be limited to choosing which highly-paid actors would be their proxy heroes; we wanted each audience member to be able to picture himself or herself as the hero who could discern the "true north" of justice and knew how to access and protect the institutions of law to pursue that justice.

Reformers and activists get into conflict all the time, even when they're supposedly on the same side. The "Occupy Wall Street" movements are a great example. It's not surprising that activists clash; most wouldn't be involved if they didn't have strong opinions, a clear sense of urgency, and personalities to match. The one who values tactical effectiveness is inevitably going to clash with the one who emphasizes consensus and community-building. Here in Russia, the "Honest Elections" movement, which has a lot in common with "Occupy," sometimes pits organizers who want to be as provocative as possible against those who want as broad a civic base as possible.

In all of these conflicts, I yearn for a strong Christian presence for this reason: in the widest possible perspective--the perspective of eternity--tactics and categories are subject to a much more basic test: do they glorify God? Maybe a more functional way to put it would be: do they increase access to the Kingdom? For me, the most basic value in any Christian participation in social reform is its evangelistic value.

There was a time in recent evangelical history when to emphasize evangelism meant to avoid social concerns in favor of soul-winning. That false dichotomy is, I hope, long gone. Those who are gifted in direct evangelism can work closely and lovingly with social prophets, tax refusers, Occupiers, no matter how tongue-tied the latter might be on doctrine. Of course they'll sometimes get on each other's nerves, but in an eternal perspective, those irritations are minor.

Working together, believers demonstrate that the Good News is concretely good. Without pious happy-talk, we can demonstrate the "signs and wonders" of behavior based on love rather than greed or violence or elitism; and provide a community where together we deal with the tragedies and bondages that we know will continue to afflict us. Here's what the church did for me: it taught me that the response to my sister's murderer was not to wish for his execution, but to ask why he became a murderer, and to work against the death penalty and violence in all its false claims of redemption. Either Jesus claims victory over violence and death or he doesn't--I choose to believe that he totally does. But violence and death still happen, and so my church also grieved with me and gave my murdered sister Ellen the funeral she didn't get within my family for twenty whole years.

Maybe the ultimate conflict humans find themselves in is total war. I'm in one of those life phases when I find myself going over and over World War II--the war that killed over 50,000,000 people and brought my parents together, making me possible. Two summers ago I reread Churchill's history; last summer I read the new history by Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War; and now I'm listening to the recordings of the CBS Radio broadcast day of June 6, 1944, and (while Judy's in the USA) I'm watching the HBO series Band of Brothers. It seems as if in that war, practically our whole species lost perspective. Those whose evil behavior seemed to have ignited the war were a microscopic minority compared to the ordinary soldiers and civilians who slashed and clawed away at each other, physically and verbally, for those long and bloody years--almost none of whom had any actual grievance against those on the other side. It was a planetary orgy of evil, but that evil was not the "Hun" or the "Jap" or any other objectified group; it had infiltrated and taken possession of millions, and our inadequate spiritual vision did not mobilize us for the Lamb's War that we really needed to wage.

This cartoon by Tom Tomorrow is right on target--as far as it goes. The missing dimension isn't supplied by Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It's supplied by the Gospel and the community formed by the Gospel. Without this dimension, the pattern of the last panel repeats endlessly.





Another case study of a failure of perspective: "Why Last Saturday's Political Conclave of Evangelical Leaders was Dangerous."

Another argument for going wider and deeper: "The Wheel of 'I Want More'."

By far the most satisfying thing I read all week: "Give it up for George Kennan."

Artificial outrage, exhibit A: "Accusing WikiLeaks of murder."
Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense under George W. Bush and then Barack Obama, ... spoke sternly of Manning’s leaks, accusing him of “moral culpability.” He added, “And that's where I think the verdict is ‘guilty’ on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences."
I believe that Manning and WikiLeaks did have regard for the consequences--namely the exposure of cynical power politics and a hoped-for end to impunity. It was those in power who seemingly had no regard for consequences--tens of thousands of lives lost, American credibility shredded, billions of unbudgeted dollars burned. It is the wider perspective that helps reveal who uses language honestly and who uses it tendentiously.

Artificial outrage, exhibit B: "Exploiting religion to call for the President's death is unacceptable." Just to show that progressive groups are not necessarily unfamiliar with exaggerations and selective quotations.... The header to the online petition to demand Kansas State House speaker Mike O'Neal's resignation mentions neither the larger context of his idiotic "prayer" (the widely-circulated, crudely jocular use of Psalm 109 to call for U.S. President Obama's demise) nor O'Neal's defense--that he was just "praying" for the end of Obama's presidency, not his death. There's really no defense against his circulating such garbage, but its juvenile banality is revealed by his e-mail's cover words:
At last--I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up--it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!
Come on, does anyone believe that O'Neal solemnly sits down, opens his Bible, bows his head, and literally prays for Obama's death? And, even more incongruously, that he would then be humbled by a petition from an Internet-based campaign organized by people who are probably far more liberal than Obama? O'Neal does apparently need a crash course in biblical literacy, but the Kansas State House is a better organization to determine whether they're fed up with their Speaker than petition-signers goaded by overheated rhetoric.



"Skin Deep": In his intro, Buddy Guy gives his mother credit for the inspiration of this song, which I'm using in some of my classes. At this concert, which I described here, I was just a few meters to the left of this videographer. The song gives me goosebumps.



I've been around a while
I know wrong from right
I learned a long time ago
Things ain't always black and white
Just like you can't judge a book by the cover
We all gotta be careful
How we treat one another

Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
We all, all are the same

A man in Louisiana,
He never called me by my name
He said "boy do this and boy do that"
But I never once complained
I knew he had a good heart
But he just didn't understand
That I needed to be treated
Just like any other man

Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
We all are the same

I sat my little child down
when he was old enough to know
I said out there in this big wide world
You're gonna meet all kinds of folks
I said son it all comes down to just one simple rule
That you treat everybody just the way
You want them to treat you
Yeah

Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
We all are the same
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
Skin Deep
Skin Deep
Underneath we're all the same
We all are the same
Yeah