Is Jesus optional?

I give you a new commandment: love one another.

Maybe you saw this news story last week: Alabama's authorities saw fit to deny condemned Muslim convict Domineque Ray the presence of an imam in the execution chamber, and a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Constitution in denying Ray's appeal. (Links: al.com coverage; Religion News commentary, including crucial details of timing.)

Had Domineque Ray been a Christian, he could have had a Christian chaplain keeping company with him in the chamber in his last moments. (Ultimately, this man's absence was described as a concession on the authorities' part.)

Although the news site ai.com covered the Muslim volunteer chaplain's comments ("The [staff] chaplain is a fine man. I don’t have any animosity to him"), I looked in vain for comments from Alabama's Christian staff chaplains. I can't argue from silence, but in my fantasies, those Christian chaplains would have turned the place upside down to grant Ray his wish. Or gone on strike. Or resigned. Alternatively, why couldn't the administration hire a Muslim chaplain -- if only temporarily -- to meet "protocol" requirements? Wouldn't that have cost less than pursuing their determination to execute Ray on schedule all the way to the Supreme Court?

In sum, despite the clear language of the U.S. Constitution, treating Muslims equally in these maximally grave moments is apparently optional.

Imagine a situation where Muslims are granted the presence of a religious figure in the execution chamber but Christians are not. It's not actually hard to imagine; Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world. (Details at World Watch Monitor.) There are places where conversion from Islam to Christianity has been a capital crime. It's hard to imagine a Christian pastor present at those executions. All the more reason that in our country, with our First Amendment, such travesties in any direction should never happen. And Christians, the beneficiaries of generations of privileged status in this country, should be among the first and most persistent guardians of equality.

---

Tyrone King, convicted for the murder of my sister Ellen, was sentenced to prison and not to death. I don't know how King identified himself spiritually, or what spiritual resources were available to him in prison, but I know something about his family. In one of my last visits with my father before he died, he told me about what it was like to attend King's murder trial. My father described a poignant scene: King's mother walked over to my father and gave him some evangelistic brochures. My father did not report becoming a Christian as a result of that contact, but maybe it was part of the path that led to his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy 25 years later.

---

It's not exactly a logical extension of my meditations on Domineque Ray's last moments and his all-too-disposable First Amendment rights, but I feel led to ask: Is Jesus optional, too?

To me, Jesus is not optional. I know that he'll not be far from me in my last moments of life, just as he was not far from me 45 years ago in the moment when I read the words, "Love your enemies" with new eyes, a moment that pushed me over the line into a lifelong commitment to him and gave me my global family.

The awkward truth: we live in a pluralistic and secular world which often treats Jesus -- and every other aspect of divinity -- as optional, even trivial, occasionally laughable. It doesn't help when Christians themselves marginalize Jesus to bless cruelty, greed, racism, nationalism, or domination. Instead of those anti-evangelistic messages, we could be fearlessly and lovingly eager to learn what others believe -- what occupies the same space in their lives as our non-optional Jesus occupies in ours. Ilya Grits reminds us,

And here we must not forget one of the most marvelous thoughts of the Church Fathers, a thought that Metropolitan Anthony Bloom so loved to quote in the very last years of his life: “Just think – what happiness it is to live among these people. It’s not important whether they believe in God or not.

“God believes in them!”

There are many questions about Jesus I can't answer, and which my own confidence in his reality in my life does not eliminate. It's important for me not to pretend that such questions don't exist -- to avoid them is to lose the ability to evangelize with integrity. Two examples:

First: When Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (from John 14:6, context), does this license us to threaten that every non-Christian faces eternal doom? Robert Barclay persuasively argues "no" ... so I choose to interpret this important biblical passage as a description of his power rather than as a threat. Jesus is God-with-us, not God's instrument of cruel selection; what Jesus offers to everyone made in God's image may be shaped by God's own judgment but will never be limited by our sour interpretations.

Does this make Jesus "optional"? No more than it makes God our Creator optional. As Alexander Men' says, every world religion expresses our laudable human desire to reach God, but Jesus expresses God's desire to be with us. Not exactly optional from a believer's point of view! However, it does mean that we cannot use Jesus as a flag flying over our religious camps, to be pulled up and down our flagpoles to suit our religious exhibitionism, to threaten the unconvinced, and to keep out undesirables.

Second example: In a class I took at Earlham School of Religion about 25 years ago, John Punshon challenged us with a question about the cosmic role of Jesus. If life exists on other planets in our universe, is Jesus their messiah as well? Are there parallel gospel narratives or does our planet have the universe's one and only Holy Land?

On the one hand, these questions certainly don't cause daily anxiety; they're just an extreme variation on all the dilemmas of pluralism. On the other hand, my curiosity is as high as my anxiety is low! A happy and humbling thought: God knows what God is doing, whether I understand it or not.

---

I still argue that those outside the church who are scandalized by perversions of Christianity should know enough to "meet Jesus halfway" and distinguish him from those perversions. It does happen!....

---

Brian Drayton on one cost of our Quaker theological diversity. (The comments are also highly recommended.)

Evangelical definitions through the ages, and their varying compatibility with Anabaptist faith. I'd love to see a thoughtful survey along these same lines from a Friends viewpoint.

America's sobering brush with naked fascism, 1939 version: A Night at the Garden. (Short film by Michael Curry.)

Marg Mowczko on wifely submission and holy kisses.

Russia's upcoming "sovereign Internet" test; a related interview with Tanya Lokot.

Anton Shekhovtsov on how Russia pretends to be a normal member of the international community.

Russia’s mimetic power is the ability to influence Western nations by creating the impression that Russia is a normal member of the international community and emulating what pro-Kremlin actors perceive as Western soft power techniques. By presenting Russia as a credible and responsible international partner, Moscow is trying to convince the West – especially following the Ukraine-related escalation of the conflict between the West and Russia – to lift the sanctions, go back to “business as usual”, and ultimately stop any attempts to democratise Russia

---

Jean-Rene Ella-Menye plays his beautiful tribute to his late friend Zula Summer. "You Left Me Blue."

All the difference in the world

Creche in Bethlehem's Manger Square

Today is Christmas Day here in Russia. And now for a quick survey of Christmas Day news headlines:

'Dozens dead' as Libya police targeted ... Fake life vests marketed to desperate refugees ... Man shot on Charlie Hebdo anniversary ... Gunmen fire on tourist coach in Cairo....

Once again, my favorite Quaker text on Christmas. (George Fox, 1657) We must not have Christ Jesus, the Lord of Life, put any more in the stable amongst the horses and asses, but he must now have the best chamber, the heart, and the rude, debauched spirit must be turned out. Therefore let him reign, whose right it is, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, by which Holy Ghost you call him Lord, in which Holy Ghost you pray, and by which Holy Ghost you have comfort and fellowship with the Son and with the Father. Therefore know the triumph in the Seed, which is first and last, the beginning and ending, the top and cornerstone. In front of Ramallah's Holy Family Catholic Church

What difference does Christmas make in the real world, with insults and bullets flying in all directions? To put it more personally, how does Jesus's birth change the way I view the prospect of yet another year of this violence?

George Fox's words (quoted in the sidebar) are a help. First of all, the holy birth must be something I know personally. God is in the world, offering reconciliation to a world that often doesn't seem to want it. So: Do I want it? Will I turn out the rude spirits and let Jesus into my best chamber?

Then the hard part: will I go on to let him rule? Will I "know the triumph in the Seed..."? Will I bear witness to this triumph even as I also witness what we humans keep doing to each other?

Knowing the triumph means something very concrete: I must not participate in this reduction of others into objects, targets, collateral damage! This is the difference I myself can make.

Back when I was preparing for being on Father Yakov Krotov's talk show on Christian responses to the Paris attacks, I was reviewing Paul's teachings in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 on the ministry of reconciliation. At the heart of the passage is this amazing call to public witness:

...God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 

But this time, as I read, another claim from verse 16 jumped out at me as never before: So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. We regard no one as outside the bounds of reconciliation. And no one is allowed to force us to regard people as so hair-raisingly awful, scary, other, that we are freed from the ministry of reconciliation.

When God, through Paul, defined our charge (the ministry of reconciliation) and the parameters (we no longer regard anyone from a worldly point of view), oppression, occupation, terrorism were all daily realities. Jesus, whose birth we celebrate, had himself been publicly humiliated and cruelly executed. There is beauty in the incarnation, there is amazing hope in the very idea of Godly reconciliation ... but there is nothing sentimental. If you and I persist in letting Jesus determine how we look at others, and refuse to see them as enemies, refuse to become afraid of them, refuse to participate in targeting them, life will become more ... well ... complicated.

But we're not alone! As ways open, let's talk to others about whether Jesus is inviting them into ministries of reconciliation. Hopefully, we're not stupid: the Lamb's War is no joke. We know that some of those we formerly saw as enemies from a worldly point of view really do mean us harm. But together we can figure out how to confront the rude, debauched spirits that animate hostility, and distinguish those true enemies from the people they hold in bondage. We can learn together what it means to make room for Jesus. In the midst of today's serious but passing alarms, this is work that is for eternity. That is worth both risk and celebration.

And every Christmas we can take time to remember the birth of God's offer of reconciliation, now embodied by us!

---

I'm serious about doing this together. What is the right scale, the best forums, for consulting on this task of turning out the rude spirits, learning to see others from God's point of view, and giving Jesus the best place in human hearts? Can yearly meeting structures still serve?

Micah's New Year's pledge.

---

Here are two commentaries on the Wheaton College controversy over Larycia Hawkins and her witness of care for Muslims ... casting a balance in slightly different ways, but both helpful: Karen Johnson, Mark Woods. Is this controversy (among its other serious dimensions, including the professor's own job prospects!) a laboratory for the work of reconciliation?

What do people think they mean when they call for Islamic reformation?

The Syro-Phoenician woman meets the living Word of God.

Whose Christmas rites? (And the town with three Christmas days.)

Fair or unfair? ... How to decode evangelical testimony.

Linux and open source have won, so get over it, because apparently Microsoft and Apple have.

How the Soviet Union sent its first man to the Internet in 1982.

How Delia Derbyshire created the original Doctor Who theme.

---

"I said 'get back Satan get out of my way,' I heard the angels singing ... just when I thought my soul was lost, I heard the angels singing ..."

"When death comes it is always a shock" part two

Last week I tried to shock you with the prospect of death for our empires, even our species. That very day, death by terrorism was an actual and sudden shock for Beirut, the next day for Paris. Since then, politicians, pundits, and security experts have been working overtime to convince us of their ability to analyze and confront terrorism on our behalf. Some propose increased intelligence coordination, some want to reduce refugee immigration, and some (ominously) resort again to the language of war.

In today's Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller consider whether Edward Snowden's revelations about the USA's surveillance of citizens' private communications might have damaged our ability to head off terrorism. Their article, especially James Brennan's and John Woolsey's assertions, gave me an uneasy sense of déjà vu. Instead of exploring this territory all over again, I hereby take the easy way out and reprint a post I wrote nine years ago.

Safety and "the nature of the world in which we live" 
(24 August 2006; originally here)

For many years my Lenten season reading has included Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's booklet, The Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love, now available as a PDF file here. [Link updated.] When George Bush responded to the court decision declaring his war-on-terrorism wiretapping unconstitutional by saying, "Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," I thought about the spiritual implications of Bush's words, and that reminded me of McCarthy's booklet.

On a political level, it's easy to see the weakness in Bush's logic. If our courts begin making decisions based on trying to interpret "the nature of the world in which we live," rather than trying to interpret the Constitution, we're heading for anarchy, or more likely, a dictatorship of the politically cleverest. But Bush's warning may be much more effective at a deeper level. Over and over again in history, we've seen people being persuaded that safety requires compromising our ostensible values.

Many years ago (I'm reaching back into my distant memories of studying political science at Carleton University!), James Prothro and Charles Grigg found a distinct difference between people's support of political tolerance in the abstract and their considerably lower tolerance in concrete situations. Every once in a while, political scientists tweak the rest of us by showing that Americans claim to cherish the Declaration of Independence, but when shown actual unlabeled text from that declaration, they declare it dangerous, communist, and the like. So it's not surprising that today's politicians try out yet again that old argument that, during a "war," we cannot afford the luxury of our values. Or, rather, they propose another value, safety, that supposedly trumps civil liberties and due process.

However, to remain politically useful, "safety" as a value must remain abstract as well! When we begin studying safety in concrete terms, problems arise:

• Somehow, the politicians must convince us, their audiences, that we will remain safe, while hoping that we don't think too much about the safety of others. For example, many innocent people have been severely inconvenienced or worse by being put on terrorist watch lists, arrested as material witnesses, or in a few (how many?) cases, kidnapped by U.S. or allied forces for interrogation and even torture. But we must believe that this won't happen to us, even though our protections are being compromised in the service of the war on terrorism, and the government argues that judicial due process would reveal too many secrets. Above all, we must not question the proposition that humans who are not U.S. citizens are to be completely disregarded in any offer of safety.
• We must believe that the threat of terrorism is of a completely different order than the threat of natural disaster, crime, or any other danger whose probability increases as government resources are sucked away into this mislabeled "war." The government's unbelievably screwed-up response to Hurricane Katrina shows what the all-encompassing we-know-best claims of this war's leaders did for the actual safety of Gulf states' citizens.
• We must believe in several lies at once: terrorism is a monolithic phenomenon, a new phenomenon, a manifestation of very clever subhumans who cannot be communicated with, an intractable and implacable reality that only our leaders can understand and manage, despite their disastrous record to date. We must want safety so badly that we overlook our leaders' actual performance in favor of their stern claims of authority and expertise.

The power of government to claim a monopoly on defining safety is ultimately a spiritual issue, and requires a spiritual confrontation, because in one sense, the politicians are right: we are not safe. Safety is not guaranteed, neither in terms of protection from physical harm, nor in terms of quality and scope of life.

Each of us, at this moment, faces multiple dangers, ranging at varying degrees of probability or absurdity from disease and accident, to violent crime, to a direct impact from a meteor. In an interesting paradox given George Bush's rhetoric of freedom, perhaps the more we actually claim and use freedom publicly and effectively in this world, the more we expose ourselves to danger. (Effective dissidents must count on the possibility that their activities will draw the attention of our "security" agencies.) This brings me to Charles McCarthy's main points on safety in The Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love. Addressing the pro-family claims of the Powers that Be in Station IV, he asks, "Can Christian family love and relationship find any lasting security in any source other than unconditional obedience to God’s will as revealed by Jesus Christ?" Addressing the hypnotic pseudo-security of our culture, he says, in Station VI,

It is easy to find hope, security and a future in the G.N.P., a national anthem, a football team, military technology, Disneyland, drugs, fashion and alcohol. It is nearly impossible in a capitalist society to find hope in the patient, secret commitment to the omnipotence of Christic love. Such a use of life is incontestable folly by all standards except one—Jesus’ teaching that the cross of nonviolent love is the power and the wisdom and the will of The Source of all Reality.

At a Friends World Committee regional conference shortly after the first Gulf War, T. Canby Jones warned us bluntly: We cannot understand Christian pacifism until we have confronted our own mortality. My corollary, in light of Bush's warning about the "world in which we live": The way we live in this world must not be dictated by fear. Otherwise, whatever safety we think we have, our death will come much too soon. If Jesus is our partner in shaping the way we live, and we have good friends listening and shaping and sharing our doubts and discoveries alongside us, fear and death will recede to their proper places—they're certainly not out of the picture, but whatever life we have, we don't live in their shadow.

One more excerpt from Charles McCarthy:

To those who do not believe in Christ’s cross of nonviolent love, its truth is folly, a scandal, an unrealistic waste of life’s time. To those who believe, it is nails, thorns, spears and suffering for others until the blind can see, until the lame can walk, until the imprisoned are freed, until the hungry are fed, until the oppressed are liberated, until the naked are clothed, until the sick are healed, until the rich are saved, until the homeless are at home, until the unlovable are loved, until all sins are forgiven. The believer in Christ’s nonviolent cross breathes in deeply the sufferings of humanity and breathes out freely his or her happiness in order to spread the healing power of nonviolent love as Divine Yeast in the dough of humanity.

If we advocate focusing on quality of life as a crucial dimension of safety, "nails, thorns, spears, and suffering for others" may seem to be unpromising lifestyle components. How can we breathe in "the sufferings of humanity" and breathe out "happiness"? For me, the crucial factor is the desire to have my eyes open, to be exposed to reality. I don't want happiness at the expense of ignorance, and it's too late to pretend not to know what I know. My mother survived Hiroshima, one of my sisters was murdered ... the Beast has come too close to my home.

My own experience is that, before my conversion, I never thought I'd be happy again, or able to trust. Jesus restored both joy and trust to me, but did not promise to keep me "safe" from reality. From my vantage point, reality includes both love and evil. My moment-by-moment task is to breathe love, and devote whatever power I have to its service, and let my God-given mind (and my faithful friends) help me stay alert to evil's attempts to divert my energy. That's why I want to deny politicians the right to put evil at the center of their definition of "the nature of the world in which we live." I can't live that way anymore.

---

Amidst the outpouring of sympathy and support for Paris came this meditation from Joey Ayoub (Hummus for Thought) in Beirut on the world's estimation of Middle Eastern people's worth. (I heard about it on a BBC podcast.) Ayoub and many others are inviting us to consider disparities in reactions to terrorism in France, Lebanon, and Nigeria. As I was planning to write a response entitled something like "you can't compare griefs," or maybe "good grief! -- yet another way for us to one-up each other," I came across this post by Ellen Painter Dollar that made similar points much better than I could have.

In typical blunt style, Russia Without BS warns us of the consequences of knee-jerk reactions to IS terrorism. And The Very Worst Missionary reminds us that "fear will always lead us to the other side of the road...." Meanwhile, Christians debate (U.S.) state bans, and this link helps USA voters support refugee resettlement.

Kenneth Sheppard, reviewing War and the American Difference by Stanley Hauerwas:

The Pentecostal lesson, as Hauerwas sees it, is that Christians should be the ones who seek 'to transform the media of domination into the media of communication, in which people are free to love one another without fear."

These are the real victims of Boko Haram.

Russian Muslims tell their stories.

Power of Goodness: a new publisher and new Web site.

---

"Love don't see colors; it's color-blind. Don't stop at borders; no borderlines."

Redeeming Germany?

Merkel receiving her honorary doctorate. Source.

One reason I have such a visceral dislike of racism and anti-Semitism is that I grew up with that poison. My German mother believed that she was born into the master race, and that others' inferiority was obvious.

(Her special brand of racism had an unusual asterisk: having been born and raised in Japan, she freely admitted that the Japanese were, if anything, perhaps slightly superior to Germans.)

When my mother left Germany to live and study in Chicago, she did not leave behind this master-race mentality. I can tell you first-hand what it was like to grow up in this family micro-culture, in which any neighbor who didn't match her Teutonic ideal was dismissed. In this way I experienced some attenuated version of the mentality that seduced a whole modern nation into total war and premeditated mass murder on an industrial scale.

Maybe this explains why I'm so moved by German chancellor Angela Merkel's persistent and intelligent defense of her refugee policy, even as some pundits point out the political risks involved. Today the BBC quoted her telling an interviewer, "I'm proud that we are receiving refugees in a friendly and open manner. I don't want to compete to be the country which does best at scaring off refugees." I can't help wondering what my mother would say to that.

---

A first taste of winter

Yesterday's snow. Bulat Okudzhava monument, Arbat, Moscow.
Photo by Vladimir Filonov, The Moscow Times. Source.

---

What's even more remarkable to me, especially in view of the too-frequent American correlation of conservative Christianity with anti-immigrant views, is (as the BBC article points out) her associating generous refugee policies with Christian faith. In defending her policies, for example, "she claims she's simply exemplifying the Christian values of the CDU" -- referring to the political party she leads, the Christian Democratic Union.

Although her party has no religious restrictions on membership, its intellectual DNA has strong connections with both Catholic and Protestant social ethics, some of whose proponents were in the anti-Nazi resistance or in prison during Hitler's reign. Merkel herself grew up in a Christian family in a politically hostile context, communist-run and USSR-dominated East Germany, where her father was a pastor.

Almost all prominent politicians in Europe are far more reticent to emphasize faith in their public behavior than their American counterparts, and Merkel is usually no different. But refugee and immigration controversies seem to have struck a nerve with her. I found her comments at her European Parliament caucus, as reported by Politico, fascinating and inspiring ... and even redemptive. Quoting the article,

In the party meeting, Merkel was especially tough on European countries that have portrayed the acceptance of refugees as a threat to religion. "When someone says: 'This is not my Europe, I won't accept Muslims...' Then I have to say, this is not negotiable."

European leaders, she said, would lose their credibility if they distinguished between Muslim and Christian refugees. "Who are we to defend Christians around the world if we say we won't accept a Muslim or a mosque in our country. That won't do."

Given my own childhood memories, maybe you can understand the healing effect of hearing such sentiments in a German accent.

---

Another instance of Merkel's linkage of immigration and faith happened about a month ago in Switzerland, where she received an honorary doctorate from the University of Bern. Her comments on the refugee crisis were widely reported in the English-language press (example). According to McClatchy's Matthew Schofield, "During a news conference Thursday in Bern, Switzerland, Merkel said it was both an honour and a moral obligation for Germany to take in 'die Fluechtlinge,' the refugees."

However, most English-language reporters seem to have ignored her comments on Muslim immigration and Europe's Christian heritage. I found several references in Russian-language news sites. Drawing in part on a Polish source, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Novosibirsk headed an article on Merkel's news conference in Bern by quoting her: "You don't want the Islamization of Europe? Go to church!"

She went on to explain, "I would like to see more people who dare to say 'I am a Christian,' who are brave enough to enter into dialogue," noting that she also supports the guarantee of religious liberty in Germany.

I find it refreshing (in the American context as well) to hear Christians challenged to go deeper into their own faith, and prepare for honest dialogue, rather than be corrupted by fear, identity politics, and searches for enemies. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of Merkel's words; I hope, but can't be sure, that this was the motivation for publishing her words here in Russia, where Islamophobia is also a sad reality.

---

Merkel, "Faith in God makes many political decisions easier."

Grevel Lindop (author of Charles Williams: The Third Inkling) describes Williams as a teacher ... and his impact on the Oxford University students who were fortunate enough to hear him lecture.

Charles King on the dangerous decline of international studies.

Given that no one can know where the next crisis will erupt, having a broadly competent reserve of experts is the price of global engagement. Yesterday’s apparent irrelevancies—the demographics of eastern Ukraine, for example, or popular attitudes toward public health in West Africa—can suddenly become matters of consequence. Acquiring competence in these sorts of topics forms the mental disposition that J. William Fulbright called "seeing the world as others see it"—an understanding that people could reasonably view their identities, interests, politics, and leaders in ways that might at first seem bizarre or wrong-headed. It also provides the essential context for distinguishing smart policy-specific questions from misguided ones.

How one evangelical activist (with Abigail Disney's help) changed his mind on gun violence.

By giving religion short shrift, video games ignore part of what makes us human.

---

Sow Good Seeds - Joël Fafard


Sow Good Seeds - Joël Fafard from joel fafard on Vimeo.

"Don't look for enemies! Look for friends!"

"Don't look for enemies! Look for friends!" Peace demonstration in Moscow, September 21, 2014. Source.

"The enemy of my enemy" is a policy that guarantees
incoherence and confusion. (Source.)

This may be important advice for all of us at a time when every major controversy seems to demand villains. And it was a wonderful, very welcome reminder to see this slogan on the streets of Moscow, where the photo above was taken, when peace advocates were being attacked as traitors. But in a world where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," where false communities based on authoritarianism and identity politics are common, it's worth thinking about what "looking for friends" really means.

A few weeks ago, our pastor at Eugene Friends Church, Clyde Parker, said in his sermon that (slightly paraphrased) if you don't know my shadow places, you don't know me.  The places where I have struggled, failed ... these are what I'd prefer you didn't know about, but if I keep them hidden from you, I'm undermining our friendship. When I open up to you about what's concealed in my unlit places, I'm basing our friendship on truth, not on shared enemies or even on shared ideals and visions, as important as those ideals might be.

I think this is true not just for people, but as the sign in Moscow implies, it's also true for communities and nations. But it's hard for empires to look for friends, instead of gaining allies by bullying or buying them. You'd think, for example, that the USA would be a bit restrained in criticizing Palestine for joining the International Criminal Court--in other words, for being even more willing to acknowledge the rule of law than the USA is. (The USA has announced that it will not join.) But it's normal behavior for Americans to criticize the failure of the rule of law elsewhere while rejecting the scrutiny of others.

Russia, too, resists looking at reality. Russian officials complain about NATO expansion while demonstrating no understanding of its neighbors' horrible memories of Russia's own historical expansionism, particularly during the Soviet era. One of our friends, a Russian, traveled in the Baltic countries, visiting local Quaker meetings, during the height of the tension around Crimea. She reported that local citizens' fears of an imminent attack from Russia were very real, even though, objectively, an actual attack was highly improbable.

If large nations found ways to be honest and even contrite about their own sins, they might be pleasantly surprised at how ready others are to become friends. Isn't it worth a try? "NO!" -- I can imagine national leaders saying. "My own political base depends on looking strong." And so, for lack of genuine friendship, the whole enemy-driven imperial apparatus keeps shambling, snarling, bullying along.

Let's get in its way. Let's be persistent in repeating and implementing that Moscow demonstrator's call to seek friends, not enemies. May it gain resonance in this new year.

---

Righteous links:  ~ Remembering Gleb Yakunin, the priest who fought the establishments (plural). More on Father Gleb. ~ New politics of torture. ~ Israel rejected the ticking bomb defense of torture. ~ The tragedy of the American military, and where Fallows' article falls short. ~ Why Jesus wouldn't attend anti-Muslim demonstrations. ~ Stalker as a video game.

---

Music to count musicians by. (How many are there in this video?) Enjoy!

Russian shorts

Yes, there are bears under the Moscow streets!

On our first weekend back in Russia, I attended the board meeting of Friends House Moscow. Here's just a sample of the highlights:

• Conscription counseling and alternatives to military service: We continue to support these ministries that help people understand and assert their rights under the law. We agreed that providing these services to conscripts does not contradict our peace testimony.
• Alternatives to Violence Project: We empowered staff to ensure that programs in Russia operate within the generally accepted AVP norms. We appreciated the work of AVP in Ukraine in establishing itself in three new cities.
• Families and children: From the city of Dzherzhinsk, we received encouraging reports of programs that have been helping families in crisis, and increasing interagency coordination for families.
• Ukraine: Two Friends visited our board meeting with fresh information and impressions of the conflict in Ukraine. One Friend made this hopeful point: the real news is the quiet growth of grassroots-level aid to displaced people and victims of violence, though this news is hardly ever reported. The other Friend referred to direct contacts between officers of opposing forces who seek ways to avoid violence even when politicians seem unable to do likewise.



Link to download page.

• Friends' publications in Russian: Valiant Friend, Margaret Hope Bacon's biography of Lucretia Mott, has been published in Russian in the form of a high-quality e-book. Many thanks to Steve Ushioda and Mark Parker Miller at Scribe Inc. for contributing e-book creation and design services!
• ... and online access: The redesigned quakers.ru Web site has taken off in a big way: on this constantly refreshed site, pageviews have gone from an average of nine visitors a day (reading 13 pages) before the relaunch to a current average of 44 visitors a day (reading 116 pages).

Are you in England this month? Places are still available for the Woodbrooke course "Russian Adventures: Russians, Quakers and Civil Society." Several staff and board members are organizers and presenters for this program.

---

As promised last week, here are a few words about the panel program on Islamophobia in which I participated last week. I'm still not sure why I was invited to participate, but maybe it was my years with Friends United Meeting. During those years, I helped oversee the Ramallah Friends Schools, who have a 145-year history of educational collaboration among Christians and Muslims.

My personal priority was to emphasize at least these three things:

Amazon.com link

• Islamophobia is, at least in the USA context, just another form of xenophobia. As with all of xenophobia's other manifestations over the years, it depends on people not seeing the whole picture (how many countries have so-called Islamic states bombed and invaded, in comparison with states traditionally associated with Christianity?), and it is often a tool for politicians who find it expedient to scare the electorate.
• Islam, in my experience of long conversations with Muslim people over many years, is actually centered upon the very same God, Creator of the universe, whom Christians revere. For thinking this through systematically, I was grateful to be able to draw on Miroslav Volf's fascinating book Allah: A Christian Response. Volf's exercise in "political theology" leads the reader systematically through the issues involved with a "sufficiently close" identification of God in the two religions, as well as the place of the Trinity, of love and the character of God, and of discipleship, in forming our approach to Islam. In any case, praying with Islamic people is neither a betrayal of Christianity nor an evasion of our evangelistic obligations.
• It is not Christians' responsibility to tell Muslims what is or is not normative Islam. Nor should we base our response to Islam as a whole on the actions of specific people bearing that label (just as we hope the world does not condemn Christians based on the Ku Klux Klan or, for that matter, the foreign policy of countries often associated with Christendom). We cannot control anyone but ourselves, and our self-control is based on discipleship, not fear.

Whether I succeeded in conveying any of this to our Russian-speaking audience is for others to judge.

---

"And this is where Catholic chutzpah comes in": "The Vatican synod was about the meaning of church." (Plus Anglican reflections from Rome.)

Obama: "If America is to recognize
the referendum results, it must
be conducted throughout Ukraine."
Putin, with a cryptic smile:
"If you insist."

"Cycles of Renewal": "We need a new kind of 'Quaker renaissance' today."

Now you can watch the classic film Stalker online. About ten years ago, a Russian Orthodox priest told me that he became a Christian as a result of watching this film.

Jim Forest observes the fiftieth anniversary of a peace retreat with Thomas Merton: "Lord, that I might see."

Chas W. Freeman, "The Collapse of Order in the Middle East." "... Core issue in U.S. policies in the Middle East: the moral hazard inherent in U.S. unilateralism."

"In a [U.S./Russian] 'political divorce' education exchanges are hurt."

Finally, is this article about "Vladimir Putin's black hole of fear" insightful or incendiary? (See photo at right, found on a refrigerator here in Elektrostal.)

---

Reaching back to 1970, shortly after I became aware of the great Albert King...

Resisting the mystique of evil

Signe Wilkinson; source. 

I'm not sure what is more disheartening--the beheadings videotaped and published by Islamic State, or the utterly predictable responses from world leaders. Yes, there is palpable evil in the premeditated cruelty of those shocking videos, but here's my question: is the effect magnified by the demonstrative shaking of fists by public figures? What might be a more adequate response from believers?

I watched one of the videos from beginning to end, and haven't yet recovered. After a few moments of stunned silence, I flashed back to a piece of film footage from Viet Nam, a few seconds captured by an NBC cameraman when the national police chief of South Viet Nam summarily executed a Viet Cong prisoner during the Tet offensive. The clip was included in the documentary film Hearts and Minds, which I saw as a college student in Canada--and brand-new Christian--in 1975. Those images, too, still remain with me.

Unlike the Islamic State beheadings, the Saigon execution may not have been staged for video. Part of its raw horror was the way the shooting seemed so unexpected, so casual. On the other hand, its inclusion in Hearts and Minds was a deliberate choice. This moment of total ruthlessness drives home the clash of values implied by the film's ironic title. It shocks for a purpose.

Islamic State's video propagandists are also trying to shock us for a purpose. In fact, these crimes really should shock us if we are to hold on to our humanity, our capacity for empathy. In other words, we are absolutely right to recoil with horror--but not with fear. We ought to go on to pray for the victims, their families, and all those who are in IS's captivity. Our prayers also need to extend to the murderers and their commanders. Having unleashed the demons of cruelty so far and wide, they're all in grave danger of becoming spiritual zombies themselves.

But please deny them the pleasure of casting a spell of evil over us. Their victims die only once, the same as all the rest of us, including all innocent victims of all wars, and including the tragic "collateral damage" of political and military miscalculations. Above all, let's not permit the righteous rhetoric of our politicians keep us from seeing how their own actions, financed by our taxes and abetted by our passivity, can incubate such hatred. The cycles of grievance and revenge that feed terrorist groups such as Islamic State could never ever excuse such cruelty, but those cycles are nevertheless a powerful spiritual reality demanding to be confronted with prayer and discernment and bold truth-telling.

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. (Ephesians 6:11-18a; context.)

---

Additional reading: Owen Jones, "Isis is turning us all into its recruiting sergeants."

Also, "Why You Need More Muslim Friends." "Dear Christian, Please Sincerely Love All Muslims."

---

"Conversations that could change your life." Friends Summit 2014.

Food for thought for Friends in leadership positions: "Is discernment a bureaucratic or a brotherly-sisterly process for Mennonite Church USA?"

Show Me The Money Department: "Norway unveils amazing art designs for new banknotes." And while we're in Norway, "A look at the married couples who have won Nobels."

"Facebook Weighs In on the Ukraine-Russia Takedown Dispute."

And the final link for today: A Christianity Today reviewer leaves you in no doubt about his opinion of the film Left Behind. Teaser:

What’s a bad thing is that Hollywood producers now know that American Christians feel that way about their faith—that Christians so desperately want to participate in the mainstream, that they’re tired of having sanctioned music that’s like other music and movies like other movies and politicians like other politicians but always still being on the outside, that Christians just want to feel identified without having to carve out little alcoves or niche markets that exist alongside the Big Boys. And, now that they know it—that is, now that they know they can make back 5x their initial financial investment—they want to exploit that, by pumping out garbage (not moral garbage, just quality garbage), slapping the “Christian” label on it, and watching the dollars pour in.

---

Freddie King and his signature song:

Americans! Can we please stop feeling sorry for ourselves?

Lots of sober commentary has already been devoted to the Muslim community center planned for the Ground Zero neighborhood in Manhattan, and specifically to the fake outrage directed against the project. I won't add much more, but, honestly, I'm sad and embarrassed and more than a little angry. From my vantage point in Eastern Europe (Klaipeda, Lithuania, at the moment), we Americans end up looking like a bunch of crybabies. The anti-community center activists cite the feelings of 9/11 victims (treated as a monolithic block, of course) while completely ignoring the feelings of a planetful of Muslim observers, not to mention anyone who admires American pluralism, or cherishes freedom of religion, the U.S. Bill of Rights, or other values that used to be considered worth dying for.

On the bus between Riga and Klaipeda I watched with disbelief a recorded NBC Nightly News broadcast. Reporting on the second day of President Obama's two successive days of comments on the community center, Mike Viqueira could not simply convey what the president said, but had to crank up the drama; whereas the president had commented accurately on his previous day's comments, the NBC correspondent delivered the echo-chamber analysis: "The president appeared to backtrack...." I had interpreted the second-day comment as an even more emphatic defense of First Amendment rights. Obama simply, and correctly, said that he had never specifically advocated that location, just the right to use it.

A few moments later in the broadcast, NBC's political commentator John Harwood, responding to the anchor's question about whether Obama's follow-up represented "damage control," said, "Certainly there's no political upside for the president in this...." There's no "political upside" in a public defense of a religion's right to build its facilities in any legal location?? CERTAINLY?

There is absolutely no political or civic "upside" in allowing the campaign of fake outrage to subvert due process and prevent the building of the community center. But it would be consistent with a pattern that was described in Tom Engelhardt's important book, The End of Victory Culture, a pattern embedded in American history that encourages us Americans to see ourselves as victims of ambush who are thereby entitled to strike out at the bad guys with righteous retribution--with violence, either rhetorical or actual.

My suggested guidelines for post-9/11 mental health:

1. Americans: grieve for those who died on 9/11/2001, including the dozens of Muslims who died. Arrange for a dignified and respectful monument. Your grief deserves respect but does not trump the the rights of others, nor should it become the center of a new cult of national self-pity.

2. Do you desire justice for the 9/11 culprits? Then find the guilty and their organization. Do not seek emotional satisfaction by indulging in guilt by association. Punishment without due process is not the American way.

3. Don't tell other people what their wisest course of action would be. Mind your own wisdom for a change.

4. Do you imagine that you are in a confrontation with another religious community? Then fight fair. Compare your community's best with their community's best. (I know, it's a lot more fun to compare your best with their worst, and many of your own most unsavory allies will cheer you on. But consider that your so-called enemies can play that exact same game, and in the ensuing struggle you will sabotage your own side's attractiveness, its moral authority, even its global outreach. Speaking for myself and many other Christians serving cross-culturally, thanks a lot!)

5. If you don't want to go to a Muslim-sponsored cultural center in Lower Manhattan, feel free to go somewhere else. As for myself, I look forward to visiting.

---

A "roundtable discussion" of the Muslim cultural center controversy. '...There isn’t such a thing as the sensitivities of 9/11 families. There are a lot of different 9/11 families, and there are not only 9/11 families who lost directly people, but there are 9/11 families who were forced out of their homes for years in the neighborhood. So, what do we mean by the "the feelings of 9/11 families"? These are abstractions used to actually stoke fear in the country.'

More on the controversy: look for some interesting reality checks revealing its artificiality in this article by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz.

The "fear tax."

On a subject very close to my heart: "In search of a new framework for evangelism and mission." Teaser: 'Because of our theology and practice the Quaker perspective on mission has always been an alternative response to the more general "winning souls mentality" it is far more holistic and operates out of a conviction that God is already at work in our world, it is our job as the church not to bring God to the heathens but to find where God is already at work and participate in that work, call that work out, name it, and support it.'

New England Yearly Meeting's ends its jubilee-year sessions with a minute of sending forth/commission.

"On sacred ground"--'As the mother tenderly helped her daughter out of the stroller, my eye fell for the first time on the handwritten cardboard sign that the girl had been carrying. “I miss my dad,” it read. “He was deported.”'

"Dancing in the streets" of Moscow?

The LOLcat Bible.

---

Don't need to read politics into this song...unless you insist :))) "Nobody's Fault But Mine."

"Quakers believe that..."

--or, "Who owns the Quaker brand?"

Source.  

I was looking at a news photo showing the arrest of artist/activist Pyotr Verzilov as he attempted to disrupt the Moscow trial of two artists accused of religious incitement. On the left side of the photo is a man holding a cross and wearing a shirt that, at the top, says "Orthodoxy or death."

The photo is heavy with ironies, but no serious and sympathetic observer would charge Russian Orthodoxy as a whole with approving the slogan on that shirt. The current Patriarch's predecessor, the late Aleksii II, did his best to confront anti-semitism and extreme nationalism in his church, but it's obvious that they persist.

If a hierarchical structure such as the Moscow Patriarchate cannot enforce a coherent presentation of Jesus's loving and reconciling gospel, what chance do we Friends have? (Not that any group of Quakers I know is printing t-shirts asserting "Quakers or death"!)

On the one hand, many Friends in Britain Yearly Meeting are pleased at the publicity they've earned as the first prominent British denomination to celebrate same-sex marriages. In Britain, many Friends describe themselves as non-Christian or post-Christian, and the yearly meeting as a whole requires no explicit Christian commitment for membership. "In fact, you don't actually have to believe in God to be a Quaker."

On the other hand, most members of the worldwide Quaker family would not recognize themselves in a British description of Friends. For us, a Christian commitment is absolutely central to Quaker identity; in fact, to many of us, the word "Quaker" simply stands for a set of teachings, practices, and historical experiences of Christian discipleship. Our movement began as an intensification of--not a relativization of--Christianity. We confronted nominal Christendom with the challenge, with huge theological and political ramifications, that "Christ has come to teach his people himself." Ever since then, we gather at least weekly to wait on the Holy Spirit to keep that promise, and we try to work out its implications in our daily lives.

Those who approve post-Christian redefinitions of Friends sometimes argue that early Friends didn't know better than to use Christian language for their insights and mystical experiences, since Christian references were all that was available to them. This is historically inaccurate; it insufficiently accounts for their prophetic stance against much of the church establishment of their time; and it seems to rule out the logical possibility that their teachings and insights were nevertheless valid!

Besides, why would one want to belong to a movement founded by people whose passionate and often counter-cultural proclamations were apparently embarrassingly inadequate and limited by their narrow horizons? Is it possible that the pervasive skepticism and post-Christian assertions of much of modern liberal Quakerism reflect today's limited horizons, namely the prevailing orthodoxies of their larger social sphere?

All of us, of course, could probably stand to ask ourselves occasionally how much of our religious behavior is influenced by our need for the approval of those around us. (I seem to remember John Punshon writing somewhere that his Christian conversion cost him twenty years of liberal cool.) To be honest, if we evangelical Quakers are ever asked about what happened to our prophetic voice--that which made us so obnoxious to the religious and political powers of our founding era--we'd have a lot to answer for. Friends in many parts of the world have settled for what's respectable, what's acceptable. Is it a coincidence that evangelical Friends flourish where the wider social context allows middle-class people to be evangelical, and liberal Friends flourish in pervasively secular contexts? (Honest question: is this a valid correlation?)

It was precisely in our most evangelistic era that our witness for the equality of men and women in spiritual leadership, and our refusal to participate in war, was most costly. Now, to risk a generalization, liberal Friends use these distinctives to show how wonderful we are, and too many evangelical Friends neglect these dimensions of Jesus-centered discipleship--but in either case, there's not much in the way of sacrifice.

The question of wanting others' approval becomes especially acute when we're dealing with wounded people (which probably means most of us). As I've said before, when we become codependent to wounded people, seeking their approval rather than their healing, those people end up exercising emotional veto power over us. Can't say anything that might offend them!!

The radical hospitality implied by Jesus coming to teach his people himself also requires us to confront our temperamental biases. What right do some Friends have to drive away anyone who is ready to make a strong and enthusiastic commitment to the living God, rather than only a nuanced and conditional commitment to personal exploration? Elitism, unconfronted, guarantees our permanent marginalization.

I'm going to come out and say it: Quakerism without Jesus at the very center is a tangent. However, to those who don't agree with me, I want to say a bit more: I know in the world as it really is, even with our preponderance of numbers we evangelicals don't own the Quaker brand. Furthermore, we need your ethical zeal. In this world of spiritual, political, and social bondage, there is a lot we can do together without compromising what we know to be true. And to my evangelical brothers and sisters: an evangelical faith that simply aims to please the wider evangelical establishment is, well, not necessarily Jesus-centered either!

---

A related post: on worship seeking more understanding (and on confronting my inner curmudgeon).

---

Write to me for the original poster in PDF format. (Thanks, Debbie Headley.)

---

Righteous links:

(Russian) Interfax-Religion: Over 80% of alternative-service conscientious objectors base their service on religious grounds.

Most of the young conscripts who stated a preference for alternative civilian service, say that did this for religious reasons.

80% of these alternative-service conscripts were assigned for religious reasons; about 3% because they belonged to indigenous peoples; and the rest had other reasons, Alexei Vovchenko, deputy head of the Federal Service for Labour and Employment, said Wednesday in a statement distributed at an Interfax press conference.

More on faith and social context: Pew Research Center documents "Widespread support for banning full Islamic veil in Western Europe." I was intrigued that, in this survey, Americans don't line up with the European majorities supporting the ban. What prior experiences in the USA might have predisposed us this way?

Jurist: Kyrgyzstan establishes commission to probe ethnic violence.

A Musing Environment has a question for you: Whom do you trust on climate change?

Another brand identity puzzle: who defines Islam? Max Carter says, "Don't define Muslims by the violent actions of a few." However, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite explains "Why telling Muslims what they believe is a bad idea." Finally, a repost of a link to a useful PDF-format article, "Getting Real about Christian-Muslim Dialogue."

"The Inseparable Bond of Technology and Mission."

---

More from Grace Potter. "Nothing But the Water."

... "I have fallen so many times for Satan's sweet cunning rhymes..."

September 11 to-do list

I continue to be grateful for the miles separating us from the election campaign in the USA. In previous election years, I was practically glued to the media for each day's fix of news, commentaries, polls, predictions, debates, gaffes, and spins. Here, where we have no television and no daily newspaper, and daytime Internet is rationed (4 rubles per megabyte), it's like hearing the neighbors argue through a thick wall--sometimes only some fragmentary phrases come through: "small-town values," "lipstick on a pig," and other clues that I hope are not actual indications of the quality and depth of the election campaign.

One of the things I most hope not to hear is how the campaigns exploit the anniversary of September 11, 2001. I won't write much about the day itself--see earlier posts: How the Grinch stole 9/11, Evil and Islamofascism, and The Quaker voice. I'll just say I doubt either campaign will address head-on the betrayal of American ideals and values represented by the self-righteous vindictiveness of our present administration's initial and ongoing responses to that unfolding tragedy. I say "unfolding" because the victims of 9/11 and the subsequent retribution are still dying, still being imperfectly counted, and (if not American) still considered practically irrelevant.

In the meantime, to my frustration, the spiritual and ideological challenge represented by 9/11 remains unanswered. On the subject of violent self-described Islamic movements, what does American leadership say to the world, INCLUDING to those movements' future recruits? We have spent countless billions on lethal solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. (Who believes that we can continue indefinitely to pour fabulous amounts of money into Iraq, way beyond the feverish dreams of any pork-barrel-addicted U.S. state? And, on the other hand, who believes that post-occupation Iraq will be a stable model democracy, an American success story for regional reform?)

And what do we American citizens say to such movements? For example, Christian citizens? Here's a list to start with. What should be added, what should be deleted?:

• Despite our national behavior, we know that God loves you and your children every bit as much as God loves us and our children.
• We do not believe that human rights, and even U.S. constitutional rights, are only for citizens of the USA, despite the contrary actions of our country.
• We believe that Israeli and Palestinian claims for land and other regional grievances must be addressed evenhandedly.
• We agree that U.S. forces should not be deployed in your holy places.
• We dispute any theology that encourages suicide attacks by promising eternal blessings. We urgently warn those brave souls who consider such inducements that we believe God never blesses either murder nor its inciters.
• If you and your country bear grievances against our country or our faith, you will be heard and answered courteously. When you threaten us with death if we do not conform to your wishes, you will also be heard, but hear us as well: we are utterly unpersuaded by threats. Violence and threats will be met with all lawful international resources of our criminal justice systems. (We will, however, also demand that our nation never again confuse police work with war.)
• Much of our culture may be scandalous to your sensibilities, but all faiths and cultures face dilemmas of individual expression vs social cohesion, and resolve those dilemmas differently. Denunciations, violent threats, and outright violence are arguably as disruptive to God's purposes as Western vulgarity and social experimentation--or, we would argue, even more disruptive.
• When you accuse us of blasphemy or hypocrisy, you may or may not be right. How do you know for certain? Are these sins unknown among you? We invite you to help us set mutually agreeable terms for a respectful conversation.
• We do not threaten Christian converts to Islam with death. Do not threaten Islamic converts to Christianity with death, and challenge those who do. There is only one God, who is sovereignly capable of sorting it all out in eternity.

---

On a related subject, here's a Sightings column by Melissa Conroy, "Examining Hateful Words and Images: The Case of Towelhead."

---

If I were living in the superheated electoral environment where some of my dear correspondents live, I'd be posting this Gail Collins column on my bathroom mirror, along with a nice paper bag.

---

Read about Margaret Benefiel's new book, The Soul of a Leader, here. (Margaret will be at Reedwood Friends Church on October 5.)

---

Today we visited a public school in Elektrostal, and were given the warmest possible welcome by the head of school and the English department. As the head told us about her belief that American visitors would help the children become more aware of the world and of the importance of mutual understanding, she asked whether we truly believed that Russia was uniquely guilty in the recent South Ossetian conflict. We assured her that we understood the situation was far more complex than a simple hero/villain situation.

---

By the way, we were introduced to the school by Liz Sugden Seume, who taught there last year and who's visiting in town for a week from her new home in Celle, Germany. Patrick Neifert is here, too--he's arranging shipment of household goods to the Neiferts' new home in Israel. Their presence gives us a partial reunion of the little Northwest Yearly Meeting community of last fall here in Elektrostal. We're also enjoying Liz's great photo album of her marriage to Karl Seume last July. (To see some of those pictures, befriend Liz on Facebook.)

---

Three more Georgia/Russia links: "No, we are not all Georgians." "The Bush administration checkmated in Georgia." "The church's role in the Georgia-Russia conflict."

---

An announcement from Howlin' Wolf, backed up by Willie Dixon, Hubert Sumlin, Clifton James, Sunnyland Slim: "The number that's going out now, friends, is 'Smokestack Lightning' ...."