Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

11 September 2025

"Is grief my default setting?"

Source.  

Wikipedia tells me that the novel I've just finished reading, "Will and Testament (Norwegian: Arv og miljø) is an absurdist fiction novel written by Norwegian author Vigdis Hjorth."

I was about to protest the word "absurdist"—the novel captivated me with its crystalline realism—but then I clicked on the link to the entry on absurdist fiction, and I forgave Wikipedia, although I still resist any implication of meaninglessness.

As much as I would like to recommend this novel without spoilers, it's important to reveal that emerging memories of incestuous rape are part of its story and its energy. 

As the narrative starts, the three sisters and a brother grapple with family conflict over an apparently unfair division of their inheritance. The stakes get higher when their mother overdoses, and later, when their father has a fatal accident.

 (But was that division of the inheritance truly unfair or isn't it?—even the central character, daughter Bergljot, wants justice but not to be bribed for her silence or forced to reconcile with a family that doesn't believe her.)

Once that basic conflict over the inheritance (and the alienation Bergljot persistently defends) had fully engaged me, several constant features of Hjorth's writing kept pulling me deeper in. Some of them touched on my own experiences, and some echoed my family history.

The first element is obsessive repetition, Bergljot's need to keep returning to her wounds, grievances, arguments, suspicions, self-doubts, self-justifications, over and over.

I thought to myself, don't I too lose sleep rehearsing what unfair thing had happened to me, and what I would say when I got my day in court, so to speak, and what chances were there that anyone would believe or even hear me?

As Bergljot tries to cope with all these personal uncertainties (including a mother who seems to attempt suicide as a way of punishing the alienated daughter), her feverish prose reflects her stress:

I existed in a trance of fear, of loss, it was fog and confusion, I did the laundry. It felt like I was drowning in laundry, I hated doing the laundry, back when my life was normal, that is to say numb, I used to regard it as the dullest, most exhausting chore, having to do the never-ending laundry. The contents of the laundry basket and the mountains of clothes lying next to the overflowing laundry basket, the heavy bedsheets and duvet covers and tablecloths as well as curtains, piles of underpants and socks and dirty tea towels, I would curse all that laundry back when my life had been simple and undramatic. If it hadn’t been for all that laundry, I used to think back then, then I would have been more content, I would have been able to read the books I ought to read and longed to read, but rather than read them, I was forced to start yet another load of washing and when that was finished, I had to hang up the heavy, unmanageable sheets to dry, and it would rain or it would be winter so I had to drape them over doors and chairs because the clothes horses were too small and already covered with socks and pants and shirts and tops, I cursed the laundry. But now that my world had imploded and I was raging and grieving, it was the laundry that kept me going, the time it took to do the laundry and hang it up and when it was finally dry, to fold it, put it away in the cupboards when the children were asleep at night, and then fall asleep myself knowing the laundry had been done and dried and folded and was ready, clean and waiting in the cupboards, I’m surviving on laundry, I thought to myself.

She looks for comfort in marriage and affairs, but mostly in alcohol. Over and over, she retreats into the fog of glass after glass of beer or red wine. Her stresses leak into her dreams, and she turns to psychotherapy.

Four times a week I lay on the couch talking in turns about pain, shame and the minutiae of everyday life, and every now and then we would suddenly experience a breakthrough. I dreamt that I picked up a hitchhiker who was going to Drøbak, as was I. Then I took a wrong turn, I went off the main road to Drøbak, I got lost and couldn’t find my way back to the main road, and I felt guilty on account of the hitchhiker who was inconvenienced by my uselessness and would be late getting to Drøbak. Then I thought I saw the main road, the lights from the main road; if I drove under the garage door in front of me, I would get back on it. I had accelerated to drive under the garage door when it started to close, I stepped on the gas to get through before it closed completely, but didn’t make it, it came down too quickly and it slammed into the car, we were startled and shocked, but at least we were alive, the hitchhiker ashen-faced and with his trouser pockets turned out and the car a complete write-off. Then Mum showed up and said in her usual cheerful manner that it could probably be fixed, although everyone could see that was impossible. Then I spotted a five-øre coin on the road and bent down to pick it up because finding money brings good luck, and I told myself by way of consolation that it might turn out to be my lucky day after all. I picked it up only to discover that it was just a button.

A five-year-old? he asked. 

No, a five-øre coin, I said. 

You said a five-year-old, he said. 

I meant a five-øre coin, I said, and repeated my dream: When the garage door came down, it felt as if I was crushed.

Almost as crushed as a five-year-old, he said, and I felt an electric shock go through me.

As I read her recounting this dream to her therapist, I absolutely recognized having had similar dreams about my life and my parents. As for the role alcohol played in my family, I don't even want to start.

Bergljot is a dramatic arts magazine editor and theater critic, so it is not surprising that writers and poets are mentioned and quoted: In the midst of crisis, she goes to see Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt, for example, in an intriguing updated staging. The Danish writer and poet Tove Ditlevsen, and the Norwegian poet Rolf Jacobsen, also flash by several times.

Bergljot demands that her family believe her account of her father's crimes. After all, if she made up all these public charges, she would be a monster, in which case why is everyone demanding that she return to the family? This endless loop of contradictions doesn't get resolved in the novel, leaving us readers to ponder what a resolution might look like—in Bergljot's life and in yours and mine. At the end, just a reminder: trauma is intergenerational, and children have questions of their own.

Have I always been grieving? Is grief my default setting? And is it only the emotional side of my grief that has lessened? Deep down have I always been sad? Only when I’m calm, when I’m alone, when I work intensely, is my sadness less painful. That’s why I’m calm, that’s why I work so hard, that’s why I’m alone.

...

 ... Every war ever fought on this earth has proved that you can’t ignore history, sweep it under the carpet, and that if you want to reduce history’s destructive impact on the future, everyone’s version of what happened must be brought out into the open and acknowledged.


Suddenly – in December

Suddenly – In December. I stand knee-deep in snow
Talk to you and get no answer. You’re keeping quiet.
My love, now it’s happened after all. Our whole life,
the smiles, the tears and the courage. Your sewing machine
and the long nights of work. Finally our travels:
   – under the snow. Under the wreath of cedar.

It all went so fast. Two staring eyes. Words
I couldn’t catch, that you said over and over.
And suddenly nothing more. You slept.
– And now they’re all lying here, days and summer nights,
the grapes in Valladolid, the sunsets in Nemea
   – under the snow. Under the wreath of cedar.

Quick as a switch flicking off,
the tracings behind the eye flash out,
wiped from the slate of a life-span. Or maybe not?
Your new dress, my face and our old stairs
and everything you brought to this house. Is it gone
   – under the snow. Under the wreath of cedar?

Dear friend, where is our happiness now,
your good hands, your young smile,
your hair’s wreath of light on your forehead and that
girlish glint in your eye, your spirit and
steady abundance of life and hope?
   – under the snow. Under the wreath of cedar.

Companion beyond death. Take me down with you.
Side by side, let us see the unknown.
It’s so desolate here and the hour is getting dark.
The words are few now and no one’s listening anymore.
Dearest, you who are sleeping. Eurydice.
   – under the snow. Under the wreath of cedar.

Rolf Jacobsen (this poem was partially quoted in Will and Testament). Translation by Roger Greenwald, published in Did I Know You? Selected Poems.


Vigdis Hjorth's novel, with its elements drawn from her own life, became controversial in Norway when her own family members objected to the publication of these supposed family revelations. For more on this aspect of the novel, see the reviews by Holly Williams in the Observer, and by Lara Feigel in the Guardian.

Tim Adams interviews Vigdis Hjorth.

Natasha Sholl on writing people you know.

I'm very interested in the ethics of disclosure of family secrets in autobiographical writing. I've been fairly open about my own experiences on this blog, in part to make up for an incident I've probably told before. One day after a particularly painful beating the previous evening that I'd received for some undoubted mischief on my part, I ran into a neighbor on our apartment building's stairs. What was all that shrieking and crying that was coming from your apartment last night? she asked. Without missing a beat, I answered that we must have had the television on too loud.


In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's unjustifiable and tragic death yesterday in Orem, Utah, in the online world we're often being presented with a menu of two choices for our response. Kirk is a worthy martyr, ultimate victim of leftist cancel culture, or he was a fascist fanatic and a Christian heretic. I appreciated this calm appraisal. I can grieve his loss and pray for his family and friends while continuing to reject his theology and its political enmeshments.

Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum (Foreign Affairs) on "The Logic Behind Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State."

Ungoverning also dissolves the branches of government and unifies the separation of powers into a single office—or more accurately, a single person. It is not about creating what some constitutional scholars call a “unitary presidency”: an executive branch that responds to the president’s directives. It is about creating a strongman. This motivation explains Trump’s reliance on executive orders, which signal not only policy shifts but also the necessity of personal command. As Trump once put it, 'I alone can fix it.'

...

In his desire to weaken the state and rebuild it around him, he has made chaos the new standard. The range of future possibilities for Washington is thus wide. It is reasonable to wonder whether there will even be a regular presidential election in 2028. Trump, after all, has flirted with the idea of seeking a third term; his official store sells 'Trump 2028' hats. The worst-case scenarios seem more plausible than ever before.

Philip Gulley on good goodbyes. (На русском языке.)

On 9/11, we remember that war does not work. (From the Daily Quaker Message, which again I highly recommend.)


Rick Holmstrom, "Lucinda."

04 September 2025

First principles 3.0?

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

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

Two days ago, I had a chance to hear Howard Macy read his draft chapter on "Blessing Enemies" from his forthcoming book with the working title Living to Bless. This chapter of his book is based on Matthew 5:43-48, but not only: Howard traces the "love your enemies" theme throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible.

Howard's full chapter is a compelling lesson in why and how we bless our enemies, while not denying the dangers they may pose. Here's the challenge for me: its teachings can be applied to our fractured world this very day, if we're willing. 

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

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

In Howard's words,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.


Related:

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

Margaret Sullivan: Two can play at that game.

Regarding, part four: Closer to home.

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

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

Matthew 5:6-7

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

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.


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

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

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

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

Yair Rosenberg on the MAGA influencers rehabilitating Hitler.

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

Nancy Thomas thought about simplicity and integrity while shredding paper.


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

21 August 2025

More occupation shorts

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement-branded GMC SUV, left, and an ICE-branded Ford pickup are parked at the Capitol on Aug. 13. [Note the "DEFEND THE HOMELAND" tagline.] (Andrew Leyden/Getty Images via Washington Post; trimmed.)

I'm sure you have more and better sources than this blog to keep up with the chronicle of malice, corruption, and ineptitude that is the USA's current presidential administration. But every once in a while, I want to note, for the record, how utterly bizarre it all is. And it's not just bizarre exhibitionism—you already know that real people are in constant danger, whether they are immigrants and children of immigrants, or targets of Russian guided bombs and drones, or in need of food, health care, shelter, and a safe environment. I'm not even counting those who had once experienced American care through USAID before being cut off by MAGA fiat.


For me, today's trigger (not the most serious piece of news, but maybe the most ... spiritually symptomatic?) ... was this article in the Washington Post, concerning an urgent government purchase:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to spend millions of dollars on SUVs and custom, gold-detailed vehicle wraps emblazoned with the words “DEFEND THE HOMELAND,” according to a contractor’s social media post and records that describe the decked-out fleet as urgently needed in President Donald Trump’s stated mission to improve safety on the streets of the District.

Screenshot from a Homeland Security video on X.

As the article notes, these purchases and decoration orders are not being made through competitive bids. But what really triggered my "occupation" nerves was the following detail. In addition to the vehicles for use in D.C., some specific purchases were made to enhance the image of ICE for recruitment purposes. Here's a quote from the end of the article:

The vehicles the agency proposed purchasing include two Ford Raptors, two GMC Yukon AT4s and two Ford Mustang GTs. ICE wrote in the documents that the Mustangs were “an immediate request by the White House, on Thursday August 7, 2025.” The Mustangs — which are set to cost $121,450 — will aid in recruitment “by serving as a bold, high-performance symbol of innovation, strength and modern federal service,” the documents say.

It all reminded me of the connections Kristin Du Mez has been making for years. For example:

My own research on masculinity focuses on just one facet of the evangelical worldview—but a foundational one. In many ways, gender provides the glue that holds together their larger ideological framework. For years I’ve been tracing evangelicals’ embrace of increasingly militaristic constructions of masculinity, which go hand in hand with visions of the nation as vulnerable and in need of defense.

Earlier this year, I wrote a couple of posts about the Christian movement that is animating much of MAGA leadership: Are we agents of Lucifer? and Enthusiasm and politics.

Given the depth of religious enthusiasm displayed by these apostles and prophets, I can't help wondering whether they pray for the people they're arresting, deporting, and rendering with wild abandon. I tried putting variously worded questions to Google, along the lines of "Do dominionists pray for the people they arrest?" " Do MAGA Christians pray for immigrants?" Google's AI provides the vaguest of answers, mostly "it depends," with no examples.

I used the specific name of Sean Feucht with one of these questions, and found his prayer for Los Angeles on Facebook, with a fascinating string of comments. One specific prayer struck me right away, but it wasn't Sean's:

We pray God that your mercy comes upon those suffering from massive deportation and family separation, even though they have done nothing deserving of deportation. May your grace touch the hearts of those encouraging hate against immigrants, and turn them into a loving and caring heart....

Google also told me that Feucht has worked on behalf of refugees in the past, so this evident militancy may be part of his more recent MAGA profile.

Signe Wilkinson.

In any case, "What does the Bible say about refugees and immigrants?" The Bible makes no distinction based on what documents the immigrant is holding, but just in case that is the issue, the awkward truth is that Congress has been resisting immigration reform and providing adequate judicial resources for immigrants and asylum seekers for years—not just under Trump.

(One specific border-crossing incident in the Bible fascinates me: the visit of the three wise men to the baby Jesus. See Matthew 2:1-12. They came from abroad to follow the star to Bethlehem, and then defied King Herod by returning home without reporting to him.)

Finally, our Christian MAGA politicians should take note that many (most?) of those being arrested, deported, or rendered may be their Christian brothers and sisters. N.B. When Christians abuse power and mistreat non-Christians, it is just as awful as mistreatment of Christians! Maybe worse, since its gleeful and gratuitous cruelty compromises the reputation of the Gospel. Be warned!

See John Woolman's Journal, page 128. (Click link to chapter XII in table of contents.)


Under occupation

Occupation shorts

Occupation: Myrtle Wright's experience


Christian refugees caught in the crosshairs of U.S. immigration policy.

Litigation Tracker. When I mentioned this resource back in February, it was tracking 37 cases against Trump administration actions. Now it's tracking 381.

Judge Fred Biery rules against the Texas Ten Commandments law. (A side note: why aren't these Christian activists campaigning for the Beatitudes? Is it their deep interfaith sensitivity?)


Is there a religious resurgence among members of Gen Z? Data may actually show a growing divergence between men and women.

George Orwell's son writes about his parents' collaboration on Animal Farm, and on why they had a hard time finding a publisher. (Anna Funder's fascinating book Wifedom: Mrs. Orwell's Invisible Life may add some less flattering details to the picture of Orwell as husband and collaborator.)

What a small church in North Carolina did with its real estate, to the possible benefit of affordable housing in its area.

Nancy Thomas remembers an extraordinary, even life-shaping, vision.


Kid Ramos with two late greats, Henry Gray and Lynwood Slim.

14 August 2025

"The moral case for harming civilians is always dubious..."

... even when such violence serves a strategic purpose. When that strategic purpose does not exist, however, the moral case evaporates altogether. Israel now finds itself in a morally untenable situation. Rather than incur the world’s growing wrath, increased economic pressure, and the greater likelihood of future violence, Israel must reverse course and pursue alternatives to its campaign of mass death in Gaza.

 —Robert A. Pape, "The Unparalleled Devastation of Gaza: Why Punishing Civilians Has Not Yielded Strategic Success." Foreign Affairs, August 7, 2025.

Robert Pape's article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. (It might almost be worth subscribing to Foreign Affairs for just this article, but I've seen consistently good argumentation in this periodical, even when I disagree.) Briefly, the author draws on his studies of previous wars that included mass destruction of civilian populations to conclude that, even setting morality aside (which he doesn't), such destruction rarely serves the claimed strategic goals.

Nagasaki before and after; source.
Gaza, July 17, 2025; source.


I thought to myself, "Robert Pape...why does that name sound familiar?" Here's why: I'd just come across a reference to his book, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, in an article that was very timely in a completely different way, because it referred to the bombing of Hiroshima 80 years ago this past week.

(A personal aside: I've written before on this blog about how the Grinch stole Hiroshima, so I don't intend to repeat those points here. But Judy and I just celebrated our 45th wedding anniversary, and, not by coincidence, our wedding took place on August 9, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki. Several of the guests at our wedding had been taking part in the annual Hiroshima-Nagasaki peace vigil in Boston. I now reflect that we were married on the 35th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and our latest wedding anniversary last week coincided with the 80th anniversary of that bombing. At the actual time of those bombings, my mother was a resident of Kobe, Japan.)

Pape's book was cited in an article by Graham Parsons on the Lawfare site, "The World Learned the Wrong Lesson from Hiroshima." Parsons takes on the arguments for the strategic usefulness of bombing civilian populations, in the face of the popularity of such arguments.

Teaching ethics at West Point for 13 years, I faced this view on a daily basis. Many of my students assumed that ethics is a kind of luxury. It helps service members defend their actions to themselves and to others. But it doesn’t help them win. I remember one student concluding, “Just war theory is a great way to lose a war.”

Parsons refers to the USA's current secretary of defense Pete Hegseth as an extreme proponent of the utter irrelevance of ethics in warfare. So, in the context of the atomic bombings, "Hegseth has chosen his side in the conflict between strategy and morality that Hiroshima supposedly reveals."

Parsons continues,

But Hiroshima reveals no such conflict. Contrary to the conventional discourse, many historians have concluded that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not cause Japan to surrender.

...

What was most consequential in the eyes of Japanese authorities was not the vulnerability of the civilian population to U.S. bombs, but the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war against them. The Soviets surprised the Japanese by declaring war and invading Manchuria on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. The Japanese leadership, who knew that their war was unwinnable for some time, was hoping the Soviets would act as a neutral arbiter of negotiations between Japan and the U.S. so that Japan could end the war while avoiding unconditional surrender. When the Soviets declared war, that possibility was off the table and Japanese leaders saw no better option than unconditional surrender.

Honestly, I've never thought about the similarities between the atomic bombings of Japan and the rubbishing of the Gaza Strip. Whether we can draw a parallel between Japanese motives and those of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, I'm struck by a very telling similarity: the apparent assumption that the greatest possible amount of death and destruction serves any kind of defensible goal, even within the logic of warfare. Graham Parsons is right, we've not learned the lessons of Hiroshima, and we're certainly not applying them to today's daily slaughter of Palestinians.

Reality check: drawing from research published in The Lancet, Robert Pape writes,

In sum, the authors of the study suggested that Israel’s campaign has caused at least an additional 26,000 Palestinian deaths and perhaps over 120,000 additional deaths, with the true death toll possibly exceeding 186,000. Taking that into account, as of late July 2025, Israel’s war in Gaza has led to the deaths of between five to ten percent of the prewar population of about 2.2 million. This represents an unprecedented slaughter. Israel’s campaign in Gaza is the most lethal case of a Western democracy using the punishment of civilians as a tactic of war.

Present tense: yesterday's compiled "impact snapshot" from the Gaza Strip.

Omer Bartov: Genocide is the only term that fits.

Another case study of refusals to learn: Timothy Snyder on "Ultima Thule" in Anchorage, Alaska.

The 80th anniversary and Nagasaki's twin bells. (Also see my Nagasaki shorts post.)

While on the trail of my mother's life in Japan, we made a brief visit to Hiroshima.

The Friends Incubator for Public Ministry and Tom Hamm on John Woolman and the "ministry of making uncomfortable connections...."

Elderchaplain Greg Morgan and the unmet needs of caregivers.


The Bullet Blues Band, Dnipro, Ukraine. "Telephone Blues."

07 August 2025

"Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace"

William F. Buckley (Firing Line) interviews prominent atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, 1971. Screenshot from source. Also see "Firing Line Debate: Resolved: That We Need Not Fear the Religious Right," 1993.

The U.S. president, on February 6 of this year, ordered the creation of a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. The first two paragraphs of Section 1 of his order gave the legal underpinnings for this task force's mission, then went on to say, "Yet the previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses." The first impression left on me by this order is not the voice or reflection of Jesus; it is venom toward the previous administration, laced with false witness.

Aside from the merits, or lack of merits, of these cases of "targeting peaceful Christians," the most glaring problem with the president's decree is that anti-Christian bias is the only sort of bias to be "eradicated." There are no mentions of other faiths (except possibly in Section 3iii and 3iv, but even there, nothing explicit).

A first report from the Task Force was due no later than 120 days after the order, but I've seen nothing that purports to be this initial report on its work. Instead, the Justice Department organized a Task Force hearing on April 22, with three witnesses complaining about their treatment during the Biden administration. The Baptist News Web site summed it up: "‘Anti-Christian bias’ task force focuses solely on grievances of evangelicals." (More commentary on The Convocation Unscripted.)

With this background, you might forgive me for some initial skepticism about the more recent "Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace" memorandum issued by Scott Kupor, director of the U.S. federal government's Office of Personnel Management. Indeed, the first paragraph includes what seems nowadays to be an obligatory tribute to the president's leadership on the issue.

News coverage of the memorandum reflected this crediting of Donald Trump as the inspiration for the policy. (CNN headline: "Trump administration allows federal workers to promote religious beliefs.") However, beyond that nod, the memorandum seems moderate and defensible, and the examples of items that federal workers are allowed to wear or display go beyond specifically Christian symbolism. The guidance seems to protect faith expressions in general. It also places limits on those expressions: reserve work hours for actual work, and don't try to persuade anyone of your beliefs when they've asked you to stop. Also, "Title VII does not cover all beliefs. For example, social, political, or economic philosophies, and mere personal preferences, are not 'religious' beliefs within the meaning of the statute."

Wearing religious jewelry, having a Bible or rosary on your desk, or a religious poster on your wall, may seem a bit aggressive in a U.S. culture that privatizes religion and frequently treats it as some kind of inadequacy. However, whenever two human beings have business with each other and no prior ties, there are always risks involved, as well as (we hope) mutually beneficial rewards. It would seem like a sad—and impractical—accommodation to those risks if we end up expecting all public servants to adopt a bland exterior that reveals nothing of their individuality, personality, and values. What we can expect is that they treat us with the same fairness as the director of the Office of Personnel Management expects their co-workers and us to treat them.

Other familiar conflicts can arise when someone decides to take offense at a religious expression. I remember a U.S. Supreme Court case I wrote about here, Town of Greece v Galloway, where I agreed with the majority that the town was within its rights to allow religion-specific prayers at its legislative functions. But I had another priority as well. (Quoting myself!)...

But in any case, I think it is time to challenge the idea that being offended is, without evidence of actual coercion, a trump card in political discourse. If you are offended by someone else's religious speech, maybe managing your feelings rather than suing for relief is part of the price you pay for being in a country where there is religious freedom for the local majority as well as the local minority.

Maybe you're thinking, "OK, Johan, that's easy for you to say; you're too often in the majority; you don't know what it's like to be in the minority." And you're probably right. But you might be surprised by how easy it is to offend me. Just say "Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists." Call me an anti-Semite for criticizing Israeli apartheid. Put a Hitler moustache on a picture of Obama. Tell me I shouldn't say "Merry Christmas." Label Quakers as "heretics" or evangelical Christians as "theologically bankrupt" as people have done to my face. I keep having to remind myself what a therapist once told me: "People have a right to be wrong."

Back to the case at hand, Scott Kupor's memorandum. It has two major gaps, to my mind. 

First: what about people who don't identify with any religious faith? Could atheist federal workers have on their desk, for example, a clearly visible copy of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian

Are atheists and agnostics covered by this policy in the memorandum's second section? ... 

Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.

Consistency would require attempts to persuade others of, say, Bertrand Russell's viewpoint as equally protected, but I'm not sure that was contemplated in preparing this policy.

The second gap: the policy is naive regarding the power differentials involved, both between supervisor and employee, and between the employee and citizens requiring a service. It is not hard to come up with a hypothetical.... In a federal employee's office, would a picture of Trump at his desk with Jesus standing behind him, hand on Trump's shoulder, be just this side of coercive? Would a plaque quoting "Those who curse their mother or their father shall be put to death, Exodus 21:17" in majestic calligraphy be a bit over the line? Would that one be okay in the Department of Transportation but not in the Department of Justice? The subordinate or client who would be tempted to argue in more equitable circumstances could well decide, "I'll stuff my feelings rather than argue and lose my access to the services I need." Is that acceptable? But on the other hand, would the cost of preventing outliers smother the more general freedom Kupor's policy is designed to protect?


I'm always puzzled by some Christians insisting on what can come across as in-your-face religiosity, which seems far more likely to repel than attract. Just because your favorite Christian celebrity, or Scott Kupor, or Pam Bondi says you can make your affiliation obvious in your workplace doesn't mean that it actually serves the cause of evangelism. Here's a passage from a former atheist who became an advocate for "permission evangelism." ...

Many times in my life, actually most of my life, when people tried to evangelize me, it caused more harm than good. Many of the scars I carried through my life that kept me away from seeking truth in God were delivered at the hands of well-meaning Christians. They had no idea who I was or what I was seeking, but they interrupted me and tried to force their beliefs down my throat. I've never bought a product that way, and sure wasn't apt to buy God that way. If going to church subjected me to hundreds of those kind of people, I definitely wasn't headed there. Like much of today's society, I chose not to be come assumptive and insensitive, so I incorrectly chose not to be a Christian.

The very next day after I accepted Christ, I prayed that God would never allow me to forget what it was like to live a life without knowing Him. I asked for the emotions and experiences to remain present with me so that I could always relate to non-Christians, forever remaining empathetic. I have prayed that prayer numerous times in my life, and God has always honored that request. Now I was given the insight to use the heart God had provided to be as effective as possible. It is exciting to use the methods of the world to reach the world, yet see eternal results.

The purpose of permission in evangelism is to create trust, get around the legal and social barriers to discussing your faith, and most importantly, to discern the leading of the Holy Spirit in someone's life. ... Evangelism, when asked to tell someone about Jesus, is easy and resembles giving an answer for the hope that you have, rather than forcing an answer on a person yet to ask a question.

— Michael L. Simpson, Permission Evangelism: When to Talk, When to Walk.

Note to Quakers: If your reading tastes were formed by the likes of Thomas Kelly and Caroline Stephen, Michael Simpson's book might come across as cliche-ridden and glib. (Who wouldn't?!) Give him a chance! I believe his insights, suggestions, and his reframing of marketing in the service of ethical evangelism, are valid, or at least worth putting into the mix. If we actually care to help our communities be more accessible, and spread the message of grace to heal the wounds left by white Christian nationalism, and the resulting cynicism we have to contend with, his book might be very helpful.


Elizabeth Bruenig in The Atlantic: Who counts as Christian?

Adria Gulizia: Spirit-led evangelism.

Jade Rockwell in Friends Journal: Risking Faithfulness: Quietism and experimentation in unquiet times.

Early Friends were led to start our movement as a way to recover a wayward Christianity that they felt had taken too many wrong turns for it to be reformed from within the existing churches. But despite the inspiration of early Friends, it is the Quietist period that I think in many ways has most shaped the beliefs and practices that we cling to in our meetings and churches.

Windy Cooler: Angela Hopkins tells the truth about the hidden costs of ministry.

Israeli author David Grossman now "can't help" using the term genocide.

Racism: an informal five-question survey.


McKinley James with his own song, "This Is the Last Time."

31 July 2025

The whole Jericho Road

Source.  

A couple of evenings ago I was at a Friends World Committee event with staff and donors. Someone asked about fundraising in a time of crisis. As a donor, how do I choose between FWCC and the children in the Gaza Strip?

In the ensuing discussion, another participant brought up the River Story. (If we see babies drowning in a river, we rush to rescue them, but at some point we must also go upriver to find out how the babies got tossed into the waves, and address that cause.) We support FWCC and our Quaker congregations, along with the rescue work we all want to accomplish, because with these contributions we're helping both goals: we're nurturing our communities' capacity to make our care more systemic and confront the sources of the problem. At the same time we're continuing to support relief and rescue, but not putting all our energy there. In any case, the more we share with each other about our choices and reasons, the more complete our answer will be to the central query before every Quaker congregation: In this time and place, what does God want to say and do through us?

Martin Luther King, Jr., had his own version of the River Story. He used Luke's story of the Good Samaritan (whose setting is not far from Gaza) and applied it to us:

On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. 

Following the Web's rabbit trails in pursuing the history of this River Story, I found many references, almost all of which agreed that upstream investigations and interventions should claim a greater share of our resources. But I also appreciated Libby Willcomm's honesty about her own inclination:

Just as it's important to address immediate needs (babies in the river), it's equally important to seek policy reform for long-term, sustainable change. This is where I see the role of MLK's "inescapable network of mutuality". In order for everyone to thrive, everyone must work towards a just and equitable future, yet everyone can have a unique role in this "network of mutuality." And that's where High Road principles come in. By valuing and centering grassroots efforts and community voices while calling for collective, transformational change we're rescuing babies and keeping them out of the water.

Personally, I am much more of a "rescue babies" kind of person. I prefer to work on the ground, in communities, but I applaud those working at a higher level to make changes on a much larger scale. My passion lies in youth development. ... I truly believe that the reallocation of funds (starting with police budgets) to youth-based initiatives could radically change our world. Youth are our future, and based on the young people I've met, especially my High Road peers, it's a hopeful and optimistic one. Whether you prefer to pull babies out of the river or address where they come from, remember that we all hold critical roles in this "inescapable network of mutuality."

"... We all hold critical roles...." Exactly. And here's what I would love to see: that "mutuality" would also become mutual accountability and mutual trust. The next time the question of how to prioritize our resources comes up, I hope I'll remember (or better yet, someone else will remember!) to invite us to go around the group and ask how we arrive at our priorities, and how we make our contributions accordingly.

Maybe you have ways I've never heard of, to address the systemic causes or the most effective methods of direct relief. Unless we talk, I might never know. Even if I don't sign on to your priority, I can pray for you, and support you in the direction you've chosen, knowing that our whole community will then be more effective in keeping God's promises ... rather than one-upping each other on which of us have chosen the better path. I think it's also good to let each other know how we arrive at the amounts or forms of giving that we choose.

At Camas Friends Church, the elders and stewards are collaborating on ways to help us overcome our traditional reluctance to talk about money. Maybe these questions could be part of the conversation:

  1. Which approaches to relief, rescue, and reparation align with our gifts and temperaments: direct aid to those who are suffering, or prophetic challenges to structures? (Not that these two are the only choices!)
  2. Having reflected on what we are best equipped for, how have we chosen to direct our resources of money and property and time, as well as our spiritual focus?
  3. Do our churches and meetings have space for us to exchange our ideas, proposals, and questions?


A blessing and curse of getting older is realizing that many conversations that seem vital for today have been going on for generations. Talking about money, faith, and priorities reminds me of such ancient books as Elizabeth O'Connor's Letters to Scattered Pilgrims (1979, with a foreword by Douglas Steere), and John Alexander's Your Money or Your Life: A New Look at Jesus' View of Wealth and Power (1986).

Among the most powerful books of that era on these general themes is, in my mind, Charles Elliott's Comfortable Compassion?: Poverty, Power and the Church (1987). Among Elliott's observations that made an impact on me were the consequences of the separation of mission and service paths in the church. When service (relief and development, for example) lost its immediate connection to theology and spirituality, it took on the trappings of Western secular agencies and their modernizing agendas and  conceits.

Friends World Committee for Consultation once held Mission and Service Conferences. Maybe we need to find sustainable ways to renew those consultations.


Related posts:


Speaking of things I'd not heard of, this Washington Post article, dated today, was the first I'd heard of Ms. Rachel and her videos, continuing the humane legacy of Fred Rogers. Idealists of the world, unite!

Kristin Du Mez on DEI or CEI? The dangers of Conformity, Exclusion, & Inequality.

The Israel-based human rights groups that are charging their country with genocide.

Friends Journal covers the story of Robert Jacob Hoopes, his arrest in Portland, Oregon, last Friday, and his preliminary hearing. He is charged with violent acts at a June 14 demonstration at an ICE facility here in Portland.

Wilmington College receives a carefully crafted $23 million gift from the late Jerry Scheve.

The Bremerton (Washington) Friends worship group will gather this coming Sunday. There's information on the Web site of North Seattle Friends Church.

Racism: an informal five-question survey.


Rest in peace, versatile mathematician Tom Lehrer. We used some of Tom's songs in our classes in Russia. Students particularly liked the Lobachevsky song (or at least they said they did!), for which I couldn't find a video.) The song in the video below, "Send the Marines," also led to some interesting conversations.

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."

12 June 2025

The benefit of the doubt, part three (prequel)

As Israel strikes Iran with the stated purpose of eliminating that country as a nuclear threat, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy points out

Iran would not be this close to possessing a nuclear weapon if Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu had not forced America out of the nuclear agreement with Iran that had brought Europe, Russia, and China together behind the United States to successfully contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making, and now the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict. A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely  be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region.

Quote: "This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making."

The U.S. Secretary of State says that there was no U.S. participation in Israel's attack, but is Trump guilty of a share of the responsibility for Israel's perceived need to attack today?

Truthfully, I'm not in the mood to give the president, who has zealously reversed so many policies of the Obama and Biden years respectively, the benefit of the doubt in this case. Is that fair?

"The benefit of the doubt" has become an important concept to me, a way of identifying and warding off false witness, needless self-pity, and cynicism. I first wrote about this principle in my regular column in Friends United Meeting's Quaker Life magazine, back in June 1998:


About a year and a half ago, Ellen Cooney, the co-founder of Start-Up Education (see her article), spent six weeks with us at FUM as a volunteer. She had told us she was willing to do anything; she simply wanted to spend time being part of a working group which met daily for Friends worship, and (as a General Conference Friend from Atlanta Meeting) to get to know FUM better.

Knowing of her professional consulting background, we wanted the benefit of her observations of FUM as an organization. She interviewed each staff member privately, talked with several leaders at the yearly meeting level, and studied our organizational charts and documents. She then made a presentation to all of us staff with suggestions for working more productively with each other and more responsively to the constituency. Of her many good ideas, one stood out for its simplicity and central importance: "Learn to give each other the benefit of the doubt."

Ellen said that this principle was one of the ground rules at a large consulting firm where she had worked. When she and her co-workers did not know why someone had done something, and especially when it looked like a mistake or a personal slight, this principle was so ingrained in the corporate culture that many negative assumptions and grudges were nipped in the bud.

We are beginning to learn that when we want to know, "Why would he do that without checking with me? Why did she send that letter without copying to me? Why were they invited and not me?" we need to think, "Until I get a chance to ask, I better give them the benefit of the doubt. They must have had a good reason."

Recently I served on a committee, but missed a meeting because I was not notified. I could have dreamed up all sorts of reasons why I wasn't invited: My input was not valued. I had asked too many questions at the previous meeting. Maybe I was only on the committee as a token to appease some faction. The reality was much simpler: this time, notifications had been done within the committee instead of by a yearly meeting office, so the procedure had been unclear. It was the sort of simple oversight that I might easily have done myself.

The principle of "the benefit of the doubt" is incomplete without personal follow-up whenever necessary. We gave National Friends Insurance Trust (see cover story, March 1998) the benefit of the doubt long after we should have demanded clearer information on the security of our health insurance. The "benefit of the doubt" principle simply says that, if we don't understand why someone did something, we assume that "they must have had a good reason" until we have more complete and direct information; it doesn't excuse us from obtaining that information (first-hand if possible) whenever we should do so.

This principle is just as important in relations between groups as it is between individuals. When FUM decided to stop sending doctors to Lugulu Hospital in Kenya (intending to send money to pay Kenyan doctors instead), some Kenyans saw this as a sign that FUM wanted to weaken ties with Kenyan Friends. Thank goodness they didn't just keep this negative and incorrect interpretation to themselves. The leaders at Lugulu, and our own appointees, told us that the personal relationships were more important than money; the human exchange needed to be continued. As a result, the decision was reversed.

Right now, we're trying to make FUM more productive and responsive to God's leadings and to you. We are trying new ideas, taking more risks and will inevitably make more mistakes. Never stop holding us accountable, but our work together will be much more lively and joyful if, until we all have our facts straight, we agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Original article (archived) is here. The March 1998 cover story on the National Friends Insurance Trust is here. (See table of contents for that issue to see the full coverage.)

At the time this was written, I was serving as general secretary of Friends United Meeting, sometimes nicknamed the "orthodox" branch of Friends. Ellen Cooney's Atlanta Friends Meeting was part of Friends General Conference, a broadly more liberal association of Friends congregations. Ellen is currently serving as the director of development for Monteverde Friends School in Costa Rica.


In an earlier post on this blog, Benefit of the doubt, part one, I described this principle's value in helping me distinguish between realism and cynicism.

In Benefit of the doubt, part two, I applied the principle to my observations of our then-new president, Donald Trump. See if you think my analysis there still applies (if it ever did!).


Marilynne Robinson's Notes from an Occupation.

Simultaneous with corruption there is also a clash of worldviews that is rarely acknowledged. The country is said now to be polarized, an image that implies that we lie along the same continuum of belief, at opposite extremes but with an expansive middle ground between the two sides that awaits only certain moderating concessions to bring us closer. This metaphor does not really suggest the nature of our problem or the depth of it. It has not been helpful. It is past time to try considering a new image for our situation.

It's Martin Kelley's "pet theory that Quakerism is always dying and simultaneously always being reborn." (Introductory article for the June-July issue of Friends Journal, "Quaker Revivals.") Martin also has some interesting observations on how "Insiders" and "Seekers" use the Quaker Net.

Mark Russ on God's wrath and vengeance—and what we lose if we entirely deny those aspects of the Divinity. It might just be me, but I was reminded of R.W. Tucker's "Revolutionary Faithfulness."

Robert Garon on Genesis: God's rest vs Egypt's pyramid scheme.

Aristotle reminds us that politics is not just power.

Brian Zahnd's tribute to Walter Brueggemann.

See you at No Kings Day.


Ending scenes and credits from Blues Brothers 2000, including glimpses of my lifelong blues icon Junior Wells. He died a month before the film was released. As some reviewers acknowledged, it was not much of a movie—except for the soundtrack and the incredible list of participating musicians. It's bittersweet to watch this clip now; so many of them are no longer with us.