Rejoice and be glad...

“Sermon on the Plain” Jesus Mafa series, Cameroon [François Vidil], Vanderbilt University. Source.

---

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. [Matthew 5:11-12]

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. [Exodus 20:16]

It’s no longer Republican vs. Democrat.
It’s not even common sense vs. crazy.
It’s America-loving vs. America-hating COMMUNISTS, and today’s Democrat [sic] Party has shown us who they really are.
Democrats want to destroy America. Republicans LOVE America and will FIGHT to keep the United States the greatest country in the history of the world. [Mike Johnson, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives]

---

I cannot necessarily advise you to rejoice and be glad in this season of rhetorical venom now dominating all forms of media. Nor can anyone guarantee that today's insults and falsehoods won't lead tomorrow to actual persecution. For some, it already has. But even if you understandably want to retreat from this noise and take some time for peace and quiet, you're entitled to rejoice. You're in good company. "In the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

The interpretation I've often heard of Matthew 5:11-12 is that it refers to the persecution that Christians experience when they testify publicly to their faith. There are places in the world where skeptical publics or oppressive governments make public faith hazardous. But by and large the USA is not one of those, although performative victimhood may claim otherwise.

Here's the more likely situation: Sometimes it's Christians who are doing the insulting and false witnessing.

Howard Carter ("The Jesus Guide to Happiness, part 8"):

... This beatitude runs contra to the predominant way in which we think of people who are blessed, or happy in our society. We are a society that values comfort and ease, getting ahead and being liked, we want the worlds high five not to be slapped down. We would see the absence of persecution and opposition and oppression, not its presence, as a sign of being blessed. Being maligned or imprisoned or disadvantaged for doing the right thing or believing in Jesus does not readily sound like something to rejoice over, party down about, it seems far from being blessed.

Jamie Arpin-Ricci asks the obvious question "why would we be persecuted? Why should our faithful commitment to build a kingdom characterized by humility, mercy, peace, reconciliation and justice cause people to hate us and harm us?" It’s a good question isn’t it? His response is that "the sad truth is this: Injustice is a profitable venture.. the power structures of the world, be they political, economic, military or even religious have a long history of establishing their power base through the casual neglect or blatant exploitation of others, all too often the poor as we become a people characterized by making justice in the world, calling other to join us, we actively threaten those very systems and powers of injustice."

It may be sadly ironic that Christian politicians such as Mike Johnson, Russell Vought, and Pete Hegseth join with the forces of persecution against Christians who prioritize the Sermon on the Mount, but let's not waste time feeling smug and superior, or in sharpening our own verbal swords. Here's Jamie Arpin-Ricci ("Pope Trump? Politics and the Normalization of Contempt"):

What's especially important to recognize is that this approach is not exclusive to Trump or those who support him. While the right has unquestionably taken this further than most, everyone is prone to this tendency. It is a pattern anyone can fall into, particularly when emotions are high, the stakes feel existential, and, perhaps above all, we believe we have the moral high ground. Even after I posted about this dynamic recently, one of the first responses agreed with me, then when on to call Trump a "piece of crap." The irony wasn’t lost on me.

This isn't about tone-policing or respectability politics in the face of injustice. Anger has its place, and naming harm is essential. If someone is functioning in ways that reflect fascism, then calling them a fascist is not out of line. But the impulse to strip people of dignity, even those causing harm, mirrors the same logic used by those we oppose: that some people simple deserve it. That logic underwrites every form of systemic oppression. When we adopt it, even against oppressors, we reinforce the very dynamics we claim to resist.

Look at it this way: when we normalize contempt and dehumanizing language, we are implicitly saying that such behaviour is acceptable when you are "in the right". However, since everyone believes that of themselves, it simply reinforces the pattern. Here’s the catch: the marginalized and oppressed always pay the highest price in these dynamics, so by contributing to the normalization of this behaviour, we contribute to the very harm of those we are seeking to protect.

In case we miss the point, this Scripture is in the same sermon in which Jesus says, (verses 43 and 44, context), 

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you....

How can we love our political and spiritual opponents and thereby experience the joy and gladness Jesus promises? There is a blessing, even a joy, to be gained in practicing restraint, in resisting the temptation to give someone the what-for, and instead persistently, prayerfully, intelligently focusing our resistance on the specifics of correcting biblical malpractice and the specifics of advocating justice in season and out of season, and thereby defending the precious reputation of the Gospel.

Repentance may be unlikely, but it's not impossible, and we are not the ones to block it.

---

Related:

• Are we agents of Lucifer?
• The socialists are coming!!
• A grievously neglected commandment
• Do you want to be offended?
• Valiant for the Truth, and first principles 2.0
• The golden age of evangelism

---

More commentaries on Matthew 5:1-12: Amy G. Oden. Osvaldo Vena. Jillian Nelson. Elaine Wainwright. Andrew McGowan.

How people in seven countries see the US. (Yougov survey.)

Why Trump-supporting Christians are driving Gen Z away from church. (Premier Christian magazine.)

Live Laugh Love on the road: some of the places Kristin Du Mez will be visiting on her book tour.

Poetry from Nancy Thomas: "Things that defile."

---

"Clothes Line (Wrap It Up)." I've heard the Nightcats perform this song live several times, and I've also posted it here several times. This is the most recent version, I think:

The tax covenant and resistance

We talk about democracy and Christianity—and we try out a new firebomb. We talk about peace and we move thousands more men and weapons into Vietnam. This country has gone mad. But I will not go mad with it. I will not pay for organized murder.

— Joan Baez (April 1965, source.)

---

Related posts:

The tax covenant

The tax covenant: idealism and reality

---

In my last post on the tax covenant ("Idealism and reality") I expressed some of the disillusionment that results when our taxes and federal budgets are misspent and misdirected. When should we consider the covenant broken (held together only by government coercion) and what should we do in response?

There is one specific controversy around U.S. federal income tax and expenditures that has a long history: the war budget, and related dilemmas for conscientious objectors to that budget. The current U.S. administration is pushing Congress to approve a military budget of US$ 1.5 trillion, plus supplemental funds of US$ 67.1 billion for costs relating to the current unauthorized war on Iran. This seems like a good moment to review our covenant.

Quakers and war tax resistance have a long history together. For a brief account of that history, I recommend Wallace Collett's chapter, "Pay Thy Taxes as long as Thou Canst" (pages 170-181) in Leonard Kenworthy's Friends Face the World, available in PDF form here.

I remember a bit of this history myself. I was on the staff of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas, when Gordon Brown, the section's executive secretary, and Cincinnati businessman Wallace Collett worked together to set up a structure for Friends to consider war taxes across our diversities of geography and theology. This was the Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns, whose work resulted in a manual edited by Linda Coffin, A Handbook on Military Taxes and Conscience, and a supplemental manual for employers. I wrote more about these memories here.

For a sample of the Mennonite experience with tax dilemmas, here's a link to Titus Peachey's paper, Silence and Courage: Income Taxes, War and Mennonites 1940-1993.

Some context: even in less turbulent times, the U.S. war budget is around 50% of the annual federal discretionary budget, and if related debt service and the Veterans Administration are added in, then the proportion exceeds 60%.

As you consider your own faith in relation to paying these taxes:

1. Setting aside this particular era's scandals and causes for disillusionment, do you feel unease about helping fund the war budget? Is there a positive and persuasive comparison between refusing military service as a conscientious objector (instead choosing alternative service) and refusing to pay related taxes?
2. If you have been a conscientious payer of federal taxes to this point, do you feel that the government still honors the tax covenant it has with you and other taxpayers? Aside from force of coercion, is the covenant broken? (This assumes that the "covenant" analogy seems valid to begin with. For example, some libertarians argue that all taxes represent theft, a position I don't share.)
3. If you feel drawn to the tax resistance position, is this a dilemma that you can take to your meeting or church? (My experience at First Friends Meeting, Richmond, Indiana, was summarized in this post. We asked the church to advise us on the legitimacy of our resistance in discipleship context, and, if so, which proportion of the total federal budget we should choose not to pay—the current military budget, or a calculation including costs of past wars. We were serious about being in submission to the discernment of the community.)
4. To avoid benefiting financially from war tax resistance, would it help your decision-making to know that there are ways to direct that money to good purposes, and that there is a community that can help if/when your unpaid taxes are confiscated or penalties assessed? Check here for information and experiences related to redirecting taxes and sharing the burden of penalties.

My purpose here is not to encourage illegal or risky decisions, but in the face of unprecedented levels of corruption, misdirection, and general abuse of our taxes, I'm just suggesting that we have choices that are consistent with Christian faith as understood by Quakers, other peace churches, and well beyond.

The War Resisters League, the oldest secular pacifist organization in the USA, offers a helpful compilation of testimonies, practical help, and appropriate cautions: War Tax Resistance: A Guide for Withholding Your Support from the Military.

For more information and links to many partner organizations, secular and faith-based, visit the Web site of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.

As always, I'm eager to know additional sources of information and advice that you've found useful, and experiences that you've had in dealing with these ethical issues.

---

Rosa Packard's story of coming to a tax resistance position. Nadine Hoover's advocacy. Gordon Browne's story. The text of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act, which was for years annually introduced by John Lewis.

---

Post number six in Phil Gulley's series "Why War Is Not the Answer." This time: "At its heart, war is the enemy of democracy."

Micah Bales gives Romans 8:12-25 a close reading.

Having read through this passage of Romans together, we get a picture of our existence as a part of a grand cosmic drama of struggle and transformation. Simply put, the universe is vast beyond our comprehension, and yet our lives are incredibly important – central to God’s plan for the cosmos.

The city of Muncie, Indiana, says goodbye to Dr. John Peterson, a healer and musician whose skill and care touched thousands, including me. In this MuncieArts video from last November, "Doc" tells his own story. Here he is at the keyboard for "My Girl," clipped from Robert Mugge's documentary Giving Up the Ghosts: Closing Time at Doc's Music Hall.

Michael Marsh's series of posts on "Living With a Tender Heart" includes this post on "re-imaging news" in the midst of its constant flow.

The first "official" reviews of Live Laugh Love are out, and author Kristin Du Mez is justifiably pleased. (My review is here.)

John 20:22-23: Binding sin, loosing sin, and modern Quaker practice. Brian Drayton asks where are the anchors for our Quaker communities' discernments and judgments.

---

Blues and taxes ... Robert Cray ("1040 Blues"), J.B. Lenoir ("Eisenhower Blues"), Watermelon Slim ("Tax Man Blues") and (just for good measure) Lightnin' Hopkins ("It's a Sin to Be Rich, It's a Low-Down Shame to Be Poor"). All audio-only with graphics.

The tax covenant—idealism and reality

St. Matthew, the tax collector.
Source.

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

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

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

In my blog post last year on the tax covenant, I summed up the ideal of righteous taxation this way:  Ideally, by paying taxes, we citizens are simply upholding a covenant we have with each other.

We have made promises to each other—"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (preamble to the U.S. Constitution), setting up a government for these purposes and assigning that government, through our legislature, the practical tasks needed to fulfill those promises.

We know that these tasks cost money, so our legislators make a list of those costs and institute sources of revenue, including taxes. That's the covenant: to decide on the tasks needed for the "general Welfare," from which we all benefit, directly or indirectly, and to pay our fair share for those tasks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Brian Baugus on a biblical view of taxation.

Rosa DeLauro on Trump's record of corruption.

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

My own thoughts on hope and cynicism.

---

Nancy Thomas: The Lord's Prayer for Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

---

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

Tomorrow will take care of itself

Source.  

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

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

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

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

Instagram video: Why do children of Christians become socialist?

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

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

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

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

---

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

Debates worth having, continued

Source.  

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

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

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

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

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

• Elizabeth O'Connor, Letters to Scattered Pilgrims. ("Whoever joins God's liberation movement must be content to spend time in the wilderness....")
• Ron Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity.
• David R. Swartz, Moral Minority: The Evangelical Left in an Age of Conservatism. 
• John Alexander, Your Money or Your Life: A New Look at Jesus' View of Wealth and Power.
• Kenneth Leech, The Eye of the Storm: Spiritual Resources for the Pursuit of Justice.

Are there any you'd add?

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

• Tim Alberta, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.
• Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. (And coming in September: Live Laugh Love. See my review here.)
• John Fugelsang, Separation of Church and Hate (the book I started with above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

A debate worth having

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

---

St Peter (7th century icon). Source.

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

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

The response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Related: 

• Iran, biblical realism, and perpetual war
• The tax covenant
• The whole Jericho Road
• A special brand of patriot
• Exceptional pride (see Anthony Bloom on political conformism in the church, about halfway down the post)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Spinning Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments and queries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

"Where is the loophole in that Scripture?"

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Elderchaplain Greg Morgan on ALS and hope.

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

Source.  

---

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

"No Kings" shorts

Portland, Oregon, June 14, 2025

The third "No Kings Day" program of protest actions in the USA are being organized for this Saturday. We will be out of the country that day, but hope and pray for a peaceful day, and a good turnout. I'd love to see lots of creative messaging that will reach new audiences, and a minimum of stupid caricatures.

Some USA citizens here in the United Kingdom will be marching under a slightly different banner, "No Tyrants," since here there is an actual king. The king is styled "sovereign" but, ironically, in normal times the British sovereign has practically no political power in comparison to King Donald.

The kings and queens in constitutional monarchies do have enormous symbolic power in their roles as stewards of national identity and guarantors of continuity. They would quickly lose that legitimacy and its grounding in the affections of their people if they became kings in the ancient tyrannical model described by God to Samuel, who—in vain—passed that warning on to the people demanding a king.

Many actual monarchs, having more majesty than power, still have the use of grand palaces, elaborately decorated, and they participate in impressive rituals and spectacles. They may have buildings, organizations, and various projects named after them, and their pictures may appear on currency or on the walls of government offices, but, again, if they themselves were to decree these arrangements, their legitimacy would suffer.

King Donald wants both power and spectacle. May he get an unmistakable NO on Saturday.

---

My June 14 sign.

On his blog, Interrupting the Silence, Michael K. Marsh points out that this upcoming No Kings Day is on the weekend of Palm Sunday.

This Saturday, March 28th, is the third No Kings Day protest and Sunday, March 29th, is Palm Sunday, but here’s what I wonder:

What if Palm Sunday was the original No Kings protest?

What if Jesus, the disciples, and the crowd that follows Jesus are protesting violence, injustice, and imperial power?

Instead of protest songs there were shouts of “Hosanna!”, a cry for deliverance and liberation, a plea for change. Instead of protest signs there were cloaks and palm branches, symbols of joy, peace, submission, and the celebration of a new way.

Please read the full post.

---

Here's how Nancy Thomas has been using slugs in her writing. It reminded me of the tradition among some pastors and seminarians to challenge each other to embed some incongruous word in sermons they'll be preaching.

Philosophers, political scientists, and advocates of civil discourse are grieving the death of Jürgen Habermas.

Jeremy Morris tells us why he thinks "Paul D’Anieri’s updated Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War is the single best book you can read to understand the domestic and geopolitical causes of the current war." He managed to persuade me to buy the book. I haven't started reading it yet, but I think Morris's post is interesting on its own ... as usual.

Jennifer Rubin and Martin Kelley on the hard truth about César Chávez.

Alexander Hurtsellers on healing hypermasculinity in the Church, an Orthodox view.

---

Rick Estrin, Steve Guyger, Mikey Junior ... harpists having fun.

Bewildered and confounded

Sarah and James Polk; Donald Trump
Sources: left, right.

He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man.

—Congressman Abraham Lincoln on President James K. Polk.

Unlike the 2026-? war with Iran, the Mexican-American War (1846-48) actually included a U.S. congressional declaration of war, but one that was arguably obtained under false pretenses. Essentially, the U.S. army had to lure Mexican soldiers into a fight in order to obtain a pretext for war. 

Abraham Lincoln consistently opposed this war, and he bluntly gave his reasons in, among other occasions, this powerful speech in the House of Representatives in January 1848.

His arguments seem to me to apply pretty well to the war that we and Israel are in now, against Iran. The war with Mexico was an unconstitutional war, based on fiction; it was supposed to be a short war; the supposed gains of the war should have outweighed the losses in combat, but didn't; in any event, the object was to steal from Mexico, which Lincoln judged an offense to the honor of the USA. Lincoln memorably referred to the way that war's romantic propaganda distracts from the shameful reality: ...

... [Polk aims] to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy, he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where.

---

I do my fair share of following war news on the Internet. So much of the coverage features analysts and commentators doing their best to make sense of an insane war. I see them sitting behind impressive desks or standing in front of charts and digital displays covering whole walls, but mostly what they are doing is trying to guess what this or that inarticulate soundbite might mean.

The reality, which they are not really equipped to analyze in terms of dignified commentary is this: the war was initiated by two corrupt men, one of whom is a completely rogue U.S. president. The news programs are reduced to providing us endless scenes of smoke rising from the impacts of missiles, drones, and the remains of midair interceptions, punctuated by excerpts from bombastic, factually irrelevant statements and press conferences. Donald Trump's contribution to this scene is his constant referral to himself. Everything is about him and what he feels in his bones. Even Stalin pretended to be answerable to structures and committees! This is not a scene that lends itself to rational commentary, but those analysts have jobs to do, cameras pointing at them, and three minutes and fifteen seconds to fill before it's the next well-meaning analyst's turn.

And they're certainly not entirely useless. Today I heard Jon Stewart say, "War is how Americans learn about geography."

I appreciated Anne Applebaum's blunt description of this unprecedented dependence of a whole country, and its fateful global consequences, on an incompetent and thoroughly corrupt individual. 

Donald Trump does not think strategically. Nor does he think historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. He does not think about how his behavior in one place will change the behavior of other people in other places.

He does not consider the wider implications of his decisions. He does not take responsibility when these decisions go wrong. Instead, he acts on whim and impulse, and when he changes his mind—when he feels new whims and new impulses—he simply lies about whatever he said or did before.

Applebaum's full article is here: Everyone but Trump Understands What He’s Done.

---

Back in our own communities here in the USA, are we living life as usual, or are we in one or another form of the chaos the people at the top have unleashed? Our "dual reality" was well illustrated in an illustration on Vox by cartoonist Pete Gamlen:

Sigal Samuel's accompanying article: Your friends are still acting like everything is normal in America. What do you do? She describes this dual reality in the terms proposed by a German Jewish political scientist and labor lawyer, Ernst Fraenkel, who observed the pre-WWII Germany becoming divided into a compliant, passive, and comfortable "Normative State" and its terrifying parallel "Prerogative State" under direct, arbitrary, and repressive state power. Remain passive and compliant and maybe you won't someday find yourself abruptly transferred from normalcy to repression, a transfer that is entirely at the discretion of those in power.

As Samuel's article acknowledges, we're not yet quite at that point in the USA, but that may be small comfort to Renee Nicole Good of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and her family ... and all those on the left side of Pete Gamlen's graphic.

Sigal Samuel's article ends with several suggestions of how we can avoid fatal passivity and regain connection across these divides for the sake of justice. Here are a few of mine; please add yours! As always, the best-fit involvement takes into account your own spiritual gifts, your temperament, and the mutual obligations you have with your own community.

• Keep observing the realities around you to the best of your capacity, and don't let propaganda from any side or camp  (including your own!) do your thinking for you.
• Send blessings and prayers to the individuals you become aware of as you follow the news. (Even though the USA's news channels tend to show Arabs as faceless masses, for example, look for the human beings as best you can, and pay attention to their credible spokespeople.)
• Join ethically-organized and ethically-led protests. The more local protests and movements may be just as important as the mass downtown events.
• Following the principles of evangelism with integrity (for example, "permission evangelism"), tell people about Jesus. Help differentiate his tender leadership from the misrepresentations promoted by white Christian nationalism, but do it from intimacy with the Prince of Peace rather than a sly motivation to one-up those whom you oppose.
• Cultivate good relationships with your legislators and local media. Take wise steps to become known as a reliable source of helpful quotations for journalists.
• Grieve with those who grieve, rejoice with those who rejoice; be kind to each other and to yourself. It's a race—an urgent one—but not a competition.

---

Pete Gamlen's cartoon really caught me in a deep place. Sometimes I've been feeling so far from either of the dual realities. And for some reason, around the time I found myself resisting this sense of alienation, I watched a couple of those smoking cityscape videos as Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon. I began meditating on the dead people lined up at Heaven's gate, and praying for them to be at peace.

"Rank Strangers" in our classroom in Elektrostal, Russia.

We Quakers are not known for speculating about life after death, or about what heaven is like. But I couldn't help wondering what was happening to those whose bodies and souls were being violently separated by high-tech munitions, some of which were paid for by our taxes. In this swirl of alienation and distress, I remembered a recording made by one of my favorite blues musicians, harpist Charlie Musselwhite. It was a track from his album One Night in America, "Rank Strangers to Me," originally created by the gospel writer Albert E. Brumley, Sr. It's a song we used as one of the gapfill exercises in our listening comprehension classes at the New Humanities Institute in Elektrostal.

I don't know many songs that combine grief and hope as well as this one:

I wandered alone to my home by the river
Where in youth's early dawn I was happy and free
I looked for my friends, but I never could find them
I found they were all rank strangers to me

Everybody I met seemed to be a rank stranger
No mother or dad, not a friend could I see
They knew not my name and I knew not their faces
I found they were all rank strangers to me

"They've all moved away", said the voice of a stranger
"To a beautiful home by the bright, crystal sea"
Some beautiful day, I'll meet 'em in heaven
Where no one will be a stranger to me

Everybody I met seemed to be a rank stranger
No mother or dad, not a friend could I see
They knew not my name and I knew not their faces
I found they were all rank strangers to me

Convergence in the Trump era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Living without lying.

A special brand of patriot.

The Bible, MAGA, and a new mission field.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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