Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Taxonomy of Email Forwards

Based on exhaustive research of the last 7 email forwards I’ve received, I’ve come up with this empirically-proven scientifically-tested taxonomy of email forwards, and I’ve already checked on Snopes and it’s true!

Fear (pathogens, technology, pedophiles, and Muslims):
Using your cell phone while refueling can cause an explosion.

Anger (liberals, government, and liberals in government):
Obama wants to make it illegal for preachers to preach against homosexuality. And he hates your religion. And your mom. And apple pie.

Fear + Anger:
Obama has a goat-head tattoo and sleeps on a pentagram surrounded by candles made from the fat of his human victims, and anyone who preaches against homosexuality will be forced to refuel their car while reciting the Koran into a cell phone.

Pity (usually involving children or animals):
Little 4-year old Cindy Lu has a gigantic tumor and asked her mommy “why is God making me die?” Forward this to all of your friends and pray to God to spare Cindy Lu.

Faith (usually involving prayer or deus ex machina):
An atheist professor challenged his students to prove there was a God, and was immediately struck by lightning and died.

Pity + Faith:
Cindy Lu adopted a puppy and the puppy turned out to be an angel and shot lightning at the tumor and saved her life!
OR
God skipped the whole tumor thing and struck Cindy Lu dead with lightning before she could fulfill her life’s ambition to become an atheist professor.

Humor (usually involving children, animals, or foreigners doing foreign things):
Cindy Lu drew a funny picture and gave it to her teacher and boy was her mommy embarrassed!

Glurge:
Jesus died for you which led someone to pose for a stock photograph for you with their arms outstretched in front of a sunset, because, really, life is precious so be sure to tell the people you love that you love them before God takes them to heaven with a tumor or lightning bolt. 

Humor + Faith + Glurge:
Jesus died for you and boy were you embarrassed!

Humor + Pity + Faith + Anger + Fear + Glurge:
Cindy Lu, a 4-year old atheist professor, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She prayed to God and God was like, “why don’t you pray to Obama, you commie-loving Muslim lesbian atheist?” But Obama made her recite the Koran on her cell phone while pumping gas with her arms outstretched against the sunset because Jesus loves you more than anything and if this was a funny email you would forward it to your friends and don’t you love America enough to send this to everyone you know?

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

“Gates? What Kind of Neighborhood is Heaven in?”

Hilarious, wonderful stuff.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Baptism for Dummies

I finally got around to watching Nacho Libre, and it was totally worth it just for this one scene.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Social Justice FAQ

I was really ready to focus on something other than social justice for a while, but last week I received a call from a woman from another church who had read that I was developing a curriculum on social justice for the North Alabama Conference.

After asking me to define social justice, she asked, “but doesn’t that mean getting involved in politics?”
Yes, I replied.
“But won’t that jeopardize the church’s tax-exempt status?”
Well, I said, my first answer is no, because precedent indicates that churches can be politically active as long as they don’t endorse candidates. My second answer is, so what? Even if we lose our tax-exempt status we still have an obligation to preach the gospel.
“Well, I have a copy of the IRS tax code right here,” she said.

Ding.

In other words, she called in order to have an argument. So, I obliged. For the next hour and a half.

“...and it says that a church can be classified as a 501(c)(3) organization as long as ‘no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’”
First of all, I replied, there’s a lot of leeway in that statement. “Substantial part” would be what - 5%? And do you honestly think any judge in America is going to tell an African-American church that they can’t preach about civil rights, or affirmative action, or the historical importance of having a black president? Is any judge in America going to tell a conservative church they can’t campaign against abortion?

But I’m grateful to her, because I guess if she hadn’t called, I wouldn’t be sitting here on a Saturday working on a curriculum to educate Alabamians about social justice. A large number of United Methodists get more of their political theology from Glenn Beck and Mark Tooley than they do from John Wesley. So here is a draft of the Social Justice FAQ (which will go at the end of the document).

These questions are abstracted from that conversation. I’ll post a rhetorical analysis of the questions themselves at the end of this document.

I appreciate any feedback that helps me refine the document:

——————————————

Social Justice FAQ:
Doesn’t social justice mean getting involved in politics? What about the separation of church and state?

Women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, the abolition of slavery, and child labor laws were all the result of churches “getting involved” in politics. It is hard to imagine how many of these movements would have ever grown without the involvement of religious leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Sojourner Truth, William Wilberforce, and John Wesley. The first Methodist social creed was written in 1908 as a direct response to the crisis of child labor in the United States. Churches have always been involved in politics, because preaching the gospel inevitably means creating political conflict. When Paul visited Ephesus (Acts 19:20-41) and preached against idolatry, the city’s idol-makers tried to stir up the city against him for economic reasons.

Many churches, especially mainline Protestant churches, try to be “neutral” on political issues for fear of alienating some members or creating conflict. Even during these historical crises and shifts in culture, some Christians insisted that churches should, “stay out” of the Civil Rights movement, or of child labor legislation. What would have happened if they had?

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. Separation of church and state avoids excessive government entanglement in religion, and allows religious groups to operate freely without persecution. The separation of church and state has allowed religion to thrive in the United States (while state-sponsored churches have declined in Europe), and has allowed a rich tradition of churches who promote civic engagement among their members.

Because we live in a [representative democracy], churches not only can but should be involved in politics. Since we the people make the decisions, we the people are accountable to God for how our cities, states, and nation run.

Won’t being involved in politics jeopardize churches’ tax-exempt status?

As a 501c(3) organization, a church can weigh in on matters of social policy and particular political issues, but it cannot campaign for or against any candidates themselves (Rossoti v. Branch Ministries, D.D.C. 1999). A list of the kinds of activities a church can engage in is available from the IRS at http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html.

The IRS even allows the publication of “voter guides,” which often include lists of issues and a summary of a candidates’ position on those issues. The IRS code states that “...certain “voter education” activities, including preparation and distribution of certain voter guides, conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code.” (page 2, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf).

The same rule even says that candidates may participate in a public forum or debate as part of a voter education event. Churches may allow candidates to speak at their functions and may participate in voter registration drives. Focus on the Family has provided a summary of church political activities permitted under the 501(c)(3) rules here: http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/PastorsGuidelines_summary.pdf. Obviously, the same rules apply to churches of any political persuasion.

Won’t being involved in political activity cause divisions in the church?

Maybe.

In 1844, disputes over slavery led to a schism in the Methodist church. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, split into their own denomination. They removed from their General Rules the rule against owning slaves. So there are certainly precedents for denominations and even individual churches splitting over contentious issues.

But there are also churches and denominational bodies who are more united in how they engage the larger world. Conservative churches who protest abortion clinics and African-American churches who demonstrate against racism do not seem to worry about whether their activities divide the church.

Being politically neutral has not helped mainline Protestant churches grow in the last few decades. It has not helped them attract young people to church or lead people to Christ. Although we in the U.S. often describe ourselves in terms of “liberal” or “conservative,” there are often social justice issues that cross political boundaries. The environmentalism and creation care movement has seen churches across the political spectrum unite on important environmental issues.

Both “liberal” and “conservative” United Methodist churches have been struggling with declining membership in the last few decades. Ignoring social justice will not reverse that trend, and instead will simply make the church more irrelevant to a new generation.

Shouldn’t we just preach Christ, and Christ alone?  Isn’t the real message of Christianity about saving souls?

Jesus kicked off his ministry with a political statement: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ You can read the whole story in Luke 4:16-30.

The “year of the Lord’s favor” is a reference to the Jubilee year, when all debts were canceled and all slaves were freed (Leviticus 25:8-13). This commandment was supposed to be carried out every 50 years, but had long been neglected. Jesus was saying that his ministry was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah, that God would reset the clock and bring justice to the world. (Some people say that Jesus never preached against slavery, but I believe his first sermon made explicit where he stood on the subject.)

Even before Jesus was born, people knew the messiah would bring social justice. Listen to his mother, Mary’s song from Luke 1:52-53: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

Jesus talked more about the “Kingdom of God” than anything else. The Kingdom was not just a place we go when we die - it was the reign of God on earth. The language he uses is firmly in line with all the language of the prophets. When Jesus preaches his famous prophecy about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, he describes very clearly the kind of behavior he expects from his followers.

The people who heard his message would have known, when he talked about judging sheep and goats, that he was also referring to Ezekiel 34:17-19. This is one of the clearest examples in the Bible about God’s interest in environmental justice: “When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?” So when Jesus talked about feeding the hungry, he wasn’t just telling his audience to be charitable; by using the language of Ezekiel he was also reminding them that they should be stewards of the earth.

So, preaching Christ means preaching social justice. There is no way to split one from the other. Evangelism, missions of mercy, and social justice go hand-in-hand

I understand that Jesus says we should individually help the poor, but he doesn’t say anywhere the government should. Isn’t it enough for Christians to help the poor individually?

Jesus also never said that there should be a separation of church and state, or that democracies are better than dictatorships. Making this kind of distinction between individuals and government puts modern ideas and words back into Jesus’ mouth. Roman Emperors and Judean Kings had no concept of things like “democracy” or “the consent of the governed.”

Amos told the nation of Israel that they were experts at acting individually religious, but that all their worship was worthless as long as they continued to oppress the poor. He called on the nation to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (5:24). Is this a command directed at individuals? At governments? At whole societies?

God repeatedly holds entire cities and nations accountable for their treatment of the poor. Ezekiel 16:49 says “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” God punishes the firstborn of every family in Egypt for Pharoah’s reluctance to let the Hebrews free from slavery. The prophets accuse whole societies of idolatry and injustice to the poor. If God holds nations accountable for the actions of their rulers or even of a majority, would God not hold every [voting member of a republic] accountable for their nation’s actions?

In addition, as shown above in his reference to the sheep and goats, Jesus frequently cites the prophets in addressing how whole communities should behave. He assumed that his listeners would be Biblically literate enough to make the connection between the prophets’ words and his own. Jesus did not just come to save souls - he came to save the world.

Historical examples show us that it is impossible to address some injustices as individuals. As a slave owner in the 1800’s, you might be kind to your slaves and still believe you were doing what the gospel required of you. But even a slave owner who freed their slaves could not end slavery without government action. As a factory-owner in the 1900’s, you might refuse to hire children. But you could not end child labor through your hiring practices.

Some obstacles that keep people poor - lack of health care, poor education, bad neighborhoods, lack of access to healthy food, human traficking - can only be overcome by community or government action. Of course, others can only be overcome by individual action. The answer is for the church not to put all its emphasis either on individual or collective action.

I understand social justice for life and death issues like slavery and child labor, but what about others? How do you decide which issues are important?

One incredulous woman told me that she understood that slavery, women’s suffrage, and child labor were important. These historical issues were “life and death” issues. But she did not consider Alabama Constitutional reform, grocery taxes, and other such issues “life and death,” and thought the church should stay out of them.

For privileged and comfortable people, slavery, child labor, Civil Rights, and women’s suffrage were not “life and death” issues, either. Slave owners had a vested interest in saying that the church should stay out of politics. After all, they would argue, they treated their slaves well. 100 years later, white opponents of civil rights could claim - rightly - that white churches would drive some members away if they preached against segregation. Here in Birmingham, some of those churches never recovered from their principled stand. Earlier in this century, wealthy factory owners actually claimed that keeping children out of the workplace would deprive poor families of important income and drive up the cost of labor. All of these examples point to the fact that everywhere that churches preach social justice, they will encounter resistance from people who want to keep things as they are. People who benefit from injustice have all they need - money, political power, health care, a supply of cheap labor - and they don’t want the power of the gospel disrupting their lives.

For those who live in privilege, grocery tax legislation, Alabama Constitutional reform, public transportation, gambling, environmental justice, health care reform, and American foreign policy are not “life and death” issues. But for those who are struggling in poverty, those whose lives are affected by climate change or industrial pollution, those who do not have access to health care, these are “life and death” issues. Oppressed people long to hear the words of Jesus, that today is the day they will be set free.

Every injustice that keeps people poor, or voiceless, or that treats people as something less than human beings created in the image of God is an issue worth addressing in church. God is still at work in our world, freeing prisoners, giving people second chances, and transforming lives. God will continue to work, with or without your church. The question for your church is simply, “Will you get on board with what God is doing in the world?”

——————————————-

I think it’s worth pointing out that each of these questions is really intended to undercut the idea of preaching social justice. Let’s unmask the rhetoric operating in each question:
a) there is no need for it because the issues are not important enough (to me),
b) there is no Biblical mandate for using government or collective action to address justice; individuals should handle it on their own,
c) the issues may be important but avoiding conflict and retaining members is more important,
d) preaching social justice will divert attention from the more important task of saving souls,
e) preaching social justice is somehow against the law or will result in negative legal consequences

Folks, that’s really all they got. Learn to recognize when someone deploys these rhetorical strategies. They are pretty easy to refute if you know your Bible.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Other Alabama

In contrast to the Alabama political commercials I posted the other day, there is this locally-produced comedy-news show, View of the City, which shows a different side of Alabama.

Monday, June 21, 2010

The High Price of Poverty

It is expensive to be poor. This article does a great job of describing what many middle-class people simply don’t understand - there are hidden costs to being poor, and hidden privileges to living in middle-class neighborhoods.

I can get in my car and drive to the grocery store. Actually, I could bike or walk to two or three, which are within a mile of my house. I can even comparison shop and get the best deal among them, if I want to. I can pop open my laptop, use my wifi internet connection, and comparison shop between stores before I ever leave my house. If my car breaks down, I have a number of friends who will actually hand me their keys while my car is in the shop. Being middle-class has its privileges.

Bryant Myers, former VP of WorldVision, in his book Walking with the Poor, observes that there are many kinds of poverty. You can be dollar-poor, which means you don’t have much income, savings, or material resources. You can be relationship-poor, meaning you don’t have access to friends and family who can help you. You can be politically poor, meaning you don’t have a voice or a way of changing your community. You can be spiritually poor.

He also observes that a person tends to be rich or poor in more than one area. People who are wealthy tend to also have wealthy contacts. People who are dollar poor tend to be poor in other ways. They may be alienated from their family. They may not know how to navigate the systems of funding available for poor people.

He also makes an observation that sounds at first like a cliche - people can be non-poor in wealth, but be devastatingly poor spiritually. These non-poor (in terms of wealth) tend to have non-poor friends, and do not typically hang out with poor people. Therefore they tend to be blind to poverty and ignorant both of their own privilege and of the poverty that may be next door.

To those of you who have been dialogue partners on this blog about social justice and poverty, I sincerely ask: how many people do you know who are actually in poverty? You don’t have to share. Just make a list. Folks who use food stamps (SNAP), public transportation because they can’t afford a car, or who are homeless? Because when someone suggests to me that hunger shouldn’t be a problem because there are food stamps, and that removing sales taxes on groceries won’t help because food stamps are tax free, I’m wondering what planet you live on. If hunger isn’t a problem, why are nonprofits struggling to keep up with increased demand for food pantries and hot meals? Why are people who are eligible for food stamps not applying for or receiving them? (I recommend this recent Talk of the Nation piece on food stamps).

When people argue that the church should not be involved in social justice, they often take one of three approaches: either poverty is not a problem (i.e., “people in America are better off than anywhere else” and Americans aren’t really poor) or it’s an intractable problem (i.e., “he who does not work does not eat”, as if most poverty is caused by laziness) or it’s simply part of the game (i.e., “the freedom to fail”). I honestly do not think that anyone who is actively involved in ministry with poor people can offer these arguments with any integrity. Nor do I think that anyone who has regular contact with poor people can argue that inequality does not play a huge role in poverty.

I think one way to break down the barriers that keep people poor is to work on making poverty less expensive. Provide public transportaion, public parks and libraries, funding for the arts in schools so kids are motivated to stay in school, safe and affordable housing. Address inequality in lending and the stagnation of real wages. Develop a single-payer health care system, or simply let people buy into Medicare. Create economic incentives to save for education and housing (these programs already exist), as well as incentives for preventative health care.

In reality, I already enjoy many of those incentives because I live a privileged life. I live in a great part of town, with great parks and libraries, a town that is pedestrian-friendly. Being middle-class has its privileges. But being poor is expensive.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Political Rhetoric in Alabama

Question 1: Are these commercials representative of how Alabamians see themselves? Why or why not?
Question 2: According to these commercials, who are Alabamians? What race, age, and gender are Alabamians? Where do Alabamians live? What do they do to earn money?
Question 3: According to these commercials, what do Alabamians fear? What makes them angry?
Question 4: What social or political problems are they most concerned about?
Question 5: According to these commercials, where is God in the life of Alabamians? What does God value?
Question 6: After viewing all these campaign commercials, would you prefer to hang, immolate, or shoot yourself?

Monday, May 03, 2010

Open Secret

This is a documentary based on the transcripts from the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. The institutionalized racism these delegates created has crippled our state for a hundred years.

You can learn more here.

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Good News to the Poor (and Everyone Else!)

The bill to end the state sales tax on groceries is moving forward.

But there’s this amazing quote from Rep. Gipson: “The whole bill is a redistribution of wealth. Washington is doing such a good job of that I don’t know that we need to get involved with that.”

He’s already been taken to task in this editorial, but I thought this is an excellent example of the concept of privilege: the failure to recognize your own power, status, and position in society.

See, we already redistribute wealth with taxes. We just take it from the poor and give it to the rich. Alabama has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation, a fact that directly benefits those who own the most land. We make up for the lack of state revenue with sales taxes. The poor pay a greater percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich. They are actually subsidizing farms, timber industries, and wealthy landowners every time they put food in their mouths.

Here’s another way to look at it: two to three weeks of groceries. Out of a year’s groceries, the government takes two weeks of food away from the poor and turns it into swimming pools and big lawns with automatic sprinklers for the rich. And board feet. And soybeans.

The fact that Gipson uses the kind of rhetoric worthy of FOX news to claim that this is unfair to rich people illustrates the concept of privilege: rich people are entitled to the money they earn. Poor people are not.

Last weekend I overheard a table full of elderly medicare recipients at church bewailing our country’s new “socialized medicine.” I heard from a friend that one senior citizen, after talking about her multiple extensive surgeries (all paid for with Medicare) said, “if those people can see my doctors, who knows how long I’ll have to wait?” The attitude of people in privilege is “I’ve got mine!”

Folks, if good news for the poor sounds like bad news to you, then you live in privilege. It may be the privilege of race, or class, or age, or some other system of power. But my faith says that good news to the poor is good news to everyone. The prophets proclaim a time when everyone who works for it will sit under the shade of their own fig tree (Micah 4:4), and live in houses that they built with their own hands. The idea is that in a just world, people get to enjoy the life they build for themselves and nobody will steal it from them and send them into exile, or turn them into debt slaves. City streets are safe, and there are plenty of public spaces for kids to play around retirees (Zech 8:4-5). These are not visions of streets paved with gold and towers of rubies. These visions are fairly tame: a just world where people live with some measure of security, and are able to enjoy the simple things of life. They plant their own gardens, build their own homes, and hang out with friends.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Social Justice Rejoinder

Here’s my response to two comments made on my previous post:

While God calls us to do those things, there is also 2 Thess. 3:10 that says if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat .... as well as Proverbs 29 that talks about true justice coming from only God. While Glenn may have made sweeping generalizations, the point is a church that focuses on the social justice verses but ignores the responsibility verses - is in sin and disobedience. many churches do this. and as blessed as we are in America, there are very few within our borders that are genuinely voiceless and “poor”. The “poor” in our country are richer than most of the world. So keep that in mind…

Posted by Ben on 03/27 at 08:39 PM

The confusing part about the social justice debate always takes me back to Luke 10:30-37(a priest and a Levite passed him by on the other side or maybe even went and told someone what they saw).However the Samaritin took action,bandages,oil and wine and housing.The priest and the Levites in those days were the “good guys"the advocates for the masses if I may.So who helped the man in need.Sometimes I think people confuse guilt with compassion and pass some by hoping to advocate for him to the government.I am not as concerned about what you think of the poor but more about what you do (like the Samaritin).And its amazing that those that advocate for the poor often saying we all could pay a little more to Ceasar to help the poor.They sit under tax exempt status groups that pay no federal tax,maybe its time that be re-examined imagine how many poor people could be helped if they just started paying their fair share.

Posted by Samaritin on 03/28 at 08:57 AM

You mention that churches that focus on social justice to the exclusion of “responsibility verses” are in sin and disobedience. So I must ask - where are these churches? Are there specific churches you have in mind? Because I don’t know of any myself. I think if you actually look for such examples, you will find very few. I think you would find it much easier to find churches that NEVER preach social justice, and only preach an individualistic gospel about getting souls into heaven. Are these churches also in sin and disobedience?

I ask this question because I suspect that the real issue for Beckists and politically conservative Christians is not that social justice is preached too MUCH, but that it is preached AT ALL. Moreover I believe it is the assertion that God may care more about how we vote in ways that go beyond abortion and gay marriage bills that really bothers Beckists. I am not saying this is true of you, but I believe that it is true of Beck.

I have to say I think y’all’s exegesis is pretty thin. You mention Proverbs 29 (I’m assuming verse 26) which says that many seek the favor of a ruler, but it is from YHWH that one gets justice. It is preceded by verse 14 and verse 4 (and many others, some of which I listed in the original post - by the way, how do you interpret those?), which suggest leaders and their nations are still held accountable for doing justice to the poor. Even if true justice comes from God (as do true love, true beauty, and truth itself) does that then mean it is not our duty also to do justice (Micah 6:8), even if it “approximate” justice? Do I no longer have to love my neighbor if true love comes from God?

As for the parable of the man robbed on the Jericho road - do you really think the priest and Samaritan passed by because they thought the Roman occupiers would take care of the beaten man? How do you think the original hearers of that parable understood it? How would you react if Jesus said that a conservative Christians passed by, a liberal Christian passed by, but then a gay Muslim stopped and helped the beaten man? Would that rankle a bit?

However, I do take your point. Liberals who think they can abdicate personal responsibility to love their neighbor by passing the buck to social service government agencies are not loving their neighbor. But neither are conservatives who practice conscience-salving individual acts of charity that do nothing to address the structural problems that keep people poor. In Alabama, we pay very little property tax, but sales tax on groceries is 10%. This means in a given year, the poorest people in the state are still giving to the government the equivalent of 1.5 months of groceries. So the poor are subsidizing the property of homeowners with their food. We are taking food out of the mouths of the poor to pay for education and local service for the wealthiest people. But I find that many Christians are happy to bring canned goods to food closets rather than the far less sexy and far more boring work of calling their representatives to advocate for the poor. So who really loves their neighbor?

While you can certainly go serve a meal in a homeless shelter, that doesn’t help them get or keep a job. Until you get to know the people who are homeless and learn about their stories, you can maintain the illusion that they are poor “because they don’t work.“They DO work, many of them, but their jobs do not pay enough for them to have safe and reliable housing. Many of them also do not have reliable transportation in a culture that requires cars. So people who advocate for social justice also advocate for public transportation. So they CAN get to work.

So, no, I don’t buy the argument that social justice is a cop out for loving your neighbor. Much the reverse, in fact.

The final point you want me to keep in mind is that the poor in America are better off than the poor in some countries. That is true. I have been in developing countries where the poor have no social services whatsoever. But you can also make the counterpoint that the poor in developed nations are MUCH better off than the poor in our country. They have public health care, for example. And the longevity and health statistics in those countries are much better than the averages in ours.

I would also argue that poverty is not measured in absolute terms. Poverty is not just how much money you have, but how much access you have to political power, how much access you have to employment opportunities to change your station in life, etc. Poor people in the US are far less upwardly mobile than in some other developed countries because they don’t have access to those social services. Again, you have to own a car in many cities in order to hold down a job. That’s a big hurdle for many. While they may be better off than someone without a job in Bolivia, their prospects for changing their future may be about the same.

That, in my opinion, is why Micah 6:8 says we should do mercy AND justice. We don’t merely bandage people’s wounds - we try to stop people from robbing them.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Sounds Like Social Justice to Me

If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength being small;
if you hold back from rescuing those taken away to death,
those who go staggering to the slaughter;
if you say, “Look, we did not know this”—
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it?
And will he not repay all according to their deeds?
-Proverbs 24:1-12 (Also see Matt 25:44)

Speak out for those who cannot speak,
for the right of the destitute.
Speak out, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
-Proverbs 31:8-9

If you close your ear to the poor, you will cry out and not be heard.
-Proverbs 21:13

To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.
-Proverbs 21:3

And that’s just a few of them from one of the 66 books of the Bible.

Friday, March 12, 2010

18 More Groups that have Infiltrated the Church

Since Glenn Beck keeps ranting about left-leaning Christians* who use the word “social justice” to advance their agenda, I thought I’d also point out a few other groups who have infiltrated the church, many of whom use the Bible to support their agendas:

18. White Supremacists
17. Atheists
16. Pagans
15. Right-wing Tea-party Fruitcakes
14. Pedophiles
13. New Agey Crystal-Wearing Vegans
12. Labor Unions
11. Jerks
10. Libertarians
9. Glenn Beck Listeners
8. Self-avowed, Practicing Gays and Lesbians
7. Self-avowed, Practicing Homophobes
6. Self-avowed, Practicing Evangelicals
5. Unreformed Calvinists
4. Unrepentant Arminians
3. Closet Papists
2. Sinners
1. Christians

These people are inside your church! Some of them are clergy! Scary!

——————————————————-

*He didn’t actually say “left-leaning” - he said “communist” and “Nazi.” That’s part of what makes this particularly dishonest. He knows very well what he’s talking about: Christians who support healthcare reform and justice for the poor because they believe in the Biblical mandate to love their neighbor with more than superficial charity.

I really hope he keeps talking about this. The more he talks the more transparent he becomes.

Edit (3-13-2010): Credit where credit is due: Lewis Archer was the first person I heard the phrase “self-avowed, practicing evangelical” from. Now I think I want a bumper sticker with that phrase.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Challenges in Creating a Culture of Gratitude

Most Christians are not thankful. We’re excellent at thanking God for the weather (which happens to both the wicked and the just), and for food (while we’re sitting down before a meal), but we are abso-freaking-lutely terrible at thanking each other.

In fact, there are at least two sources of outright hostility toward the action of thanking people for their ministry, for the good deeds they do, or for just being who they are.

The first source pretends to be concerned about people. “We don’t want to publicly thank people for what they do,” goes the reasoning, “because we might leave someone out, and they would get mad.” There’s a pet phrase these people like to use. “It’s like giving a gift to one person, but giving everyone else a dead fish.”*

This statement assumes that the average congregation member has the emotional maturity of a two year-old. Sure, there are a small minority of emotionally immature people in the congregation. Imagine emotional maturity as a bell curve, and expect that the bottom 5% will get their shorts in a twist about anything. But, as with other issues in the church, are we really going to refrain from thanking people because someone might feel left out? This is just plain sick. It’s projecting - and replicating - the most dysfunctional family dynamic in the congregation: We must tiptoe around emotionally immature people so that they don’t blow up and cause conflict.

The other problem with this way of thinking is that it goes against everything we know about behavior change. If you want to shape the behavior of a group, you use positive reinforcement. My Dad points out that this is one of the best ways for teachers to manage a classroom. Rather than yelling at the class to be quiet or settle down, the teacher finds one person who is behaving appropriately and praises that person. The people surrounding that person will then imitate the behavior to earn the teacher’s praise. People who are skilled in this kind of strategy can manage a class without threatening, yelling, or scolding. Attention changes the behavior of a group. Thanking people for their service shapes the behavior of a community.

The other source of resistance to thanking people is philosophical. It suggest that we shouldn’t thank people for doing what they should do anyway. Like good soldiers, Christians should just naturally want to serve meals at shelters, give their money away, and do other acts of service. Some people carry this to the level of scorn. “You only go on a short-term mission trips to feel good about yourself,” goes the rhetoric, “and then you come back and do nothing.”**

Again, this goes against everything we know about behavior change. We learn best through positive reinforcement, not through stern lectures about what we ought to do, or through being guilt-tripped into action.

Failure to thank people kills communities. In John Gottman’s research on marriage and relationships, he found that couples who did not thank each other for doing chores, taking care of the kids, or basic loving actions did not stay married. It’s not that they thanked each other because cooking dinner or changing the oil in the car were somehow extra or unexpected. They thanked each other for doing their duty because they were grateful. They knew how to appreciate the simple things in life. They cultivated their own culture of gratitude.

And are do-gooders supposed to refrain from feeling good about the work they do? Are they supposed to remind themselves constantly not to be proud of the house they built, the money they raised, the people they comforted? Are those good feelings dangerous, and should we quash them lest we become prideful and think we are God-like in our beneficence? Posh. Posh, I say! Sure, Jesus admonishes his followers to beware practicing their piety in front of others in order to be admired by them (Matt 6:1), but he specifically refers to giving, praying, and fasting - “religious” behaviors to show others how good we are. Altruistic behaviors, in contrast to “religious” ones, release chemicals in our brain that make us feel good. God wants us to feel good about doing good. Actively working to suppress good feelings in ourselves or others is not just counterproductive in changing behavior. It’s sick.

Which brings me to the theological problem with thanklessness in churches. I’m going to be uncharacteristically supernaturalist here: I think the real source of both these attitudes is the devil. Satan. Ol’ Scratch. See, the devil is really good at disguising snarky, self-aggrandizing and selfish attitudes with philosophical and benevolent language: “We’re going to be thankless so we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. We’re going to be thankless because thanking people is morally questionable.” The evil powers of this world do not want people to change their behavior, and so they have infiltrated the church and infected all our efforts at service and good deeds with theological suspicion, poisoning the pleasure of making human contact and doing human ministry, de-carnating our acts of pleasurable service into Platonic, abstract shoulds and oughts. This is the same attitude of ascetic Christians in times past toward sex: “just close your eyes and think of England.” So now, instead of just overcoming middle-class classism, racism, and fear to go downtown and work in a homeless shelter, you have to do so without feeling good about yourself. Yeah, good luck with that.

So thank people all the time because it changes their behavior. Thank them all the time because they are gifts from God, put here to do Kingdom work. Thank them and thank God for them.

“Y’all are the light of the world… let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” (Matt 5:14, 16)

—————————————-

*Dead fish? Where the heck did a dead fish come from? I’ve heard this particular expression countless times, but I don’t even know where the metaphor began. Has it come detached from a story somewhere?

**I’m still looking for reliable empirical data on the effectiveness of missions projects or trips at changing behavior. Anecdotally, at least half of the people I travel with on mission trips or participate in projects with say things like, “I should have done this years ago. I should do this more often. I’m going to resolve to do this once a week.” They talk about the relationships they build and the humility that comes with being served by the poor. I cannot measure follow-through, but I do know that praise and giving thanks for those activities will increase the odds that the behavior will increase. That’s basic behavioral science.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Advice for Preachers

I can no longer remember who said this to me, but it went something like this: “Julia Childs said never apologize for the food you’ve prepared. In the same way, preachers should never apologize for the sermons they’ve prepared, nor for sharing their jokes or repeating their stories.”

Thursday, February 18, 2010

10 Reasons Ash Wednesday is Better than Christmas

10. No braving the malls looking for Lent gifts
9. No pressure to send “Merry Ash Wednesday” cards
8. No explaining why using chi-rho isn’t “X-ing Jesus out” of Lent
7. No dominionist fundagelicals trying to fight culture wars by putting “Jesus resisting temptation in the wilderness” displays on public property
6. No celebrity holiday albums
5. No Ash Wednesday sitcom specials
4. No saccharine email forwards about “the true meaning” of Ash Wednesday
3. No tacky Ash Wednesday sweaters
2. “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return” extremely difficult to use in consumer marketing strategies
1. Nobody ever says, “Ash Wednesday is really all about the children.”