This Must Not Stand

I went to a Presbytery meeting last night, we approved the operating budget, and did some other pretty normal stuff.  We also recognized an award given by the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship to a member of one of the churches in our Presbytery, Evelyn Chumbow.  As you might guess by the last name, Evelyn is from Africa, Cameroon specifically.  She is enthusiastic and easy to like, and she has a story that everyone needs to hear.
At nine years old Evelyn was sold into slavery by her Uncle.  She was purchased for the grand total of $2000 by a wealthy woman who was from Cameroon, but who was working in the United States for Lockheed Martin.  She was not initially aware of what was happening, and there is some question as to whether the Uncle really understood what was going on either.  Her family seemed to think that this was some sort of opportunity for her to go to America, be educated here, work hard and achieve the American Dream.  It did not turn out to be the case.
She became, as so many Africans before her, a slave, bought and paid for, in 1994.  She was kept out of school and away from anything like freedom, in Silver Spring Maryland.  She became a domestic servant of the wealthy woman who she only calls "her trafficker." She cooked, she cleaned, she cared for younger children.  When she did not please her mistress, she was stripped and whipped with a cable, she was constantly told that she was ugly and stupid and that she was worth nothing and that nobody cared about her.  She remained in that situation for over seven years before she finally escaped with the help of a cousin who had also been sold to the same trafficker.  They found family that lived here and the slavery ended, but now she was an undocumented immigrant, and her family wasn't quite sure how to proceed without putting the now 17 year old girl in the hands of the authorities.  There are laws to protect victims of human trafficking, but they are a work in progress, fifteen years ago, they were even more "in progress."
Around the world, by some estimates (and estimates are really all we have about this tragedy) there are over 12 million people in some form of slavery.  This is a pretty helpful infographic from the Department of Homeland Security that tells you about the problem.  According historical records, this is over 10 times the number of slaves held in the Antebellum United States (granted that was only one country and the 12 million figure is worldwide).  However, unlike in the period before the Civil war, where the number of slaves was capable of being measured somewhat more precisely, the numbers of total human beings being trafficked, here and around the world, is really just a guess, and probably on the low end.
When you hear stories of survivors like Evelyn, and you should, if you have the opportunity, sit and hear someone like her tell her story, you realize that this problem is massive and heartbreaking.  It preys on the vulnerable, on poor children who think they are being given a chance at something better. It is fueled by money and ignored by legal systems in many parts of the world.  People with enough resources can manage ways around the enforcement procedures and they forever and always wield fear as a weapon.
Evelyn escaped, she is now thirty, married with a three year old son.  She got that American education that she wanted so much, but it came the long, hard way around.  She has decided to use her voice to speak for those who are still trapped, trafficked and enslaved.  She came and sat in a circle of Presbyterians and told us her story.  She revisited the horrors of a little girl who became someone's property, the beatings, the insults, the hopeless feeling of being intentionally de-humanized, and she did so without crying.
When they gave her the little plaque and the certificate for her work, she did cry though, because she, as a survivor, was seen, and recognized.  I can't even imagine what sort of emotional processes one would go through to go from being a slave to being applauded by two hundred people at a Presbytery meeting because you simply have the courage to tell about the horror.
This horror can happen in your neighborhood. This horror is visited on too many.  This must not stand. There are people who are trying to help, some of them were there last night in our little circle, listening to Evelyn.  This is a link to one of them:
End Slavery Now
This is another:
Courtney's House
And here is more about Evelyn.
Look, learn and try and comprehend the reality that this is still happening in our world, and in our very own land of the free.

Is It November Yet?

Watching the debate last night felt sort of similar to getting prostate exam, which is to say uncomfortable, but probably necessary.  I'm not ashamed to admit that I needed some beer to get through it, I'm actually proud that I didn't resort to stronger beverages. It's not so much that I need help deciding who to vote for, I have long since decided that this is not a "lesser of two evils" situation, it is simply a choice between dangerous and unlikable.
Once upon a time, I was registered Republican (the first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem).  I fancied myself a conservative, but to tell you the truth I think that meant something a bit different then.  Then I started this whole following Jesus thing and honestly my conservatism started biting the dust.  That may not be the way for everyone.  I am not saying that conservatism and Christianity are incompatible, because I know many people who are dedicated both to Christ and to economically, politically and socially conservative positions.  The sharpest folks in that lot actually realize that Trump is no conservative, and are grudgingly admitting that Hillary probably is a better option, but it is painful for them. I hope they make the GOP feel their pain in elections other than the Presidential race.
Trump actually occupies a place that American politics has not seen for quite a while, maybe not ever, so we don't really have a clear label for it (at least if we're going to take Fascist off the table as being too inflammatory).  He is authoritarian, evidenced by his insistence that "strong" leadership is the answer to everything from ISIS to the National Debt. In Trump's bubble, being a winner is not everything, it's the only thing.  He talked last night about all the ways other countries are taking advantage of us and how we're not winning, which he sees as a sign of weakness.  Others (including me) might call it diplomacy.  The debate started favorably for Trump, as they talked about trade deals.  I will admit, the parts of his platform that come closest to sanity are actually his critique of trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP.  We do get the short end on some of those deals, but mostly they end up being a wash when they actually get put in to practice.
Trump's solution, as near as I can tell, is sheer protectionism and government intervention, which is not very conservative at all my dear Mr. (Adam) Smith.  He talked out one side of his mouth about doing away with regulations and out the other about preventing corporations from leaving the country.  No doubt he thought this was a coherent carrot/stick strategy.  You keep them from leaving by making it more attractive to stay by cutting taxes and removing pesky roadblocks like environmental regulation. But it seems to me, as someone who likes clean air, water, and basic human rights for the labor force as patently dangerous.
He tries to plant the flag of an corporate oligarch (which he is) and then pivot to become some sort of warped populist, playing primarily upon the sense of many that they are getting shafted by "big government." The problem that his competitors in the primary, and now Hillary, have is that the sense of being wronged may have some ground in reality.  The system is not working out for a lot of people right now, and career politicians like Clinton are saddled with that reality, while Trump gets to play everyman and outsider.
Trump, despite his "common man" rhetoric is not and has never been a common man.  He was born wealthy and has operated for his whole life according to the distinctively different set of rules that we have allowed for the rich.  The nobles do not get properly handled and Trump's whole campaign hinges on his loyal followers not noticing or not caring that this is true.  To him taking advantage of loopholes and concessions to the special interests is simply good business, and indeed, it probably is, but legal does not equal moral or ethical. He shrugs off these inconsistencies as unimportant, the only thing that matters is that he is going to "win."
But the world is big and complicated and winning is not always the way to get the best possible outcome for the future of the nation, or the human race.  We are evolving a global society, which means that the old standards of nationalism are starting to fray around the edges. And this is where conservatism runs into a wall, if you're trying to hold the line (which is what conservatives do necessarily and well at their best) while the world changes under you, you're going to have this problem: defending the indefensible. Which is precisely the predicament sensible and good conservatives have with Donald J. Trump.
To be honest, I probably don't feel any better about voting for Clinton than they do, despite the positions that Bernie essentially forced her into, she's honestly not a real liberal, and she's probably going to be pretty status quo for at least four years. I guess we made this bed, all of us, left and right, and it's time to take a long nap.  Wake me up on election day so we can get this over with.

So What?

We just baptized a little girl yesterday, which is becoming an increasingly radical act in the world today, at least if you understand something of what's going on.  There is this growing pool of research and analysis telling us religious types that a large and growing segment of the population just doesn't really want to smell what we're cooking.  These people have become known as the "Nones," which in verbal conversation can be confused with Nuns, which then can lead to some quizzical looks from your conversation partner.
I've been trying to wrestle with what it would mean to be a "None" and what might actually crack the shell of either apathy or antipathy that leads folks to simple say "none of the above" to all sorts of theological and religious choices.  I actually think it might be pretty important for the long term health of the church.
Here's where I get: I understand that there are just lots of better things to do with your time than to go to church.  I understand that without a relationship with God, worship seems like a rather strange assemblage of rites that are either ossified or kooky.  Maybe you like one style better than another, maybe one preacher tells better jokes or one church has a more inspiring band, but honestly church mostly seems like a waste of time if you're not being drawn into some sort of divine relationship.
The problem for churches is the question of how one arranges for that to happen on a weekly basis, during a grudgingly given hour.  We can't, and too often we try to fake it, which of course sets off the authenticity alerts of those who are maybe just a little bit interested, and it reinforces every negative stereotype of "plastic" Christianity that people brought with them in the door.
But we baptized a little baby girl yesterday.  I took some water, that came out of an ordinary tap, not from the Jordan river or anything like that, and I put it on her head, and she looked sort of surprised that her Dad had just handed her over to a big bearded guy in a pink bow tie and now all of the sudden she was wet and being paraded around in front of a room full of people.  I reminded them that they were children of God and something sacred happened.  In the church we call that a Sacrament.  Most of us in the room don't really understand it much better than the little girl, but we know something is going on.
What does having a relationship with God look like? And do you honestly need a church to have one? Religions all seem to differ about what salvation even means.  Do you need to do certain things? Not do certain things?  Do you need to believe certain things?  Do you even need to acknowledge that God is present and real?  Non-religious people seem to be capable of happiness and contentment and even fulfillment.  Atheists are capable of being kind and forgiving to others.  It is a mistake to think that all non-religious people are out there secretly suffering and just hoping that somehow the church will save them from it all.  The research is showing us that that is not the case.
Anecdotal evidence from believers, you know the "I once was lost, but now I'm found" testimonies are losing resonance.  There are too many other ways that people turned their lives around, a lot of them involved 12 step programs whose connection to the Christian faith is lost on many, other than the fact that they may meet in a church social hall.  What does salvation even mean to comfortable and privileged Americans?  We don't need rescued, we're actually doing all right thank you very much.
Did I mention that we baptized a little baby girl yesterday?  Did I tell you that you are a child of God?  Whether you believe in God or not, I have decided that I will no longer live in fear of letting people in on the secret of God's unconditional love.  It's possible that, if people don't fear damnation, or if they realize that maybe the Church isn't the only road to being a "good person," they will have very little use for this institution that I have given my life to serve.  But I'm through with making excuses or trying to sell Jesus.  I think Jesus is tired of being sold.
I think Jesus wants us to baptize babies, and tell stories to little kids, and get together for meals that we share in his name, to talk about our struggles and our challenges and to wrestle with the meaning of Scripture and how it shapes our life.  He wants us to work for justice in our world, and peace while we're at it.  He wants us to feed, clothe and house the poor and the vulnerable, and hold the hand of the dying.  He wants us to proclaim redemption to the captives (however you define captivity) and set the prisoners free.  So I'm just going to work on that list for a while, and I'm going to encourage the people in my church to do the same.  When we get all that stuff done, then we will worry about the statistics.

Louder Than Bombs

More explosions, more casualties, more fear and more terror.  Once again, the Pavlovian stimulus of this particular sort of violence elicits an increasingly predictable response, from all quarters:

1. From those who have bought the most nationalist, defensive posture: this is a fundamental problem with Islam, it allows radicalization and therefore must be treated as a cancer and extirpated wherever it is found.  More war, contain and conquer.
2. From those who react against such a knee jerk reaction with their own knee jerk reaction: No, it's not all of Islam, nor should we go on the rampage against the majority of law-abiding and peaceful Muslims.

For those who may not start at the fearful end, but cannot really find a home at at the acceptance end, the pull towards the fear gets stronger as explosions get closer to home and as the casualty count climbs.  Which is, of course, the goal of terrorism.  Simply stated, the objective of terrorists in the modern world is to provoke violence from the west, a task which we are allowing them to accomplish rather splendidly with very little resistance.
We need to distinguish the aims of terrorists from the aims of guerrilla warfare as it is waged by insurrectionists and rebels.  The aim of guerrilla warfare is to make it difficult, if not untenable, for a larger, more powerful force to continue in its necessary day to day operations.  The end game is that the occupying force decides it's just not worth it and goes home.  It happened to us in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan, it works given the proper conditions.
The agenda of Al Quaeda and ISIS is not, in fact, to drive the US out of their territory, but rather to draw us in, and for them to infiltrate our space.  Their goal is not to defeat us, but rather to impel us towards our inevitable self destruction, which from their perspective, is ordained by Allah, and imminent due to our decadence and moral decay.  When we respond to their violence with more violence we create destruction, which leads to poverty and desperation, which leads to anger and resentment among people who have no idea why someone blowing up a dumpster in New York is somehow their fault.  It's like a terrible and tragic version of a little bug going kerchoo.  Our bombs are the best recruiting tool ISIS has. How difficult is it for a teenager who just watched his house explode with his parents inside it to believe that the people who launched that bomb are his enemy?
They call this sort of thing "a vicious cycle" for good reason.
This is not obtuse logic here, the systems that lock us into these cycles can get complicated, but the simple fact of the matter is that the best way to stop the "radicalization" of Islamic folks is to fight the poverty and oppression that makes them even want to listen to someone who is telling them to die in the name of Allah.  Suicidal acts of violence are actually not on too many Muslim's short list of good ideas, but a little fear can go a long way.
I run into a good number of Americans, who have fallen victim to the same sort of fear and anger based thinking.  These people, usually good people, have become radicalized in their own way.  They are unmoved by the plight of refugees, at least not enough to actually advocate opening up and making room for them.  They enthusiastically support military intervention in all those parts of the globe that they have come to believe create our enemies.  They tacitly, if not explicitly believe that this "war on terror" can and should be waged like any other war, by simply defeating our enemy in battle.
It should be pretty obvious by now that winning the battles is losing the war.  We drive the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan they hide and wait for that inevitable when our own weight takes us down.  We "contain" ISIS, and they manage to convince dissatisfied and determined  people in Paris and elsewhere that they ought to take up the cause, fight for purity and orthodoxy.  Honestly there is very little we can do to protect ourselves from people that just want to blow us up.  Pressure vessel bombs are essentially impossible to prevent, they do not require high explosives or unusual substances.  In other words, no matter what anyone promises you, we are never going to be completely safe.  There are just too many ways to kill people, too many ways to create chaos and destruction if you don't have anything to lose.
I think the only answer is to work at reducing the number of desperately poor and even displaced people out there, and I don't mean by bombing them.

That's Kind of the Point

Protest: (noun): a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.
Synonyms: objection, complaint, exception, disapproval, challenge, dissent, demurral, remonstration, fuss, outcry.

Some football players have decided to stage a protest during the National Anthem.  It started with one guy, Colin Kaepernick, and has grown to include a few more.  I talked a while back about the free speech aspect of this. But over the past weeks I have noticed that perhaps we need to discuss the basic idea of a protest and what it is and what it is supposed to do.  I may have jumped the shark in discussing constitutional rights and such before establishing the simple nature of why we might want to exercise our right to speak and act.
Let's use nice numbered lists.  First of all, let's define what you can protest:
1. Anything and everything that bothers you

Okay that was a short list, let's now define what would make your protest illegal under our current laws:
1. Violence towards other people.
2. Destruction of property (that does not belong to you).
3. Treason
4. Inciting a riot or the violation of rules 1-3

There may be some other disqualifying acts, however, I'm pretty sure that Kaepernick and those who have joined him are not in violation of any of them.  Now let's look at things that people have found objectionable about protests and think on the idea of whether or not that invalidates the protest:

1. It is offensive to some people: that seems to be the crux of this particular issue. Sitting, raising a fist, or kneeling during the anthem seems disrespectful to a certain segment of the population. Maybe to veterans (though many Vets have supported this particular protest). Maybe to Police, maybe just to everyday patriotic types.  But the fact that a protest offends someone does not invalidate the protest, in fact, it may be a necessary component of a protest to challenge complacency and create awareness, even if it is uncomfortable.
2. Timing: This weekend being the anniversary of 9-11 created a particular firestorm over the players engaged in this protest.  At a time when patriotism was running high, people seemed to want a week off from thinking about all the problems we have among ourselves, but again protesting even now brought back visibility and discussion.
3. Ad Hominem Attacks: This is one of our current favorite rhetorical fallacies.  So much of our public discourse is based around discrediting the person rather than actually addressing the ideas.  It is essentially playground name calling, no matter how well you dress it up.  Example: Trent Dilfer, quarterback turned TV talking guy (who is white, not surprisingly) criticized Colin Kaepernick whose job as a backup QB is to "be quiet and sit in the shadows and "tearing at the fabric of the team"  The argument was that the backup quarterback (something Dilfer actually knows a bit about), is supposed to know their role and shut their mouth.  His critique of Kaepernick was essentially that he was being selfish or self aggrandizing (things that I honestly don't see in Kaepernick very much at all).  Kaepernick responded quite well, as he has done pretty consistently, "To me, he's telling me that my position as a backup QB and being quiet are more important than peoples lives?" As the kids say, "wicked burn."

Look, I'm a protestant, which means that the church I serve and the tradition of faith that I stand in was born because some people: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melancthon, et al found the theology and behavior of the Roman Catholic church to be objectionable, and they started what has become known as the Reformation.  The link between protest and reform is important in this situation as well.  These players are not protesting something silly or something that is really even in much question: we have a problem with race in this country and people are dying because of it. They are not whining about not making enough money, they are not campaigning for better negotiating powers with the league, they are displaying their discontent with a system that is not going to change or reform itself voluntarily.
They have a place in our public awareness because we have given it to them as men who are good at playing a game.They are on TV because we are collectively obsessed with their exploits. If Kaepernick and his fellows were not football players, would we hear them?  No stinking way.
The aim of protest is to challenge us to think about things. Despite all the ways in which we try to let our outrage at their methods wipe away the message, there is evidence that it is actually beginning to get through.  More and more people are hearing it even as critics continue to rant and rave.  It may have even passed a tipping point where reasoned responses to critics allow those not blinded by their rage and fear to maybe open the doors of their mind to something that might just help them grow.

Fifteen Years plus One Day

Heard the sound of a thunder that roared out a warning.

Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world.

-Bob Dylan, A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

On September 11, 2001, I didn't even know what "social media" actually was.  As far as I am aware, nobody did.  But I spent a good part of yesterday afternoon browsing through the reactions of the interweb to yet another 9-11 anniversary.  Some of you were "remembering the lost," some of you were "lamenting the response," others of you were still, unfortunately, indulging revenge fantasies and flexing metaphorical muscles.

After fifteen years, I'm still not sure I have a "good" response to what happened that day. I try to go back to that morning every so often to see if anything new has come up.  I remember it was beautiful (the weather I mean), it was a perfect September Day. I was in my second year at Pittsburgh Seminary,  I got up and went to class (Christian Education with Barry Jackson and Fred Smith).  The professors came in and said something like, "something is happening, you all need to go home and turn on your TVs." They didn't know the details, but they knew it was terrible. The class was supposed to start at 9:00, I was home by the time it should have started. I turned on the TV to the sight of black smoke pouring out of one of the World Trade Center Towers. No one knew what was going on, the news crews were talking about how it might have been accidental, with the cameras trained on the North Tower. Then, as I and just about everyone else who had managed to get near a TV watched that second plane came in to hit the South Tower.  Now it was damn sure no accident.  Then we started to hear about the grounding of flights and the Pentagon and flight 93 somewhere over western Pennsylvania.  That was the most panicky moment for me personally, that plane was in my neighborhood.  We drove right by the place where flight 93 crashed every time we traveled to and from New Jersey from Pittsburgh.

As things began to become known the scope of what happened sank in.  I just sat and watched.  After a while, I turned off the sound on the TV, made some phone calls, to my mom, I tried to get Michele on her cell phone, I left a message, mostly to try and warn her of what she was surely about to find out.  I got a few phone calls from other relatives who thought maybe 93 hit the Burgh. Then it was just down to the shock and sadness as the towers came down and the news footage flashed back and forth from New York to D.C. to that empty field in PA.  People covered in ashes, firefighters running into the cloud of smoke and debris.

I played my guitar a little bit.  I sat there in shock a lot.  I felt like there should be something to do.  There wasn't.

At some point the thought occurred to me: "This is going to start a war."

Actually it started several.  It has meant that my children have never known a world where we weren't fighting someone somewhere.  When they hear about 9-11, and they do hear about it, it is something that happened before they were born, it is something that has become entrenched as a reality as surely as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before that day I wondered what my generation would call its defining moment.  My parents generation can all tell you "where they were" when they found out JFK was shot.  The generation before them had "the date that will live in infamy," WWII and all that went with it.

I suppose that, like those other moments and conflagrations, it's not useful to wish things had gone differently.  Sometimes things just need to break, because we just can't seem to keep our stuff on track.  I knew on 9-11 that thousands, if not millions were going to die as a result of that attack.  What's worse, I knew that the men who planned that travesty knew it as well.  Even before I really understood much about the mind of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida, I knew that this attack was a slap in the face, designed to provoke us into violence.

I don't mean to be dismissive about the tragedy, but the main goal of those attacks was not to defeat us or even frighten us, it was to provoke us.  They knew very well that the United States was not going to just shrivel up and die because of one attack.  They attacked our symbols: economic and military, in the heart of our two greatest cities.  What they did was symbolic and horrific enough that we couldn't just shrug it off.

There was no way in the world, even the most even-keeled politician could oppose a war of vengeance and justice.  The only voices that said anything about the fact that maybe violence was not the answer to this were the already marginalized and disregarded voices.  Everyone else, including me, was ready to get some payback. It really couldn't have gone any other way.

I guess the fact that we played into the plan of our enemies so truly to the script is what started to get me thinking; much too late and much too ineffectually, granted, but thinking nonetheless. It's a decade and a half now, and I know that if terrorists really want to get to us, they will.  I know that all the butt-kicking we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq has not really done much to advance the cause of peace on earth. I know we still have enemies, and probably have made some new ones along the way.

But I really don't believe it could have gone down any other way, which is always the way of violence.  It's like those fatalistic moments in the old westerns when the sheriff is buckling on his guns and going out to make a stand. He knows he's outnumbered and outgunned, he knows that even if he comes back alive there will always be more outlaws.  Whether he lives of dies, whether he wins or loses, nothing is really going to be solved for very long.  But he's gotta do, what he's gotta do.

It's not really a pleasant or hopeful feeling, being locked into a course you didn't and wouldn't choose, but I can't help feeling that we're still on that path.

Why Would That Be?

I've been looking for a savior in these dirty streets,

Looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets.

I've been raising up my hands, drive another nail in,

Just what God needs, one more victim.

-Crucify, Tori Amos

I was taking Caitlyn to Piano practice yesterday and Tori Amos came on the radio.  It was the song quoted above, which you might guess has some pretty heavy lyrics, but they're of the more abstract sort that generally don't sink in with an 11 year old.  What did sink in was what the DJ said after the song was over: "Tori Amos grew up with a Pastor for a father, and that was hard for her at times."

Caitlyn immediately asked, "Why would that be hard for her?"  At which point I had one of those moments where I was both happy and sad at the same time.  I was happy because the Pastor's kid sitting next to me has never experienced the judgmental side of the church.  She has yet to experience people telling her that her gender or her sexuality is a shameful thing as they "speak for God."  I was happy that, as long as I am her father and her pastor, she will never hear those things from me.  I was sad because too many people do hear them.  I tried to deflect with humor, mostly because I thought I might start crying if I didn't laugh it off.  I said, "Let's just say not every pastor is as cool as your Dad."

To which she replied, "Can't argue with that."

We're happy again and on the way to piano lessons, and I don't have to drive while crying.

I was ready to assume that Rev. Amos was your typical Bible thumping fundamentalist and go on some sort of rant about that, but as it turns out, he is a United Methodist, and no I'm not going to disparage that, because as I read a little about the "difficult relationship," the DJ was ready to tell us about, I found out that Tori's father, far from being a wet blanket on her career actually went with her to bars, even gay bars (Tori was very popular in the LGBT community) to "chaperone" according to Wikipedia, which may or may not have been a smothering, over-protective father, it could have just been so that she would be allowed in as a minor, and so that his little girl would be safe.

I also remembered what has been my favorite Tori song, especially since the birth of my little girl: Winter.  In which the chorus is her father telling her: "When you gonna make up your mind?  When you gonna love you as much as I do? When you gonna make up your mind? Cause things are gonna change so fast..."  That one gives me happy, sad, cry feels as well.

Obviously Tori's relationship with her father wasn't all bad, but judging from some of her songs the relationship with the church was another story.  Which gave me a whole other set of thoughts and feelings.  What if I can't protect my kids from the bad stuff?  (Rhetorical question, I know I can't, at least not forever).  Why is there bad stuff?  Why are we still so hung up in so many ways that probably have nothing to do with what God wants from us?  Why do we, in some quarters, still teach that women are essentially responsible for sin based on that story about a snake and a fruit?  Why do we still endorse patriarchy?  How is the Gospel of Jesus Christ still able to be polluted with prejudice based on race, sexual orientation and yes, gender?

I know, I know, sin. But if Christ died for our sins, why do we need to crucify ourselves?  And I don't mean in the redemptive carrying of the cross sense either, I mean why do we pass on this guilt and shame from generation to generation, and how can we stop it?  To me the message of the Good News says, "Stop it, it's done, it's paid in full."  Welcome the sinners, eat with the outcasts and don't squash the strange little girls who see music and get kicked out of a prestigious musical program at age 11 (Caitlyn's age) because she didn't want to play by the rules.

I have always tried to remember, for better or worse that when my kids pray the disciple's prayer, when they say Our Father, even if they're trying to think about God in heaven, they're going to probably, in some way, shape or form, picture me.  That is a heavy thing. I am thankful that, I guess so far, it's going okay.

Again, and Again

Again I saw all the oppressions that are practiced under the sun.

Look, the tears of the oppressed - 

With no one to comfort them!

On the side of their oppressors there was power -

With no one to comfort them.

-Ecclesiastes 4: 1 (NRSV)

It started when I read Black Elk Speaks, in High School.  Then I read a biography of Crazy Horse, which was probably a little bit advanced for a high school book report.  I learned about the Ghost Dance, Little Bighorn from the other side, Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears, the unending stream of broken treaties and promises made by the white man.  It was the first time that I was actually ashamed of what my ancestors were. It was the first inkling I had of the reality that my place in the world was stolen from others.  It would not be the last time I had that feeling, in fact, I would go so far as to say that, over the years that feeling has actually stuck around long enough to mature a bit.

I have learned quite a bit about Native American History.  I have actually had the blessing of experiencing life among the Tglingit people in southeast Alaska for a few weeks. It was a mission trip with Presbyterian kids from all over Pennsylvania.  I spent two weeks in a town called Kake, which is not a regular stop on the cruise line itinerary.  I made friends with some "Indians," we were instructed ahead of time, not to use that word, but they laughed at us every time we used the phrase "Native Americans." I learned that they actually preferred it when people referred to them by their tribal designation: Tglingit, and if you took the time to even ask what clan they were, mostly Ravens in Kake, but a few Eagles, it was really a sign that you maybe understood something about them.

I also learned that alcoholism started early and suicide was a very real problem among their people.  I learned that subsistence hunting and fishing was not as glamorous as sometimes portrayed.  I learned that they were not any more or less in "harmony with nature" than your average person.  It was a great learning experience.  It was one of many ways that I learned not to lean too heavily on stereotypes (even if they are romantic glosses on reality rather than negative prejudice).

The thing that I did find to be true though, is that Native peoples are pretty regularly screwed over by the government, working in concert with private corporations out to pillage the last thing that most Native people have left: natural resources and land. In southeast Alaska the corporations come, take the timber and the fish and leave.  The economy of little towns like Kake booms and busts, and most of the young people who live in a place of stunning beauty and charm just really want and need to leave. This pattern is repeated again and again.

Historical patterns are important here, because what is going on in the Dakotas right now, is the latest in a long line of offenses of this nature.  The government has granted a right of way for an oil company to build a pipeline.  It's not on tribal land, but it is near tribal land and threatens the water supply.  It also has a spiritual significance because of how the people who still hold on to their tribal heritage view the land.  The land is tied to who they are, and they lose a great deal when it is violated and degraded.

To the government, this is simply a job that needs the proper permits and easements.  To the oil company this is simply a matter of dollars and cents. To the people who call the land sacred it is much more than either one of those things.  They have put themselves in the way of both legal process and corporate profits, and they have done so peacefully.

At least until this weekend, there was a confrontation between pipeline security staff (not police mind you, private contractors).  The security people claim they were attacked by demonstrators, and they retaliated with tear gas and attack dogs.  Technically they have a legal right to defend their job site against "trespassers," but as is so often the case, legal does not equal righteous.  Once again, our government finds itself in a place where it has to decide whether to side with the dollars or with the sense. A sense of history tells me that this is repeating a very old pattern that has gone on too long and cost too many lives.  A sense of justice tells me that ignoring the protest of these people is immoral right here and now.

It is in the hands of a judge right now.  This has happened before, there is nothing new under the sun.  I'm praying that maybe, unlikely as it may be, it will end differently this time around.  Maybe we can finally take a step towards justice, instead of repeating the same old pattern.  If we follow the protocols of profit and lean too much on what is merely legal we will simply show that none of the tragedies of the past have really sunk in. It is really not just about this one thing, this one pipeline, if we simplify it to that we will probably underestimate the injustice.  Which seems to be something we do, again, and again, and again.

Accords, Full Speed Ahead

While most of the world was grilling hot dogs and losing their collective minds about Colin Kaepernick.  Our President was in China doing something that really, really needed to be done: actually working with China to ratify the Paris Climate Agreement. Critics of such agreements in the past have used the old "it's not fair if only we do the right thing," argument to basically nullify the important work and standards of every thing from the Clean Air Act to the Kyoto protocols.  Indeed, getting crowded and massive nations like China and India to consider the external costs of rampant industrial pollution has been tough sledding.  And getting the not-so-crowded, but still super CO2 producing United States to sign on to those agreements while two of our chief economic rivals are still spewing smoke into the atmosphere has been a hard sell as well.
The argument goes that we will be at a disadvantage if manufacturing, power generation and transportation are held to high environmental standards here, while China gets to pollute so badly that you can't even breath without a mask in Bejing (true story) on certain days.  Add this to the fact that China and India can basically provide seemingly endless, very cheap labor by virtue of those two nations containing nearly 35% of the world's humans.  They are the only two single nations to eclipse 1 Billion, the US (3rd overall) has 320 Million, both China and India individually have the entire population of the United States plus 1 Billion people.
To get China, and hopefully soon India, on board is absolutely crucial to the successful implementation of a climate change strategy that will actually prevent the global catastrophe that is now impending.  The United States and China are the big boys on the pollution block, we are the two biggest producers of greenhouse gasses, and we are the two economies that depend most heavily on fossil fuels.  The United States was built on coal and oil, our natural resources have always been our fall back asset.  China has very different challenges than we do, their population is four times what ours is, they are ostensibly communist, but what that means is that the government bears direct responsibility for 1.3 Billion people.  Feeding, housing, employing and providing for nearly 1 in every seven people on the face of the earth is a big job, and they need lots of money.  Until fairly recently, going green meant having less money to throw around.
Of course, as the well used proverb points out: you can't eat money, (or breath money, or keep the earth from over heating with money).  And that's the point where President Obama and President Xi Jinping finally came together and said they are on board with the Paris Climate Agreement.  China's participation cuts the knees off of many of the Anti-Paris arguments I have heard, which usually involve the clause: "China's not going to follow those rules."  Well, they're saying, as a matter of fact, that they intend to do just that.
With the two most powerful nations (and most CO2 heavy) in the world on board, others will be more inclined to follow. This is an important moment in the fight to keep our planet healthy.  It doesn't mean the job is done, an agreement or an accord is not worth the paper it's written on until the measures it implies are implemented.  I looked to try and find an article about this that didn't at least mention the impending domestic resistance to this accord, and I couldn't find one that didn't take a shot at either Donald Trump or the Republican Congress (I really am trying to be balanced).  The one linked above is from Reuters, which is about as unbiased as you can get nowadays.  You will notice that there is still the possibility that climate change deniers and obstructionists are still going to play a part in this, and I would assume there are probably similar forces at work in China.
But I am hopeful that, for a moment, two nations looked each other in the eye and said, "enough of this."  For the sake of our children, and grandchildren we need to get a grip on this.  I don't care what your political affiliation is, the livability of our planet is in your best interests.  Two of the most powerful men in the world put aside whatever pissing matches they might have going in other quarters and said, "it's about time we did something about this."
That is good news in and of itself, feels different right? I could go for more of that.