Work, Work, Work

One of the things you sign up for when you enter the ranks of professional clergy is that you are forever and permanently going to be a part of the working/middle class.  That's if you're lucky.  Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar to the side, pastoral ministry is not the path to fame and fortune, in fact I think defining what Mega-church pastors do as pastoral ministry is like referring to Walmart as "a family owned retail chain," it may be (sort of) accurate, but it also mocks the truth.
Pastoral ministry in a medium sized church (200-400 members) will put you in a position to own a home, a couple of modest vehicles and live with all or most of the modern amenities.  It is by no means a life of privation, but you probably aren't going to get the vacation homes, or the grown up "toys," you most likely are going to always have one or two "big" ideas (big meaning a cost of >$2000) that aren't going to get done right away (right now that is getting our fireplace fixed), and you're probably also going to have some sort of debt which must be managed. You will read articles upon articles by savvy financial types who give you all sorts of clever advice about "wealth management" and sort of sadly shake your head, knowing that you're probably not doing what you should in the long term, but you're doing the best you can.
Rather than bumming out about this, I understand that it is a place of solidarity with the vast majority of my fellow Americans.  I'm not going to get into talking about specific politicians today, but rather about an idea that I have heard put forth by far too many of them, Red and Blue alike.  That idea is that hard work leads to inevitable success, and by success they mean wealth, and in the scheme of the American dream getting rich is akin to the promised land.  When I hear a politician laud this dream to his or her adoring supporters, it makes me want to smash whatever is nearest to me.  It makes me increasingly angry because it is a false dream, it is an empty hope, and many of the false prophets of prosperity have a hand in rigging the system to keep it that way.
I have done a few different sorts of work in my day.  I have worked in retail, I have worked in production as a machine operator, I have worked in a skilled trade, I have been a Salsa Cowboy (creative marketing), I have worked in a scientific and regulatory consulting company, I have worked in a mail room and a library, as a painter and as a cleaner, and I have been a pastor of churches of varied sizes and cultural locations.  All of those jobs had their own challenges, and their own rewards, and the key to each one of them, if you do them well, is hard work.
You might notice a common thread among those jobs (most of which were part time/summer type employment), is that they are jobs that don't lead to getting rich, no matter how hard you work or how good you are at them.
I am in a boat (but more like a rowboat than a yacht) with school teachers and public servants, with carpenters, electricians, plumbers.  I am educated (Master's degree), and I work at doing my job to the best of my ability, and I'm never going to get rich. I understand this, and I have chosen to pursue a vocation that, by nature is not about just making money. And of course there is always the truth that life is not fair, I get it, but please don't try to sell me the mythology that millionaires and billionaires deserve what they have.  They do not. Nobody "deserves" that much of the pie, no matter what they do.  A CEO in an office may work hard, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they don't work any harder in a day than a stone mason or a welder.  A TV news anchor may get up at 2:00 AM and go to work in the dark, but so do bakers and delivery drivers. Oh and certainly let's not forget the fact that we pay people hundreds of millions of dollars to hit things with sticks and act out the silliest of melodramas.
Most of the world works hard, but not everyone gets rich. As Bill Maher said, "If hard work equaled success, this country would be run by Mexicans with leaf blowers."  One of the interesting observations that you can make by watching Downton Abbey is to see the way that class differences used to function in England at the end of the Victorian Era. The servants did all the work and the nobles made all the decisions.  In that era both classes seemed to accept that it was the way of things, and it was only the advance of "modern" thinking that started people questioning whether or not it was right.
And certainly, management is a necessary function as well. Knowledge and expertise are skills to be put to work, as is being able to manage and lead people, putting together a plan and a team.  Yes, these things are valuable and people should be able to make a living doing those things too.  My question is, do they deserve to make three times what the person who teaches their children to read makes for managing a classroom of first graders and teaching them the ABC's?  I think not.  Should doctors get paid well for their knowledge and their healing skills? Certainly but why do they get to drive a Mercedes Benz to work when the nurses who execute their orders and clean up all the blood and mess can barely afford a second hand Toyota?
These are the faces of income inequality in this country.  Don't believe that poor people are poor because they're lazy, it's a vicious lie.  Don't believe that rich people are virtuous, it's a dangerous assumption.  And both lies you will run into rather frequently in the so called "discourse" that is taking place in our nation right now.
I believe in vocation.  I believe in finding a place where your ability meets the needs of your community, and I believe the best of all possible worlds is a world where everyone is free to follow that model, rather than following the money.  It's an ideal to be sure, but as such it seems a much better benchmark to follow than "greed is good," or "show me the money."

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

As usual, Richard Rohr has said some things I needed to hear. Negativity has been wearing me out.  Seriously, I've gotten to the point where the NY Times op-ed page is like Valium.  But I think I might be slightly addicted, because I can't look away from the Trump-Cruz-Rubio circus, or the Mitch, Turtleman, McConnell intentionally announcing that the GOP majority is going to deliberately and stubbornly refuse to do their job, or even, lest you think I'm picking on the Red side, the Hilary-Bernie contest slowly wringing the life out of a hopeful populist movement that for a minute actually had me really excited about politics for the first time since I read Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail about the 1972 George McGovern campaign. Yeah, that happened before I was born, so I just had to read about it and think, why can't we have someone like that now?  Well, Bernie is now, but signs are pointing to the hard cold reality of challenging the establishment: mostly you lose.  McGovern did too, to Richard M. Nixon, and I'm just really hoping that this is not history repeating itself, because let's face HRC very well could be Nixon in a skirt, and all of the Republican possibilities make Nixon look like a paragon of virtue (shady recording and petty burglary are probably low on the list of malfeasance for Trump and Cruz).
See? Less than a paragraph in and I'm in a freaking quagmire of negativity, and feeling like I have taken Barack Obama sorely for granted.
So here, I need to examine myself.  What is it that bothers me so much about this?  I know for a fact that the President is an office that is largely symbolic, with a very limited ability to force changes through an unwilling legislative branch or a gatekeeping judiciary.  If my boy Bernie did get himself in, it would not mean that we instantly flashed back to the Roosevelt years.  He would still have to deal with Turtleman and his flunkies, and let's face it, while I agree with Bernie's principals about wealth inequality and economics in general, I know there is no magic bullet that's going to slay the dragon of human greed, and one man, even the President, can fix this mess alone.
What really gets me upset though is that it all seems so hopeless, in other words I feel like it is utterly beyond my control.  And I don't like that feeling.  It's way too familiar.  Growing up in the 1980's in America, as part of the low-ish middle class, I felt like I didn't have too many choices: go to school, go to college (hopefully without accumulating crushing debt), get a job that wasn't too terrible, and settle in to life.  It wasn't very glamorous, but glamorous seemed more or less impossible, or at least too difficult.  Now as an adult entering middle age, having been blessed to find an actual vocation, I maybe have picked up some delusions of grandeur: that maybe more than just shuffling along the mortal coil is a possibility.
But I need to check myself, and particularly I need to check myself against the only standard that I really can check myself: Jesus.  Did he get upset about politics? No, not really, and let's face it, Herod and Pilate were pretty bad dudes.  Maybe he didn't rail against secular authorities because he was, as Howard Thurman says, "a man with his back against the wall," and he knew how that confrontation was going to go (as it eventually did).  But the more I read the Scriptures the more I'm convinced that it was more a matter of understanding that they didn't matter, even when they could kill the body.  He chose, instead, to take on the religious authorities, who had played the system and tried to put God into service for their own ends and their own glory.  That is idolatry, and that needs to be challenged wherever we find it: church, politics and in our own hearts.  I increasingly mistrust candidates who use their faith as a political tool.
This is not an excuse for Christians to disengage from the political process, but it is an important corrective to our frantic and often decidedly negative political positions.  We do have a voice.  Democracy itself is a metahistorical trend.  As Dr. King said, "the arc of history is long and bends towards justice."  The fact that we haven't perfected it yet probably should not surprise anyone.
I am frustrated by the process because I want us to transcend self interest, fear and hatred, but I just don't know if we can do it.  I am constantly challenged to try and follow Jesus through this mess, because I know he would not avoid it, but I am also aware that he would not try to take the reigns, because his kingdom is not of this world.  That is my hope, and maybe the only thing that keeps me sane.

On Progress

I want to be careful here, but there's something that needs said, and I'm going to try and stay in my lane, check my privilege and all that sort of thing.  When it comes to the issue of race in this country we have a problem. People all sort of disagree as to what the problem is, and maybe there is no single right answer that truly defines it.  I'm going to talk mostly from my white perspective, because that's all I'm really qualified to do.  But before I get to that I would like to put a quote from Chris Rock before you, because it feels pretty fresh to me, and hopeful maybe:

The advantage my children have is that they are encountering the nicest white people America has ever produced.  Let's hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

Now on the one hand, I'm aware that this is the optimistic opinion of a black man who has done very well for himself in the entertainment industry and thus now occupies a privileged place in society.  But I would like to think that actually what he says is true, we are much better about the race issue than we were fifty years ago, and leaps and bounds better than we were 150 years ago.  That doesn't mean we're done growing though, and it doesn't mean everything is okay.
It does point out, rightly I think, that what improvement we have seen in this regard was largely due to the willingness of those with the power (white people) to let go of the power they once held unconditionally and inescapably over black people.  Did we do this willingly? Did we do this gracefully?  Did we do this completely?  No, no and no, which means we are human beings and certainly a work in progress.
Chris Rock and Barack Obama exist in a world that would have been unimaginable to someone in 1950, white or black.  It is my hope that Rock's kids, the Obama girls, my nieces and nephews, and my own kids will live in a world that is even better still.  For that to happen, I think, a new frontier will need to be crossed, and it doesn't so much have to do with race as with class.  See among the educated and the elite of the world, the dominant pathos is that equality has become normalized.  If you have money, you are equal, regardless of your race.  If you achieve at a high level you are equal.  There would be no outcry about an interracial couple among lawyers and doctors and college professors.  In the society of the polite and powerful, the struggle against racism is about knocking off a few remaining ugly warts, dealing with un-examined privilege, rooting out tacit stereotypes and prejudice.  It's mostly genteel, intellectual stuff like engaging in constructive listening, open dialogue and working towards a more mutual understanding.  At this level, most of the white participants can claim to be "colorblind," due to their friendly rapport with the black people that occupy this segment of society.  In fairness, I think we can honestly say that there is good work being done here.
But out on the street I'm afraid it is not so rosy.  Among the largely segregated populations of poor and lower middle class, animosity and fear still rule.  Let's be honest here too, it is an equal opportunity oppressor.  Black folk are afraid of the police (and they have some reason).  Police are afraid of the restless and crime-riddled population of which they have only the most tenuous control.  Poor whites are angry, resentful and hyper-sensitive about even discussing racism.  It's all "politically correct" nonsense.  Their experience of "interracial dialogue" is mostly being told what they're allowed to say and allowed to think. They can't keep track of whether it's okay to say black or whether they should be still saying African American, and they honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal.  There is a vague feeling that white people are being marginalized, which is true, but it's more economic than racial.
In this sphere, people see riots, assaults on police and other white folk, even the Beyonce halftime show as an assault on the last little toehold they have on the glorious days of the old republic. Here the decision to ban the Rebel flag is taken personally, and they dislike the elite every bit as much as they dislike the "takers." We have indeed produced many "nicer white people," but fear and hatred still hold on tight in some quarters. And mostly their grip is strengthened by feelings of marginalization and persecution (whether real or imagined).
It very well might be the case that the only way to win the last battle for equality is to start seriously waging the fight against poverty and class inequity.  I know that seems dangerous and difficult, but how else are we going to grow?

Revenge on the Nerds

Thanks to John Hughes kids who grew up in the 1980's have adopted a rather interesting piece of mythology: Nerd power.  Read his filmography and you find numerous entries where the social caste system of American adolescents was raked over the coals. The messages of a lot of these movies was pretty clear: some day you and the popular kids will be on equal ground, and then your inherent intelligence and sensitivity will bloom like a flower.  And to a certain extent that is true, the popularity contests really don't last much longer than high school, but never assume that human nature undergoes any sort of fundamental change.
There are still bullies. There are still many ways in you always sort of remain that kid you were in high school, for better and for worse.  There are still moments as adults where you run into this:

That, for those of you who don't know is a character called Ogre, a member of the jock fraternity in the movie Revenge of the Nerds.  The movie revolves around a bunch of stereotypical nerds, thick glasses, pocket protectors, obnoxious laughs, social awkwardness and above average intelligence.  It is two hours of brain melting burlesque comedy, I don't recommend it, if you really want to experience the 1980s nerd phenomenon, Mr. Hughes is a much better way to go.  The basic gist is that Nerds can rise up and challenge the popular and the powerful, they can use their wits and their inherent character to win the day.  It's generally a nice fiction.

But fiction it is, because the reality is that popularity and winning are still highly valued in our society.  Evidenced by the rise of the political fortunes of one Donald J. Trump.  Politicians on the national level have been, for a long time, nerds.  Not all of them, but enough of them to justify calling it a trend.  And we the voters are like Molly Ringwald, torn between a really good-hearted nerd, and the dashing popular captain of the football team.  In my lifetime, we have seen Nixon (nerd, albeit of the sinister sort), give way to Ford (football player at Michigan), give way to Carter (Nuclear engineer, down home Sunday School teacher), give way to Ronald Raygun (nuff said), give way to George H.W. Bush (not gone do it, no sir, don't like broccoli), give way to Bill (slick Willy) Clinton, give way to George W. Bush (baseball party guy, but still I think awkward enough to be a Nerd), now Barack Obama (who I think is a sort of cool-ish nerd).  Obama definitely has the smarts to fit the bill, and he's got the tone of voice for sure, but he is the sort of suave, cool, confident fellow who can manage to court both Michelle Obama and the American people, despite those ears.

There has been a teeter totter of nerds and jocks going back a long way (even the famously macho Teddy Roosevelt, was a sickly kid who, until he took to taming badgers and riding moose, would certainly have been considered a nerd).

And this bolsters us with the idea that you can rise up and become great no matter what lunch table you sat at in High School.  I've got bad news for you though nerds, the popular kids and the bullies are still around.  No matter how well you think you're doing Bernie Sanders, Hilary is still the homecoming queen of the party and she's got all those superdelegates in her pocket.  No matter how much people like you Marco, The Donald, and Chris Christie are still going to be able to shove you into a locker, and they don't give a hoot if you are the captain of the debate team.  You're probably also going to have to deal with sociopathic people from your own set, like Ted Cruz (definitely on the Nixon side of the nerd continuum).

Unfortunately for all of us, politics remains largely a popularity contest.  I don't actually want to know how true this is.  I would love to think that, like in those movies, Molly Ringwald is going to see who the real hero is, but the more Trump hangs around, the more I'm afraid it's going to be this guy:

And let's face it we're in for a show down between that and this:

And that kind of makes me feel:

Identity Crisis

Last week Donald Trump called the Pope a pawn, and the Pope in turn questioned Trump's self-proclaimed Christianity. It was one of those moments where the world of social media just about blew up from the rapid fire commentary and back and forth.  Trump, of course immediately called it "disgraceful" for someone to question another person's faith, and to tell you the truth, on the surface, he had a point.  We should probably think twice about judging others, in fact, I think Jesus said something about that, and about another man's servant, you could go along and cherry pick all sorts of scripture that would probably lead you to side with the Donald on this one.
Except for the fact that this is Pope Francis, a man whose judgment and faith I am growing to trust more and more day by day (even as a Protestant).  Except for the fact that the Pope was not actually questioning the validity or sincerity of Trump's affirmation of faith, he was actually questioning his practice of said faith.  Here is the Pope's actual quote (translated to English of course):

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel."

The term that everyone focused on is "not a Christian."  That is, in the minds of most people, the judgment, and the error of the Pope's statement.  What I have been rolling around in my brain for the last few days are the many ways in which it may be much more necessary for us to say precisely that, about great many things.  But I am afraid.  I am afraid because when it comes to defining the word Christian, you are going to run into resistance from those whose definitions you challenge in the process of clarifying your own definition.  Furthermore, you are going to have difficulty finding a harmonious place to park your Jesus following wagon. Neither the progressive nor the conservative side has a space that will fit, but they both think they do, and they will gladly label you a heretic or an apostate if you try and nuance something they feel is central.
This is just evidence of the pilgrim nature of following Jesus in this world.  The Pope is a rather good example for me to use (much better than Trump), because the Pope is in many ways a really good example of living a Christ-like life, he is kind, caring, and humble.  He has expressed concern and solidarity with the poor and suffering, he has washed feet (even controversial feet), he has consistently expressed his commitment to social and economic justice, he has taken small steps to open the fortress of the Roman Catholic Church to the rest of us.  Yet, I would like him to go even further to address the unequal treatment of both women and LGBTQ people in the Church. I would like him to address the tragic connection between reproductive choice and poverty, and how the official RC prohibition on birth control plays into that.  I do not expect him to single-handedly solve all of our problems though, and so I am glad to take what he is able to give, and I would hope for the same grace.
None of us are perfect disciples, but I think that that realization is crucial to actually being a disciple.  What troubles me most about Trump, and the more blatantly religious folk like Ted Cruz, Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham is the utter lack of humility and any self awareness that they might be wrong, or that they actually might need to learn a little bit more from Jesus.
I get why they don't like it when the Pope calls them out on a thing like immigration or caring for the poor, even if Scripture and a long history of Christian ethics would both tell them they'r wrong. It is troubling to have your faith assumptions challenged, sometimes it can utterly break you and leave you feeling as though you have lost faith altogether, but God never leaves you in pieces.  The Spirit who breathes life into us can make the dry bones live.
"The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51: 17)  What will keep you from being a disciple of Jesus Christ, therefore a Christian in the only truly acceptable definition, is a refusal to be broken.  The building of walls is part and parcel of a desire to be invulnerable, and true Jesus following is about being vulnerable, about letting people in, regardless of the risk.  I have no problem with A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, but if we actually believe that then it should inspire us to stop trying to build the fortress for ourselves.
I think the future of the church depends on Christians actually remembering to follow Jesus, even and especially when his example troubles our assumptions about life.  The more I think about it, the more I feel like the Pope was speaking to the Donald as a pastor should.  He wasn't, at least in my opinion, casting him out of the kingdom, he was simply challenging him to consider the way that his own, angry, narrow way of understanding the world is hurting him and those who are influenced by his fearful rhetoric.  Because fear is not the Gospel, because the Gospel is the Good News that God is with us in the person of Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. If that is true, and the Scripture is reliable, we can believe that God is love, and if God is love we should also trust that love casts out fear.

10 Questions

There is just so much going on in the world today: a presidential election, a supreme court nomination, wars and rumors of wars, you know the list.  Normally, I pick a thing and pontificate about what I think, but I am accumulating a list of things that actually ring more like questions in my heart and mind.  Maybe you have similar questions, maybe you have information that I don't have.  I don't really expect answers, but I would welcome discussion.

1. If we are really so concerned about money (I mean the government, deficit, balanced budgets etc.) why don't we ever at least consider the idea that maybe we don't need to spend so much on the machinery and mechanisms of war?
2. Related question: why do we attack the social safety net to save a few pennies (relatively) but spend billions of dollars on an experimental fighter plane, submarine or warship?
3. In a nation founded on principles of freedom and equality, why do people on all sides insist on trying to bend the functions of government in their favor, rather than insisting on neutrality and serving the common good?
4. In a nation founded on principles of freedom and equality, why are race and class still such divisive and damaging realities?
5. In a nation of educated and thoughtful people, why can't we clearly confess and own the reality that race and class are still such divisive and damaging realities?
6. Why do we act like the Cold War is still the paradigm of global politics?
7. Why do we listen to people who tell us what cannot be done, rather than following people who lead us into what might be done?
8. If partisan rancor is so terribly repugnant to everyone, why don't we just stop it?
9. Why does everything have to be about money?
10. Are we ever going to really value human life?

Some of these are more specific than others, but these are all questions that I bring to bear on my thinking about what I really want for and from the future of our country.  These are questions that point me in the direction of seeking positive answers rather than criticizing any particular politician or ideology (though honestly they don't lead me to really trust any of them).

Thank you for considering my questions.

Watch Carefully

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away over the weekend.  In the wake of his passing, there are two noteworthy things.  First the good, to read about the friendship between Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two political polar extremes on the current SCOTUS.  Ginsburg is about as liberal as you can get, and Scalia about as conservative, but they actually liked each other.  They voluntarily spent time together, and Ginsburg referred to Scalia as her "best buddy."  According to the narrative being adopted by most of our society, this is not supposed to happen.  We are supposed to divide up into teams of the like minded and hunker down to win the fight.  Ginsburg noted that when she would write a document for the court and Scalia would write a dissent, the dissent and the dialogue would make her better, it would free the writing of "applesauce and arglebargle," because he could be counted on to call her on it.  I can't help but marvel at the fact that such a relationship managed to exist at the center of our most contentious and polarized system.  It calls to mind G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw, and Lincoln and Douglas.
And it makes me despair all the more about what is revving up in other quarters.  Liberal types are not always doing a great job at containing their glee at the fact that Scalia has passed.  He was, after all, the conservative bell cow of the court.  Agree with him or not, he was a force of nature on the right, I often got the feeling that Justice Thomas was simply going along for a ride on the Scalia train, when it came to dissents and voicing the conservative opinions.  Roberts and Alito, seem to be candles in the wind compared to the stalwart conservatism of Scalia, it will be interesting to see the court dynamic without him.
Which leads to the latest nightmare faced by the Republican side of the aisle: Obama gets to pick Scalia's replacement.  I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for them (not really).  Now, on top of having to deal with a Democrat that produced a recovering economy, a functional Affordable Care Act, and a Democratic party that's got a new pulse, they have to figure out a way of blocking Obama's inevitable nomination without seeming like a bunch of spoiled crybabies throwing a tantrum.  Majority Leader McConnell has already promised just such a petulant and borderline treasonous display.  Some people have mentioned the Thurmond rule that said Presidents in the final year of their term shall not nominate SC justices, but there is next to zero constitutional reason for Obama to abide by such a pronouncement, which was essentially just a statement made by notorious racist Strom Thurmond in order to block the promotion of Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice, during the segregation disputations. (Funny how racism seems to keep rearing it's head)
The fact of the matter is that, given the state of political affairs, the Republican establishment ought to sort of thank their lucky stars that this task falls to Obama.  He is probably going to pick a reasonable, moderate candidate, because Obama (all slander to the side) is a reasonable, moderate President. This fact seems to get lost amidst all the hullabaloo.  The Supreme Court, despite all ravings to the contrary, is one of the more stable and least activist institutions of our government.  It behooves our nation to have solid representation from a variety of perspectives and locations on the political spectrum (see above about Scalia and RBG).  It would not serve our nation well to have a Court packed with liberals or conservatives.  Replacing Scalia with a moderate would not destroy the balance.  In fact, it would probably cement the identity of the Roberts court as a decidedly middle of the road bunch. (Need I remind everyone about the checks and balances)
The only way the Republican Congress can effectively block an Obama nomination, is to actively resist doing their constitutional duty to provide a nominee with a fair and timely confirmation process.  You can be pretty sure that Obama is not going to trot out a Democratic/liberal version of Robert Bork or even a Clarence Thomas for this one, because Obama is nothing if not shrewd and diligent when it comes to stuff like this. My guess would be this is the moment where the Republican power structure has to decide whether to actually act as sane governors of our nations or, in perhaps the most undeniable display yet, prove to the American people that they are engaging in Against Obama politics.
That, my fellow voters, is not a good standard by which to run a country, unless you're trying to run it straight into the ground.