False Alarm

While sitting at my computer tonight, I gradually became aware of nearby fire trucks. I’ve become so accustomed to hearing them at work (my office in downtown Chicago is a couple of blocks from a fire station) and sirens go by so many times in a day that I no longer hear them.

But the close proximity and obvious multiple vehicles got my attention. I looked out the kitchen window to see three fire trucks below. First thought: Is there a fire in my building that I don’t know about? Second thought: Go outside and see.

One truck deployed its ladder to the roof of the building across from me. A fireman went up on the roof, while others were coming out of several of the front stairwells. Eventually they left—no fire, one fireman told an onlooker.

Relief. I know no one in that building, but I really didn’t want to see a battle against fire and destruction, an old fear of mine.

Interestingly, a couple of memories were triggered.

The first event I recalled occurred when I was around 12. Returning with my parents from a visit in town, we saw the last stages of our neighbors’ barn burning down. In my own convoluted logic, I thought the fire happened because I’d worn a new clothes combination that night, and I vowed never to wear it again.

The fact that fires occurred a bit too often, more devastatingly (at least two of our neighbors had lost their houses to fire before we’d moved there), didn’t correct my conviction. Age of reason? But in those days before smoke alarms and increased fire awareness, much was lost to fire in rural areas. Even now, buildings in the country are usually lost long before the fire company can get there.

The second memory prompted a startling realization.

I was perhaps eight years old when the junior high school in town burned down, Memorial Day weekend. My mother heard about it on the radio, and insisted that we go watch. So my family piled into the car and drove the 10 miles into town to see it. Really.

We followed the battle together with hundreds of onlookers. The school was three stories high (if my memory serves), stretched along two blocks. As the fire consumed the mostly wooden interior, we saw the floors and desks crash through to the bottom. The roof caved, too.

The firemen successively trained their hoses on sets of windows where the fire was burning, and as each window broke under pressure of the water, the crowd cheered. (Was Alice Cooper there? “School’s out forever!”)

The fire was thought to be out that night, but it resumed the next day, consuming the part of the school that had survived.

Years later I saw a film in school on fire safety, which, I now believe, included footage from the devastating fire at Our Lady of the Angels school in Chicago. It gave me nightmares. But for the children hanging out the windows and jumping, the school fire in my town looked the same.

Here’s the thing that never struck me as odd before tonight. My mother, normally a law-abiding citizen (except for occasional civil disobedience), was positively gleeful. Obviously neither my brothers nor I took it to mean that we could torch anything, but what if we had been horribly susceptible to such “role-modeling”?

Mom had attended the school decades before, and it was old then. Was the experience so awful for her that even in her mid-40s, the burning was cause for celebration? Now I realize there’s yet another part of her I’ll never know.

Rumors went around that the principal—who had been principal during my Mom’s time—set the original fire and/or rekindled it so as to destroy the entire school. In a lot of rural areas then, school bonds were terribly unpopular, and the rumors went, fire was the only way to replace a school that was beyond repair.

Such a pile of contemplation over one false alarm.

“Telephone” on the El

Remember the old Telephone (or Operator) game?

This isn’t about being a captive audience of oblivious public yakkers. Rather, it’s about an opportunity (?) to consider people’s perceptions. Public transit is so often my lab.

Yesterday it took me almost three hours to get to work. During my trip (mostly on the el), our operator diligently kept us updated—and he gets high marks for his efforts. As we traveled, a problem had developed with signals and switching, resulting in increasing delays. A point he noted often, with apologies.

Eventually we didn’t move at all, sitting in one spot for over half an hour. At that place, he notified us that he had to be off the train to check on a passenger who was feeling ill (he couldn’t walk through the cars, as they were packed). The cell phones came out as people reported the delay to their workplaces.

A woman nearby called someone to explain, and I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to her, except to wonder that she focused on a) the sick passenger as a reason for the delay, and b) to complain about the lack of funding to the CTA: if they would go back to the operator/conductor duo, the operator could stay on the train while the conductor investigated a problem or emergency. Fair enough. Several weeks ago, the last car(s) of a subway train derailed, and while the operator was off the train to investigate, people in the rear cars, fearing the increasing smoke, chose to evacuate. The operator, while off the train, couldn’t give emergency instructions to passengers, which made the situation worse (he couldn’t do much about it). Definitely a problem with a one-operator train.

This wasn’t the case yesterday.

The operator returned shortly and reported that the passenger was feeling better. And we were still waiting for signals/switches.

After that excursion, we sat for another 10 minutes or so, and then the operator announced that he would be off the train again, to open the windows that could be opened—cars were becoming stuffy, I assumed. Out came the cell phones again, and this time I paid more attention to the woman. She repeated her rant about staffing the trains for safety, but I realized she also repeated an earlier comment about “the driver, or whatever they’re called.” She reiterated the sick passenger issue (no longer an issue) and went on about the windows. Only the barest mention of the signals/switches.

The operator reboarded, and we sat some more. Finally he announced that he’d been told to reverse direction, to return to the previous station, and he would have to be off the train to get it ready to go that way (it meant that he had to go to the opposite end of the train to operate it from the cab at that end). A couple of guys didn’t know the train could go the other direction. Hmm.

The woman, back on her phone, reported that the operator kept getting off the train, dealing with several sick passengers and whatever (with yet another rant about the CTA’s staffing).

Were we in the same situation at all?

I heard a number of other people relay less (though still) erroneous information, and it’s impossible to know all the reasons—perhaps the people on the receiving end weighted some information more importantly and messages were tailored to their anticipated reception.

People take in information differently; some are oriented towards visuals, some do better with oral information, while others plug into written instruction. Not something the CTA can fix in emergencies, even with its best efforts. Still, I’m greatly concerned as I consider how the best reporting efforts may be in vain, in the increasingly anxious world we inhabit.

More on attire in church

I wore sneakers to church today. Not because of disrespect, but because it was necessary. As it has been on occasion.

I walk to church (public transit being of no help on Sundays), and as it’s two miles and my knees and back are rather cranky, walking shoes are necessary. Normally, I would wear a pair that is maybe one step up from sneakers in terms of proper attire (my best pair), but it rained today. Those shoes throw up water, so that before I’ve walked a block on wet sidewalks, I might as well have jumped in a puddle so as to get the foot-soaking over with.

Instead I wore my sneakers, because I had to go to work after church and I really didn’t want wet feet all day.

All the time, I kept wondering, “Who’s going to judge me by what’s on my feet?”

Most of the people in the parish don’t know me—I’ve been a bit shy at meeting and greeting—so they wouldn’t know my circumstances and even if they did, they might not excuse my disrespectful feet (the rest of me was respectful—decent slacks and a nice blouse).

And I had to think back on my previous post, which I know was rather testy.

I was angry. I’m not offering an excuse—the lectionary today held me accountable: “You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness.” James 1:19. Instead, I must acknowledge why I reacted to Dear Abby’s writers and (only a little) to comments on Dash’s blog.

I don’t want people to look at only my outward appearance, which is, unfortunately, in keeping with my circumstances. I want people to understand that I can’t, for several reasons, maintain the appearance that would allow them to see me. If that makes sense.

Is it possible for people in different financial situations to look past that in each other (and it goes both directions) to find our connection in Christ?

What about dogs in church?

Concerns over attire in church got me to wondering: how would people feel about the priest’s dog accompanying him during Mass? I’m not talking about the Blessing of the Animals, a special service when pet-owners bring their critters to Mass (usually in commemoration of St. Francis).

I know how people feel in the parish I’ve been attending. The dog, Abydos, is loved and understood, as was his predecessor, Nabucco.

First, you must know that this parish is Episcopal/Anglican—verrrry high. All the smells and bells, and the choir chants the Proper every Sunday (Introit, Gradual/Alleluia, Offertory, and Communion). Gorgeous vestments, lots of kneeling and bowing. On feast days the Epistle and Gospel are intoned.

The parish is also quite a melting pot—it is truly the most diverse place I’ve been. I think at least half come from African countries and the Caribbean, and there are others who have come from numerous other places around the world.

So. Abydos has his own tasseled black pillow, behind the altar rail, where he is to go when the procession begins. It’s a few feet from the altar, but it’s the most out-of-the-way place for him, and Fr. H. can keep an eye on him. Now and then he gets restless, and Fr. H. calmly re-installs him in his place. Abydos is also a regular attendee of our Compline service there.

Abydos is a Saluki, as was Nabucco. Fr. H. notes that the only dog Muslims accept as clean is the Saluki, a very old breed—they say that Allah “kissed the Saluki” right above the eyes (evidenced by white “eyebrows”). Abydos looks a lot like this. So he’s already liturgically furred, though as Fr. H. notes, he often sits with his back to the High Altar.

Unfortunately, Abydos’ breeder maintained one of those nightmares you hear of on the news—way too many animals, malnourished, abused—she’s doing time for how she treated her animals. Fr. H. got involved with a “rescue” operation for Salukis, and agreed to adopt three-year-old Abydos, not knowing for sure if loving care could restore his spirit. Ten months later, Abydos looks as a dog should look (initially he took up as little space as he could and his tail was always tucked between his legs). He had to learn not to relieve himself wherever he was; in the kennel he had been caged, left to live with his own offal. He’s learned to go for walks. He’s learned that if Fr. H. is gone for awhile, he will come back (part of the reason Fr. H. keeps him close by at church).

Not all the damage can be undone—he’s definitely scarred. He’s still skittish around people he sees all the time (especially women, I think, because the damage was done by a woman).

So perhaps this is not so much about dogs in church, but a dog in a church, being restored to his rightful nature. Sometimes people treat their pets better than they do their fellow human beings, but this isn’t the case with Fr. H. How he deals with Abydos is a manifestation of his character—it’s how he deals with people. He greets all his parishioners by name, including all their children, and takes the time to learn newcomers’ and visitors’ names (and is amazing at remembering them). If he hasn’t seen someone in a while, he asks that person’s friends or relatives about his or her well-being.

If you were to walk into my parish, not knowing any of the above, what would you think?

Shoes and other clothing in church

Argh. It’s been months since I’ve posted, but Dash’s post (drat her, anyway!) has provoked me. Well, at least the comments, on top of Dear Abby’s column of weeks ago.

Proper attire in church.

Not a topic that concerns me so much, except that people are judging others—primarily on their appearance in church.

Is it a question of respect, knowledge, or awareness?

I know that Biblical Jews were bound to ritual cleansing (and I guess, by extension, concern for attire) before presenting themselves in the Temple. The culture was inseparable from religion.

Over the centuries of Christianity, there were times when laity mattered little, if at all (if not of high-born class). They might have received the Body (and maybe the Blood) only at Easter—otherwise they were expected to be seen, not heard; mostly disregarded. Peasants—serfs—probably didn’t have a whole lot of clothing different from their everyday attire in which to clad themselves. They could only look upon and (perhaps) admire royalty.

Dear Abby’s column contained complaints of those who felt disrespect for themselves and the church on the part of those who came in everyday clothes.

In these days, not so many people come to church because of parental/peer pressure or cultural expectations. They may be seeking the Holy (however diligently or not), and many come without any training in how to present oneself in the presence of the Holy as it has been understood, at least over the past two centuries in this country. They are probably very akin to the pagan converts in the first century.

Debates raged then over actions—circumcision or not?—eating food that had been offered to idols?

I haven’t seen a whole lot that indicates “dressing up” was a concern, if only because everyone then of peasant status probably more or less dressed the same all the time. So: not worthy of further consideration.

So much for respect and knowledge. How much does our culture—no longer explicitly Christian—transmit to us of these?

Awareness—self-awareness—is a topic that transcends spirituality. Yes, spirituality addresses self-awareness, but psychology has much to say in this arena.

Years ago, I had a piano up for sale. People came to the house to try it out. One woman sat down to play, and I instantly noticed her beautifully manicured, extremely long fingernails. As she played, she was rather disturbed: what was the noise she kept hearing? I heard her fingernails clicking on the keys, but tried diligently to hear what she might be hearing, because I couldn’t imagine that she didn’t know how her fingernails sounded on the keys. Eventually she did discover the cause—but even now, I wonder if that lesson stayed with her.

I ride the el to and from work, which has given me plenty of opportunity over the years to observe how people perceive their presence. So many perceive it not at all. Bulky bags pounding into fellow travelers, cell phone conversations which ought to be private—no one else is present, even on a crowded el platform when there is plenty of space to spread out. Spirituality would enlighten people as to their impact on their world—but so would simple lessons in observation and logic.

Does the church now solely bear the burden of enlightenment? I won’t presume to answer that one. But surely the church needs to be aware of concerns that impact not only worship.

We each of us have an arena of impact. What we do and say might make a difference. Is it a child, godchild, close acquaintance who wears the wrong shoes to church? It is appropriate to discuss your concerns with this person. Is it someone else? Then why are you consumed by it? Is it about you or about them? Honestly?

God looks not on the outward appearance, but on the heart. Can we presume to know what is on the person’s heart? Even if that person appears repeatedly in what parts of our culture may say is wrong?

How much impact can you have, approaching someone in criticism, as opposed to approaching him/her in love and concern for his/her spiritual journey? Get to know someone—very well—before judging them—and even then, maybe not.

“Daniel” is reality TV

In a good way. Over the past several years, I’ve caught episodes of different shows, but saw nothing that made me plan on watching regularly. But last night’s premiere episode of “The Book of Daniel” has gotten me—dare I say it?—hooked.

It’s sort of a combination of “Oh, God” (the movie with George Burns) and “Desperate Housewives,” with maybe some “Friends” thrown in. No question that it’s controversial—the religious right will take serious issue with everything in it (I’m not sure I could name anything they won’t hate in the show). But I’ve been thinking about it since last night—when was the last time that happened because of a TV show? If it generates sincere discussion, which I believe it could do, it’s not the usual idiot fare.

I compare it with “Desperate Housewives” because it has the elements of a soap—issues that, if handled overdramatically, would be only for cynical purposes of titillation. An arrest, drinking, addiction to painkillers, drug dealing, embezzlement, disconnection from life support, affairs (including a threesome), teens fixated on sex, internet hacking, medical emergency, racism, church politics, the Mob, Alzheimer’s… possibly I’ve forgotten something.

And then there’s the ongoing conversation with Jesus (that’s the “Oh, God” part). This was all in two hours.

You see the many ways this could go wrong.

It doesn’t, though, because the writing is pretty good and the casting was well done. Direction was also strong. I guess it was billed in advance by some as a comedy—“it seems to make light of many things”—but it’s thoughtful, with genuine humor along the way.

The characters are complex, and the rapid unfolding of events doesn’t obscure that. The overwhelming number of issues that crop up serve to introduce us well to the many characters and their intricate interactions, while leaving a whole lot of room for both plot and character development. It doesn’t ever take the easy way out, either—a number of times I was surprised, which is a good thing. I don’t like predictable plots and dialogue, which is one of the reasons I seldom watch television shows.

Of course, one reason I wanted to see it was that the central figures are an Episcopal rector and his family. Would it be an accurate representation? Bishops keep dropping in, which alone would be enough to make me pop pills, too. One is the bishop of the diocese (a woman) and the other is the rector’s father, who is retired. The bishops are concerned with politics (that’s accurate!) and Daniel is concerned for all parties dealing with their various problems. He doesn’t seem to be terribly focused on becoming a bishop, though he knows the bishops have that ambition for him and want him to handle everything carefully to fulfill their expectations. Classic.

How Daniel walks that line is convincing, though he does it by talking a lot with Jesus (who pops in even more frequently than do the bishops). I’m not sure what I think about the Jesus character. He could be a vision (painkiller-induced hallucination?) but those conversations serve to allow Daniel to process events rather productively.

Some of Jesus’ comments are a tad New-Agey. He tells Daniel that life is hard, hard for everyone, and that’s why there’s such a great reward at the end. But at other times he asks good questions, urging Daniel to confront issues head-on. At any rate, Daniel’s much better off talking to Jesus than to the bishops—Jesus helps Daniel to concentrate on staying connected in a healthy way with people who are imperfect, difficult. That is what being in right relationship with God fosters.

I’m not addressing any of the plot lines or situations in this post (there are just so many!) but I do see the characters and their various reactions as credible. Is it representative of Episcopal theology? Probably not, because there is no Episcopal dogma. The Episcopal Church encompasses an amazingly diverse range of beliefs, which I’m not going to get into here. Those in the Episcopal Church-USA who are moving toward schism would certainly take issue with the show, claiming it doesn’t accurately represent their experience or beliefs. And they would be right.

I wouldn't hold out any hopes for this show as a membership campaign—likely the number of people that might consider attending an Episcopal church would be offset by those who’d leave.

I’ll be watching to see what happens with the characters—it’s possible to care for them, flaws and all.

Worship Solutions

Not what you’re thinking, if you’ve had experiences like mine in worship problems. And I’m sure Dash will be interested to learn more about hurdles faced by emergent churches. I stumbled across this offering from a music and sound installation store: “Gand Music and Sound has specialized in helping houses of worship solve their sound problems for over 34 years….” As Gand is well-respected (and I’ve had good experiences with them), I don’t mind providing some free advertising in order to illuminate an entirely new avenue of worship humor. Among the problems they can solve:

Problem… Tripping on the way to the pulpit Solution Clean up your stage. Stop tripping on mic cables on your way to the pulpit (unless you are too ‘emergent’ for a pulpit). Go with wireless mics from Shure or Audio Technica. Get higher quality mics with Shure’s Beta series while you’re at it. Audio muddiness will be gone along with the cable mess.

Tripping in the pulpit is a problem I’ve seen more often (theologically speaking).

Problem… The keyboard sounds cheesey, like an 80’s ballad Solution Kurzweil and Korg make wonderful keyboards for use in church. They can sound like a Steinway, or a lush synth backdrop for a quiet moment in need of enhancement. If you want to sound like an orchestra or a gospel organ, you can.

I admit Kurzweil makes some amazing keyboards, but for church, I’m still in love with a certain E.M. Skinner pipe organ.

Problem… The drums are too loud! Solution A Electronic V-Drums from Roland or Yamaha can give you complete control of volume levels. You get however much drumming your room can handle - no more. Instead of hitting a loud drum or cymbal, the drummer hits a trigger pad connected to a sound module. This goes straight to the PA mixer. You can set the balance from the back of the room, where the people sit who complain every week after the service is over - if they stick around at all. Vocals will be won’t be drowned out by the drums anymore.

Not a problem for me—no drums at all.

Problem… Speakers explode when you say, “Paul” Solution The new Countryman E6 headset microphone is the favorite of pastors today. It is a flesh-toned, ultra-thin mic that picks up the orator evenly all the time. Traditional lavalier mics are subject to gusts of breath causing loud ‘boom’ sounds. Also, as the orator turns their head, the volume varies. The Countryman E6 mic avoids these problems. The microphone element is positioned at the corner of the mouth and is not subject to hard consonant sounds. Request special configuration for any wireless lavalier system or wired beltpack. You can order the mic in four different skin tones.

As the church I’ve been attending uses no mics at all, and it’s possible to hear every word, I thank God I’ve been spared this problem, as well as the following three.

Problem… Our existing PA system probably annoys the Lord Solution The best sounding PA system we sell is from NEXO. It is a little more costly than other similar sized, yet not comparable systems. The consensus from our customers, be they churches, schools, or bands, is that the NEXO system is better than everything else they have had or tried. You can hear vocals clearly. The speakers are no bigger than they really need to be. No squealing feedback. These systems come in a package you can’t mess up.

Problem… Every week, the sound is different Solution Digital mixers are a new innovation that allows you to save all the settings of a mixer. Like a ‘Word’ document on a computer, you can simply reload last weeks settings and pick up where you left off. You can have us configure it especially for your needs and/or instrumentation. We can set up effects for certain channels, compression for the sermon recording, de-esser for the entire mix, limiter to protect the speakers, etc, etc, etc… Problem… Monitor speakers make the stage cluttered and ugly Solution Personal wireless in-ear monitor systems are a new way to keep the floor clear of speakers. The players in the worship band each have ear ‘buds’ connecting to a body pack which receives a custom mix from the mixer. The musicians can then adjust the sound to their liking. These are fast becoming the audio industry standard. Setup of these systems is easier when combined with a digital mixer.

Read the entire list here. I’m relieved to know some worship problems are so easily addressed. My brethren and sisteren in the emerging churches have much reason to praise the Lord.

Standards of Democracy

Am I the only one questioning neo-con desires to implant democracy in the Middle East? Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was freely elected—no alerts of election fraud that I know of—and he has proceeded on a course that appears to have little to do with Bush/Cheney/Rove desires for stability (and especially U.S. alliance) in that region. WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction] have been pretty thoroughly debunked as a legitimate reason to wage war on Iraq, so all that is left is a desire to implant democracy in a volatile region, with a hope that those who freely elect their leaders will choose those who won’t be hostile to the U.S. first, and to Israel secondarily. Iran’s democracy evolved without any U.S. involvement—in fact, probably in spite of the U.S.’s periodic intervention in the region. Will it be a model for other Middle East nations? If it is, what will follow?

Commercial for the Grinch

“During this season of indulgence, remember this: Take care of the luxuries, and the necessities will take care of themselves.” So advises a Cadillac commercial, urging the purchase of a castle on wheels. First: Huh? You talkin’ to me??? I think not, as I’m still concerned with necessities for myself and a whole lot of people in the world. Those wacky marketing people. Always upping the ante in a bid for attention to their product (and I know that it could be tongue in cheek). They got my attention, though not positively. I guess it doesn’t matter, as my one-person boycott is hollow—I can’t afford the product anyway. So what about those people who can? If this is an effective campaign—probably less than one percent of those who hear the ad and respond to it are more than enough to keep Cadillac afloat—should I be upset about it? For those can’t buy a luxury automobile and wish they could, do they want to be in the ranks of those who say “Let them eat cake?” I suppose a number do. This “gospel”, embraced consciously or not, is one that permits more and more to slip into poverty. “I got mine. If you didn’t, what’s wrong with you?” I do see it as non-Christian, but what does that mean for me? And if I don’t buy into the ad, does that make me a Grinch? Second: There’s the “season of indulgence” part. It is disturbing to consider this term for the holidays alongside claims of an existence of a “vast secular-humanist conspiracy” (as Michelle Goldberg put it in “How the secular humanist grinch didn’t steal Christmas”) to eliminate Christ from Christmas. Leaders of the religious right are battling perceived censorship of Christian celebration in the town square, public schools’ holiday observances, and store cashiers saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. Jerry Falwell notes:

We need to draw a line in the sand and resist bullying tactics by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists and other leftist organizations that intimidate school and government officials by spreading misinformation about Christmas. Celebrating Christmas is constitutional!

The O’Reilly Factor program from Nov. 21, 2005 featured a debate in its “Impact” segment:

JOHN KASICH, GUEST HOST: [T]he campaign to defend Christmas[] is being led by Reverend Jerry Falwell. Other religious leaders and legal scholars have mobilized promising to file lawsuits and organize boycotts against individuals, schools, government institutions and businesses who discriminate against the upcoming Christian holiday.

The ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and People for the American Way are particularly demonized as being enemies of Christianity. The Alliance Defense Fund [ADF], a Christian right legal outfit co-founded by the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux, is providing free legal advice and guidelines for those who fight what they believe are restrictions on their religious freedom. Do they really believe the free exercise of their religious beliefs must necessarily infringe on those of other religions? These concerns of an attempted chokehold on Christian expression aren’t fully borne out by the evidence. As Michelle Goldberg noted on salon.com,

Despite [Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for ADF]’s lamentations, one can in fact offer Christmas greetings without legal counsel. Christmas trees are permitted in public schools. (They’re considered secular symbols.) Nativity scenes are allowed on public property, although if the government erects one, it has to be part of a larger display that also includes other, secular signs of the holiday season, or displays referring to other religions. (The operative Supreme Court precedent is 1984’s Lynch v. Donnelly, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a crèche, reindeer, a Christmas tree, candy-striped poles and a banner that read “Seasons Greetings” was permissible. “The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday,” the majority wrote. “These are legitimate secular purposes.”) Students are allowed to distribute religious holiday cards and literature in school. If the administration tries to stop them, the ACLU will step in to defend the students’ free-speech rights, as they did in 2003 when teenagers in Massachusetts were suspended for passing out candy canes with Christian messages. … The myth of the war on Christmas has two parts. The first… charges that department stores are trying to replace the celebration of Jesus’ birthday with some secularized, universal winter holiday season, a switch encompassed by the godless greeting “Happy Holidays.” The second asserts that the ACLU and other groups like the Anti-Defamation League and People for the American Way are trying to ban public Christmas displays. Like all conspiracy theories, there are a few grains of truth at the center of it—some schools, in an overzealous attempt to promote inclusiveness, have taken silly steps like renaming their Christmas trees “friendship trees.” Some have indeed infringed on religious students’ First Amendment rights. Weaving these stories together, the myth of the war on Christmas claims that the ACLU has forced Christmas into hiding, and that Christians must therefore battle to reclaim their rightful place in the culture. “Those who would ban Christmas and Christians should not mistake the signs on the horizon,” writes [Fox News anchor John] Gibson in “The War on Christmas[: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought].” “The Christians are coming to retake their place in the public square, and the most natural battleground in this war is Christmas.”

Okay—in the secularized Christian world, Christmas is more important than Easter, yet in the Church Year, which goes from Advent (what’s that???) through Easter and Pentecost, Easter holds primacy. It is Easter that gives meaning to Jesus’ birth. I’ve seen no such battle over repression of Easter displays. Americans, even those of the religious right, evidence no such strong emotional ties to Easter. No nefarious plot needs to exist, as even Christians have sent Easter to the minor leagues. So how does all this relate to the ad that I quoted at the beginning? It seems that the focus of Christian expression is on being able to exchange greetings of “Merry Christmas,” sing “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” in secular settings, set up a crèche in front of City Hall. The Christian right promises boycotts of anything that threatens those expressions. Would they see the Cadillac commercial as a threat, a bullying tactic? At the very least, the ad should be offensive to those who follow the Jesus who was all about bringing the widowed and orphaned, the poor and the marginalized into full relationship with the Father. Should we try to make Cadillac stop those ads? What is Christian expression anyway? I have Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, nominal Christian and agnostic (and maybe atheistic) co-workers. In this country, they need not have my Christianity thrown in their faces as something to which they should adhere, just as I need not adopt their credos. The Baptismal Covenant in the Book of Common Prayer asks, “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?” An expression of Christianity that would respect the dignity of every human being would be reaching out to and helping those on the margins, the helpless who are so vulnerable to famine, hurricane, earthquake, war, disease. I really don’t see how saying “Merry Christmas” fulfills the Covenant.

Torture and generosity

I’ve probably never seen those two words so close together. This week’s Sojourners e-newsletter has two potent items on torture and generosity. The title that grabbed my attention was “Who would Jesus torture?” The author, David Batstone, observes in part:

Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly. It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being. … When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, “Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails.” Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all…. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character. In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single “exemption” that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God’s image. Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.

The second provocative article is “Wal-Mart and frugality’s folly,” by C. Melissa Snarr:

Frugality is not a spiritual discipline. Yet Americans regularly follow weekend trips to places of worship with drives to giant discount stores. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions unite in challenging those of us who would save a buck at the cost of another’s well-being. Unfortunately, in our current culture, getting a “deal” has largely displaced righteous dealings as our first consideration in the marketplace. Within the Christian tradition, the term frugal is wholly absent from the biblical text and is not among the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23. Generosity is instead the prized theme in stories of faith. God enables human generosity by promising a care for believers and creation that allows us to put our store in heaven, not in barns or walk-in closets here on earth. The images are numerous: banquet tables set for the homeless, fishes and loaves multiplied, water turned into wine, and manna falling from heaven. Throughout scripture, generosity is structured by obligations to the most vulnerable. Rulers, merchants, and nations are judged by how they treat the poor, widowed, and orphaned. Faithful generosity follows God’s preference for those normally forgotten by society.

Read the full article. From time to time I read thoughtful questions from various columnists, wondering where the “non-fundamentalist” Christians are—why are they silent? They aren’t—but offerings such as the above seldom are noticed by the major media players. They need to be. If you’d like to receive the Sojourners weekly e-newsletters, subscribe here.

On white bread and white toilets

Whew. How are those connected? Odd reminiscences here. Cleaning my bathroom yesterday, I suddenly recalled how intrigued I was with white toilets as a child. (My bathroom has pink fixtures, coordinated with chocolate brown/pink tiles—not my choice.) My family’s bathroom had gray fixtures—at the time, non-white porcelain was pricey, and we couldn’t afford luxuries. As my uncle was a plumber, I’m guessing my parents got a pretty good deal on the tub, toilet and sink. Gray figured prominently in my mother’s bathroom decorating scheme (and I think, in retrospect, that it was a good color scheme, though never completed). When I was nine, we moved to a house that had white bathroom fixtures, which I liked. Now, for the bread. Decades before organic farming was in vogue, we baked our bread from wheat organically grown on our farm. Brown, real whole wheat bread, made with honey, not sugar. I grew up with it, I knew how to grind the flour (we had a small flour mill), mix and knead the ingredients, shape the loaves, bake and package for the freezer. We made twenty loaves at a time. Until fifth grade, I brought my brown-bread lunch sandwich to school. Whenever we visited someplace food was served, I was entranced by white bread (Wonder Bread—Builds Strong Bodies Twelve Ways!). It was so marvelously spongy, even though it didn’t spring back. I couldn’t get enough of it, despite my mother’s frowns when I chanced to look at her. “People will think we never feed you!” And then there were the light switches. My father was an electrician, and in building our house, he incorporated features that most people didn’t have. Each bedroom had light switches that controlled both the room and hallway lights—tap lightly to turn on, again to turn off. My parent’s bedroom also had switches for other house lights and the yard light. So the house we moved to when I was nine was also special to me because the light switches were “normal”—the kind you flicked up and down for on and off. Maybe the house made me feel like I finally belonged. (Even though we continued to make our own bread, I ate school lunches from fifth grade on. Quite the rebel.) Just because everybody else had these things: white bread, white toilets, regular light switches.

When I was a child, I thought as a child. Now I know why we didn’t belong—we truly didn’t—and the externals I focused on were only the tip of the iceberg. Story for another time.

Lessons in littering

A woman said to her young son, “I don’t want it. I don’t want it. Throw it on the floor.” (“Floor” in this case appeared to be her word for the sidewalk.) He hesitated, looked down, then dropped the empty candy box he’d been holding. The garbage can was about five steps away. At my bus stop, a woman and her children were waiting. She appeared to drop her transit card, so I picked it up and handed it to her. She said it was no good and dropped it again. Trash can was right behind her. Outside my office building is a smoking area. One woman threw her cigarette butt behind her, way into the corner, though she was near the ash receptacle. She looked like one of those people who would put up a sign in the office saying “Clean up after yourselves. I’m not your mother.” Perplexed? I am. I find it utterly bizarre, too, that these three instances featured women. If there was a stereotype, it’s been smashed. Women are always cleaning up after men? Maybe it’s a subtle revolution. Yoiks.

Right. Now I'm Proverbs

Thanks so much, Dash, for pointing me to Which Book of the Bible are you? At least you can't claim this one's rigged! (Unlike the Peanuts one.) You are Proverbs. Which book of the Bible are you? brought to you by Quizilla Gotta say, though, this doesn't strike me as wrong. Whatever that means.

And now I'm Rerun...

Courtesy of LutheranChik Not that I'm a huge Peanuts fan, but here I am: You are Rerun! Which Peanuts Character are You? brought to you by

Happy Birthday, Mom

Today would have been my mother’s 82nd birthday. She died 14 years ago, way too soon. And I thought today, as I often have, of things I wish I’d known about her before she died. After her death, I learned the following from the woman I studied piano with from 5th grade through high school. (She and my mom had gotten to be friends, but I didn’t know more than that.) My piano teacher lived miles out of town, and didn’t have a washer, much less a dryer—but she had a toddler, before disposable diapers. So Mom would drive over (we were a couple of miles on the other side of town), pick her up and bring her to the town’s laundromat. I guess that was during the school day. At the funeral, so many people I didn’t know came over to tell me how much they would miss Mom. She had been intensely involved in politics, Farm Bureau and the Solörlag (organization of descendants of immigrants from Solör, in Norway), and had served as the March of Dimes’ county chapter Executive Director. It was clear that she had touched people’s lives in many ways. I wish I had known. I wish she had known. She died horribly from cancer, which I didn’t know she had until ten days before she died. It had metastisized to her bones. Only Dad knew, and it was something they dealt with in the usual way—avoiding it until way too late. That colored everything so that it was hard to remember, let alone think about, the mother I loved. A Lutheran pastor my parents knew from the Solörlag delivered the eulogy at her funeral. He gave my mother back to me, retrieved her from the horrible, dark place of “why didn’t she tell us—tell me.” He recounted how she so loved unexpectedly meeting up with previously unknown relatives (it did happen rather often—at Mt. Rainier she struck up a conversation with another person only to discover the connection). The pastor imagined her in Heaven, joyfully going from one relative to the next, catching up. Yes. And when she laughed, it was with her whole being. Wiping tears from her eyes. At least I had that with her, but the circumstances of her death had obscured my memories of shared glee. I’ll forever be grateful to Pastor Grefsrud for this tremendous gift. Maybe this is something you had to be there to understand, but when I was young, Mom and I had blowing contests. We’d see who could “outblow” the other—in the face. Guess halitosis or spittle wasn’t an issue. She’d fake holding in a huge breath, with the funniest expression on her face, and I’d burst out laughing—and lose the contest. I can’t recall ever winning, but the laughter was payoff for winner and loser alike. And her love of meeting relatives rubbed off on me in at least a small way. After the funeral, a number of us gathered at her sister’s home, and I kept on feeling the impulse to call and tell her all about it. So many people she would have loved to talk to. I still miss you, Mom.

Perceptions while profiling

I’ve been pondering something I witnessed a couple of nights ago by my place. These were my observations that night:

Several young adult African-American males walk down the street. An unmarked police car pulls into the alley near them; one of the cops yells, “Over here.” The young men all immediately approach the nearest car, arms up and mostly in front, and they place their hands on the car, spread-eagled. The two cops frisk them all, one by one. No struggle or audible protests from the young men. I’m too far away to hear any conversation, but it goes on for awhile. I don’t know when the police left. An hour or so later, five of the young men have recongregated kitty-corner from my building (if there were more initially, I can’t be sure). They’re talking, then they split up; three head the other way, the other two get into a nearby car. I hear this repeatedly from one of the two: “I don’t need no gun.”

I tried to write the above as neutrally as possible, and realized how difficult it was. Is it possible to be a clear, dispassionate observer? Even the details I noticed were likely influenced by my biases, conscious or not. Shedding prejudice is a rigorous activity. Thoughts running through my mind simultaneously: “Had the cops received a crime report?” “Were they patrolling and believed that more than one young African-American male walking down the street was cause for investigation? I’m also trying to profile the cops. If any of the young men had been carrying a gun, he would have been arrested (Chicago has a gun ban) and there’s no way any could have been back on the streets so soon. I didn’t feel the need to seek cover. Influences on my perceptions and thinking: 1) I’ve noticed an increase in police patrols in my area. On the one hand, it should make me feel safer, but on the other, I wonder what it signals. Are they only now taking notice of something that may have been going on all along? Or are the seemingly stepped-up patrols an indication of growing problems in the area? 2) More than a year ago, I noticed a group of young people gathering frequently outside the building across the street. On one occasion, it looked an awful lot like gang activity (guys repeatedly driving by, hanging out the car windows thighs on up and hollering at the more than 20 people hanging out on the sidewalk and alley—they were clearly looking for someone and both they and the group sounded hostile). I called the cops. I haven’t seen anything like it since a week or two after that incident, but what does that mean? Did the person(s) at whose place they were congregating move? (The building is rental units, not condos—and of course the perception is that gang members wouldn’t be owners.) Or were the aggressors neutralized? 3) I absolutely believe that unjust racial profiling occurs. Even though I know that the other extreme, stopping an old Scandinavian grandmother from boarding an airplane for carrying banned articles, in an effort to be “fair and impartial” would be just plain absurd. (Justice is blind, after all, right?) To date there have been no Norwegian suicide bombers. But “Driving While Black,” even “Walking While Black” is an “offense” that seems to occur disturbingly often. 4) One of my brothers was particularly delinquent in his youth, and on more than one occasion I happened to drive by his car (it was a small town), pulled over by a cop who was just checking to see what he was up to. Once he had gotten the cops’ attention they kept close tabs on him, and he preferred to believe that they had it in for him. It was easier to get into the finer points of cops of German ancestry “harassing” an idiot of Norwegian ancestry (the town and nearly the entire county then was Caucasian, so racial profiling had to be taken to a much lower level). Not all scrutiny is unearned. But zeal is particularly susceptible to blinders.

Hurricane reflections

I lived in Houston from 1985–1987, and in 1986 Hurricane Bonnie threatened our area. As I researched it (my memory of it is poor) I discovered that it was at most a Category 1 hurricane, and upon making landfall was downgraded to tropical storm. Still, we had our warnings, which back then consisted of: stock up on batteries, water, nonperishable food and candles, and criss-cross tape your windows so that if they break, they won’t shatter all over your place. (And if you’re really ambitious, board up your windows.) We lived in the Heights, so flooding was not an issue, but we would still have been vulnerable to high winds and possible tornadoes. We went to bed that night not knowing what we’d see in the morning (I confess we didn’t do the window thing) and discovered the storm had veered northeast on nearly the path Rita took. I never fully understood what torrential rains were until I saw the aftermath. Two days plus of a solid wall of water coming down. And of course, the city’s seven bayous overflowed, which they do in “regular” thunderstorms. As my ex-father-in-law still lives in Houston, and I’m still reeling over the emotional impact of Katrina (even from my safe distance), I did watch Rita with concern. My ex-FIL had planned to evacuate, but when he and his neighbors saw the impossible traffic jams, they decided they’d best just hunker down (he did board up his windows). He’s not in an area prone to flooding, so it was a better choice than getting caught on the highway. It’s nearly impossible to get around Houston without a car. Public transit? I’m still not sure it exists there. And on the best of days, Houston’s “rush hour” runs from early morning to early evening. Even with the reasonable advance warning that was heeded, there’s no way all those people could get out. Houston is the nation’s fourth most populous city. (I’ve witnessed a million people trying to get out of downtown Chicago following July 3rd fireworks, so I’m even less convinced that Chicago could evacuate in any imminent disaster—though we don’t have to fear hurricanes, thankfully.) Comparing Rita to Katrina seems like comparing the proverbial apples to oranges—and not just because of the storm strength. In Rita we had a potential disaster that was taken seriously because of Katrina’s lessons, even though the lessons are somewhat different. New Orleans and Houston are different in a number of ways. The economic bases are different (New Orleans’ base is tourist/entertainment, which requires a ready pool of the hardworking poor), though both still are vulnerable to catastrophic storms. But in terms of potential loss of human life, Houston has the advantage. More people had the means to protect themselves and the geographic advantage of being far enough inland that storms are more likely to lessen in intensity before hitting. The people outside those two cities will likely be quickly forgotten—no solid entity or identity that allows people to remember—even though their losses are as complete as many of those in the two cities (especially New Orleans) that we can so easily pigeonhole.

Sins of the parents

Bemused at Blogging through the Bible has noted the constant theme of children paying for their parents’ sins (she’s nearly through II Kings now), and I have found it as perplexing and disheartening as she does. However, theology does shift in the Old Testament, though it’s a detail that escapes most people’s notice. The Lectionary for today includes Ezekiel 18, which provides an uplifting preview:

Ezek 18:1 (NRSV) The word of the LORD came to me: 2 What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”? 3 As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.

Read the remainder of the lesson here (scroll down to the section for ECUSA).

Messy community

Dave at The Grace Pages talks about churches trying to offer something for everybody by segregating them ("ghettoization" he calls it). I found his comments a welcome antidote to the solutions presented by Episcopal Church "experts" on growing churches (which I might address sometime, if I can raise the stamina to do so) to my former parish. (Former parish's mission was pretty near "Grow or die.")

Jesus is…

I don’t know who wrote this—it came via e-mail—but I find it wonderfully thought-provoking enough to share: There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black: 1. He called everyone brother. 2. He liked Gospel. 3. He couldn't get a fair trial. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish: 1. He went into His Father's business. 2. He lived at home until he was 33. 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian: 1. He talked with His hands 2. He had wine with His meals. 3. He used olive oil. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian: 1. He never cut His hair. 2. He walked around barefoot all the time. 3. He started a new religion. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was an American Indian 1. He was at peace with nature. 2. He ate a lot of fish. 3. He talked about the Great Spirit. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish: 1. He never got married. 2. He was always telling stories. 3. He loved green pastures. But the most compelling evidence of all—3 proofs that Jesus was a woman: 1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food. 2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it. 3. And even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was work to do. AMEN