Browsed by
Category: politics

Drawing the line

Drawing the line

Comments 3 comments

The sermon I preached this morning at the Deer Isle/Sunset Congregational Church, UCC …

Were you listening on Thursday? Did you listen as Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, providing her account of being sexually assaulted at age fifteen by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh? Did you listen as he vehemently denied any participation in that assault or in any such behavior? Did you listen as senators from one side of the aisle and the other asked questions of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, or more accurately, made their own statements intended to score political points for their side and to humiliate the other?

If you did listen, or even if you just followed the story in the news, how did it make you feel?

I felt pain and sadness for Ms. Ford, for her and for any woman who might have to endure such brutish treatment. And I felt astonished and baffled by the absolute incongruity of what she said and what he said. They were not expressing differing takes on an ambiguous encounter. She said it absolutely happened and he said it absolutely did not. Somebody is telling the truth and somebody is not and that’s scary, because it means that either she is knowingly undermining a man’s reputation and threatening his career, or that he, instead of taking responsibility for his own mistakes, is covering over his guilt with bluster and unconscionable lies.

But what disturbed me most was the process itself: the attacks, the gamesmanship, the bitter partisan divide. The senators were focussed not on getting to the truth, but on winning the fight. It was all about winning sympathy, winning votes, showing strength, putting on a show, prevailing over … the enemy.

The Thursday hearings reflected once more the deep polarization in our society. The divide between Republican and Democrat, between left and right, between white and black, even between women and men, has become so wide and so deep it is hard to believe that there is any longer any core of commonly held values or first principles that keeps us together as Americans or even as human beings. We do not debate, we demonize. And even if our politicians do not really believe their opponents to be evil, they surely encourage their constituents to believe so.

What do we have to say to all this? Do we have something to say? Do we have something to say as Christians, as followers of Jesus? Do we have something to show, by our own words, by our own attitudes, by our own behavior? When we say, “The peace of Christ be with you,” who is you?

Let’s play a little word game. It’s kind of like word association, where I say a word and you say the first word that comes to mind, only in this case, I will say a word and I want you to say ”good” if you think it’s a good word or “bad” if you think it’s a bad word.
For example if I say “peace,” you would say … “good.” Or if I say “cruelty,” you would say … “bad.”

Hate …

Love …

Justice …

Favoritism …

Forgiving …

Judgmental …

Blueberries …

Lima beans …

Evangelical …

Pentecostal …

Baptist …

Roman Catholic …

Where do you draw the line? Whom do you consider part of your group?

John was clear: “He doesn’t belong to our group.” He was not asking Jesus a question, but proudly reporting the action they had taken on his behalf. “We told him to stop … because he doesn’t belong to our group!” He doesn’t belong to our group. He doesn’t belong.

How do you think they defined “our” group? The band of followers traveling with Jesus? Those who had listened to him and watched him and eaten with him and slept beside him day after day? Those whom he had called and invited to follow? The chosen ones? “Our” group?

How did Jesus define “our” group? “Whoever is not against us is for us.” Whoever does not separate themselves from us, whoever does not make us the enemy, is for us, part of us, part of our group. They must draw the line, not us.

How do you define “our” group? Where do you draw the line? The question matters because if we cannot live in peace with each other, with brothers and sisters who call themselves too by Jesus’ name — if we draw a sharp line between “our” group and “their” group, between us and them — then what hope is there for making peace in the world??
But look at us! Evangelicals, progressives, soul-winners, justice-seekers, left, right, those who like everything done decently and in order, and those who want the Spirit to move. Isn’t the church of Jesus Christ on this earth today as partisan, as parochial, as polarized, as bitterly divided against itself, as everybody else? Do we have anything to say? Do we have anything to show?

It has been my personal mission throughout my ministry to try to bridge this divide. This mission is born out of my own history, my own experience of Jesus: raised in an evangelical home, taught early to love Jesus with all my heart and soul and strength, with everything I am and everything I have, choosing to be ordained in the United Church of Christ, not raised in it, but choosing it, because of its emphasis on bringing people together, because of its commitment not to following tradition, but to following Jesus, because of its urgency not just to talk about faith, but to live it. I was and am an evangelical Christian gladly serving in the most liberal of denominations.

But I hate labels! What purpose does a label serve except to draw a line? I am … a follower of Jesus, no more, no less. I appreciate the evangelical church at its best: passionate in faith, loving God with heart, worshipping with passion. And I appreciate the progressive church at its best: putting love in action, opening wide the arms of love, offering freely the embrace of God’s grace — “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here!” And I pray as Jesus prayed, that they may be one, that they may learn to appreciate each other, learn from each other, love each other, be the church together.

But that prayer is getting harder and harder to pray, and the work of bridging the divide harder and harder to do. The evangelical church of my youth is not the evangelical church of today which has taken a hard turn to the right, wrapping itself in a new phariseeism, seemingly losing the message of God astonishing grace along the way, defining very precisely who is in and who is out, who is “us” and who is “them.” But the progressive church can be just as harsh, just as judgmental, just as eager to make sure you know that “those” people who call themselves Christians are NOT part of our group.

During my lifetime the dreams of ecumenism, of a worldwide church coming together, have been replaced by the reality of an increasingly divided church, divided not so much by faith itself, but by allowing itself to be co-opted by one political agenda or another.

It is hard work to bring the church together, but we must try, mustn’t we? Listen to Jesus. If lines are to be drawn, let them draw the line. You must not be the cause of division. Or as Paul put it in one of his letters: “Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody.”

Do your part! Don’t draw lines! They may draw a line between you and them, but you must make sure you draw not a line, but a circle, a circle large enough to include them, and your love, your willingness to listen, your readiness to see what is good in them, may make peace.

“That they may be one.” Jesus’ prayer and the motto of the United Church of Christ. His desire, our mission.

We are not celebrating communion this morning, but know that every time we do, we embody Jesus’ prayer. When we come to the table, what do we celebrate, what do we remember, what brings us together? Jesus, only Jesus. Jesus who with his own body broke down the walls that divide us. Jesus who invites all without condition to come. It is not our table, not the table of this church, not the table of the United Church of Christ, but Christ’s table, Christ’s table where all are welcome.

We come to the table to be joined, body and soul, to him, and by being joined to him being joined to each other, body and soul. When we eat and drink together, we are made to be sisters and brothers, sisters and brothers to each other, and sisters and brothers to all who share this meal, wherever and however.

In the words of our church’s constitution: “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession.” Kindred in Christ, sisters and brothers, alike bearing Jesus’ name, made one in him, made one by him.

We don’t have to make the oneness, we just have to live it!

We don’t make the peace, we simply offer it. The peace of Christ be with you.

McCain on Haspel

McCain on Haspel

Comments 1 comment

John McCain’s statement after the Senate confirmation hearing for Gina Haspel as director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

“I believe Gina Haspel is a patriot who loves our country and has devoted her professional life to its service and defense. However, Ms. Haspel’s role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing. Her refusal to acknowledge torture’s immorality is disqualifying. I believe the Senate should exercise its duty of advice and consent and reject this nomination.”

Disavowing torture

Disavowing torture

Comments 1 comment

Fifty Virginia lawmakers and religious leaders sent a letter today to Senators Warner and Kaine, urging them to oppose the nomination of Gina Haspel as director of the CIA, because, given her history, approval of her nomination would amount to a tacit endorsement of torture as a legitimate interrogation tool. Here is the letter:

Dear Senators Warner and Kaine:

We, the undersigned Virginia elected officials and leaders from the progressive and faith communities are deeply opposed to the confirmation of Gina Haspel as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Ms. Haspel is credibly reported to have played a prominent role in President George W. Bush’s covert torture program. In addition to Ms. Haspel’s intimate involvement with the torture program, she is credibly reported to have been deeply complicit in the destruction of videotapes recording the horrors the program produced.

Ms. Haspel’s defenders excuse her participation in torture by arguing that she was simply “following orders.” Not only is that excuse insufficient on its face, but it is also deeply disquieting given the administration Ms. Haspel is being nominated to join—led by a President who has openly endorsed torture. One can scarcely imagine the range of dangerous orders the next CIA director could be given, especially in the aftermath of a crisis. Why wouldn’t we expect her dutifully to follow those orders as well?

Ms. Haspel is being considered for a promotion, to lead and represent publicly one of the most powerful (and secretive) agencies in our government. At minimum, her participation in this disgraceful program, which was one of the darkest chapters in our country’s history, should disqualify her from that privilege. Endorsing Ms. Haspel would reward torture, and send a disastrous message the world over—including to survivors of torture—that there is no accountability whatsoever for those who commit these grave human rights violations.

Put simply, this vote will be seen as a referendum on torture. We strongly urge you to vote No on the confirmation of Gina Haspel.

It matters

It matters

Comments 0 Comment

A large number of advocacy groups are joining forces to oppose the nomination of Gina Haspel to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency, including two groups which I support: the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Center for Victims of Torture. Read more at the Daily Beast:

There were no legal consequences when Gina Haspel oversaw the torture of two men at a secret CIA prison in Thailand 16 years ago. There were no legal consequences 13 years ago when Haspel aided in the destruction of 92 videotapes showing Abu Zubaydah and Abdul Rahim Nashiri’s torture. But now that Haspel is two Senate votes away from running the CIA, a coalition of civil liberties groups is gearing up to ensure that she will at least face political consequences.

This morning, I listened to an interview on NPR with John Rizzo, a lawyer with the CIA during the time of Haspel’s involvement with CIA “black sites.” It was appalling to hear him refuse to label waterboarding, simulated executions, and other interrogation techniques involving extreme physical and emotional abuse as torture and to excuse such measures because of historical context.

Context never changes what is right and wrong. Otherwise, right is merely what is expedient and wrong what is merely inconvenient. Torture is never right and to excuse it is inexcusable. As a nation based on the rule of law and defense of certain inalienable human rights, we are better than that. We must be better than that.

To let this nomination proceed unchallenged is to betray the values for which we claim to stand.

robin hood in reverse

robin hood in reverse

Comments 1 comment

President Trump’s first major budget proposal on Tuesday will include massive cuts to Medicaid and call for changes to anti-poverty programs that would give states new power to limit a range of benefits. How does it make us better or stronger to turn our backs on our most vulnerable citizens? One commentator quoted in the article calls it “Robin-Hood-in-reverse” … in other words, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Democracy at its best is a social contract, a mutual commitment to take care of each other, to pool resources of wealth and power to ensure that we are together protected from threats, both external and internal. Internal threats include poverty, disease, injustice, exclusion. It is government’s purpose, not merely to create conditions for economic growth and “stay out of the way,” but to make sure none of us are left behind or left out.

This is not about partisanship or politics. It’s about survival … both of our most vulnerable compatriots and of our democratic ideals.

this is our home (follow-up)

this is our home (follow-up)

Comments 0 Comment

A leading member of the environmental justice arm of the EPA, a twenty-year public servant under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, Mustafa Ali, has resigned. Here is his explanation:

I never saw in the past a concerted effort to roll back the positive steps that many, many people have worked on through all the previous administrations … I can’t be a part of anything that would hurt those [disadvantaged] communities. I just couldn’t sign off on those types of things.

In his letter of resignation to EPA director Scott Pruitt, Ali wrote:

When I hear we are considering making cuts to grant programs like the EJ small grants or Collaborative Problem Solving programs, which have assisted over 1,400 communities, I wonder if our new leadership has had the opportunity to converse with those who need our help the most. I strongly encourage you and your team to continue promoting agency efforts to validate these communities’ concerns, and value their lives.

You may read more about Ali’s departure here.

this is our home

this is our home

Comments 0 Comment

This is our home, the home we share, the home given us as a gift and a blessing by our Creator, the home entrusted to us to preserve and protect and enjoy.

Cedar River tributary
Cedar River woods

This is our home! — the home we bequeath to our children and our grandchildren and to generations of children of God to come. And this home will feed them and enthrall them and delight them, too … if we care for it.

The new administration is proposing and enacting dramatic changes in governance on many fronts: a travel ban on immigrants and refugees from a few particular Muslim-majority nations, expanded deportation of undocumented residents, repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, removing protections for transgender youth, ramping up the nuclear arms race, a budget that sharply increases defense spending and makes radical cuts to program and agencies that are intended to serve and protect the most vulnerable of our citizens.

But of all the newly implemented policies, one of the most disturbing to me is the virtual abandonment of environmental stewardship. Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times op-ed by William Ruckelshaus, who served as the first administrator of the newly-created Environmental Protection Agency from 1970-1973 and again as EPA administrator under Ronald Reagan from 1983-1985:

One of the factors leading to the creation of E.P.A. was the recognition that without a set of federal standards to protect public health from environmental pollution, states would continue to compete for industrial development by taking short cuts on environmental protection. The laws that the E.P.A. administers create a strong federal-state partnership that has worked well for over 40 years. The federal government sets the standards and the states enforce them, with the E.P.A. stepping in only if the states default on their responsibilities.

Budget cuts that hurt programs that states now have in place to meet those duties run the risk of returning us to a time when some states offered industries a free lunch, creating havens for polluters. This could leave states with strong environmental programs supported by the public at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with weak programs. In other words, it could lead to a race to the bottom.

A race to the bottom is a race to a despoiled home, a ruined planet. Environmental protection is not a partisan issue. Ruckelshaus is a Republican, a Reagan Republican. If you pit business against environment, both lose. Both lose! Gutting the EPA serves no useful purpose, no purpose at all, except for some small short term profit for a few resource-exploitive industries at the expense of long term disaster.

And gutting the EPA seems to be the goal. Here is a sampling of proposed cuts in the fiscal 2018 Trump budget taken from a OregonLive report:

Beach water quality testing
2016 budget – $9,500,000
2018 proposed – 0

Diesel emissions reduction act
2016 budget – $50,00,000
2018 proposed – 0

Radon testing
2016 budget – $6,000,000
2018 proposed – 0

Environmental education
2016 budget – $8,700,000
2018 proposed – $555,000

Chesapeake Bay
2016 budget – $73,000,000
2018 proposed – 5,000,000

Puget Sound
2016 budget – $28,000,000
2018 proposed – 2,000.000

Great Lakes restoration
2016 budget – $300,000,000
2018 proposed – 10,000.000

Environmental justice
2016 budget – $6,700,000
2018 proposed – 1,500,000

Climate protection
2016 budget – $95,000,000
2018 proposed – $29,000,000

In other words, the government of the people, by the people and for the people has no interest in cleaning up polluted swimming beaches, dirty air, and poisoned homes, and has no interest in preserving some of our nation’s natural gems like Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and the Great Lakes which account for 1/5 of the freshwater surface on the planet. There is no needed federal investment in preparing the next generation of good stewards of our precious natural resources and no interest in pursuing environmental justice, no interest in addressing the unbalanced impact of environmental degradation on vulnerable populations.

And climate change? The greatest looming threat to life in earth as we know it, undisputed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? We don’t need to worry about that. Making a few more bucks matters more. Right?

I pray that the administration will heed wise counselors like William Ruckelshaus and the will of the American people, the majority of whom who do care about preserving the environment (Gallup polling) even if the economy is adversely impacted, and do the right thing. This is our home!

heart

heart

Comments 0 Comment

“We’re going to show great heart. DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have … because you have these incredible kids, in many cases.” (Donald Trump)

Heart. Heart, indeed! I do hope “we” — “we” the American people and “we” the government elected to represent us does show great heart! It is an encouraging statement. I will pray that heart does hold sway over fear and suspicion and prejudice and pride, and that the virtues the president sees in such children he will also recognize in their parents and those like them.