The News-Press Prints My Letter But Cuts Out the Best Part

Well, I am thankful that the St. Joseph News-Press printed my letter to the editor today. I was beginning to wonder if they would print it at all. Given the political slant of the editors, I guess I should be grateful they printed it at all. They did, however, edit out quite a bit of it--in my opinion some of the best parts.

To be fair, I did submit a letter that was way longer than they request letters be, so I did leave myself open to being edited. I feel, however, that most of what they cut out reveals the bias of the editors and obscures a major point I was trying to make. To their credit, they did include my criticism of their own stance on the issue. You can be the judge. Below, you will find what I submitted to the News-Press. The text in RED is what was not printed in the paper.

In my opinion, the edited version ends up being a counterargument to Graves, Bush and other opponents of the bill--which in and of itself is okay, that was one of my intentions with the letter. Lost, however, is the point I was making about the hypocrisy of Graves and others who claim to be "pro-life" and supporters of "family values" but have no problem with children having no access to affordable healthcare. I really do believe that it is immoral to work for anything other than or less than every child (and adult) in our country to have access to affordable health care. As one of my parishioners said recently, "We are not a civilized country if we have children whose families cannot afford health care."

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Dear Editor,

Rep. Sam Graves has declared himself to be a supporter of “family values” and the “pro-life” movement, but his recent vote against the expansion of the State Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and support for President Bush’s veto of the bill supporting the program reveals otherwise. The congressman must not really care for families who cannot afford health insurance and he must not be concerned about the lives of children once they make it outside the womb.

Congressman Graves along with President Bush and other opponents of the bill have put their own political interests and the interests of wealthy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations above the interests of America’s children. Health insurance rates and prescription drug prices continue to rise at rates many times the rate of inflation, while the growth rate of most American incomes remains modest at best. All this is assuming, of course, that people without employer-provided insurance can get medical insurance. Have you tried to get health insurance lately? Unless your medical record is free of any and all prior conditions, expect coverage to be denied.

Graves and other opponents of the recent SCHIP bill justify their actions with several misleading charges. The first is a concern that children of illegal immigrants may get health coverage. Yet, instead of working to create a solution to America’s immigration problems that benefits businesses, American workers and foreign workers who seek a better life, Graves and others in Congress would rather put doctors and medical workers in the unenviable position of having to deny help to children who might or might not be here illegally. There is also the question, of course, of whether it is ever humane to deny health treatment to anyone, especially children, based on their national citizenship.

Graves and other opponents of the SCHIP bill love to throw around the charge that the bill would include families making $82,000 a year. Multiple reputable sources show that 92% of those covered would make under $62,000/year for a family of four. The remaining 8% would be in areas of the country where the cost of living is at a higher rate. A family of four that makes between $31,000 and $62.000 per year includes many families that make too much to receive Medicaid and makes too little to afford private insurance (assuming they could get it). $62,000 may seem like a lot in St. Joseph, but add the cost of health insurance to that of out of pocket costs for a major operation and you will find that money gone in a flash.

The final objection of Graves and others (including the News Press editorial board) is that families who could afford private insurance would then move to the government-funded program. To that, I say give me a congressman (and a newspaper) that cares more about the health of children and the pocketbooks of ordinary people than it does about insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

While Representative Sam Graves, President Bush and other opponents pull out the empty rhetoric of “Hillary-care” and “socialized medicine,” the health of millions of American children is at stake—children that were not covered in the past and will not be covered in the future if the opponents of the current bill have their way. Ensuring that every child has access to affordable health care should not be up for debate in a civilized country. To work for anything else is immoral. I urge all Missourians who truly value families and believe that a “pro-life agenda” should include a healthy life for all children to speak out against the actions of Rep. Graves and President Bush.

Sincerely,

Rev. Chase Peeples

What Happens to Convictions When Death Comes to Call

There was a provocative article in Sunday's NY Times about Cheshire United Methodist Church in Cheshire, CT. The church's membership and ministers have been active and vocal in their opposition to the death penalty. They have protested executions and had events where members signed documents asking that if they were murdered prosecutors not seek the death penalty against the person(s) accused of the crime. Yet, these firmly held beliefs were challenged when one of the church members and her two daughters were brutally murdered in their own home.

Two men were caught fleeing the home and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against them. The church has debated how to respond to the killings and whether to speak against the death penalty in this case. The husband and father of the victims was not home the night of the murders and survived to face unimaginable grief. Some members believe the murdered wife and mother killed, who happened to be an opponent of the death penalty on religious grounds, also happened to sign one of the documents asking prosecutors not to seek the death penalty in the event they were murdered. Her house was badly damaged in the fire and no document has surfaced. Meanwhile, the surviving husband/father of the victims has made no statement on the matter, although friends say he would not want the church to make an issue out of his personal tragedy.

It is a heart-breaking story that raises many questions about what happens to our principles and convictions when we are faced with real tragedy and pain. This story demonstrates the real-world complications that come with holding any absolute position on the complicated moral issues of our time. Opposition to the death penalty remains somewhat of an abstraction until you know the victim(s) or you know the accused. Opposition to abortion rights is rather straightforward until you know a woman who has been faced with the difficult decision to have one or not. It is easy to condemn homosexuals--just as long as they remain a vague "them" rather than real people or even family members. It is more difficult to oppose the war when you have a loved one in the military serving in Iraq. When the difficult issues of our world become personal, it becomes more difficult to hold an absolute view.

I don't mean to equate the four issues I've mentioned: death penalty, homosexuality, abortion and war. Rather, I mean to point out that each one is complex, and when we think about the people involved as people rather than as issues or statistics, absolute positions get called into question.

In the case of the death penalty, I remain an opponent of it unequivocally, because I believe all life is sacred and execution amounts to revenge and allows for no reconciliation or restoration. I also believe that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the death penalty serves as no deterrent to violent crime. That being said, I know that if it were my wife or child killed, I would want revenge. God forbid that I ever have to be in that position, but if I am, I hope that I am not in the position to pass judgment.

I have a good friend who is a state public defender at the sentencing stage of death penalty cases. He and I have had many discussions about the difficulty of his job--defending people that he rarely likes and often abhors, because he believes every person no matter what they have done deserves legal defense and because he opposes the death penalty and believes the justice system is often stacked against people who find themselves facing capital charges. My friend admits that if someone he loved were killed in the manner his clients are accused of doing, it would be difficult to hold onto his convictions. Good thing, he would never be asked to defend a case he was close to. When I've asked him what it's like to hear the victims' family speak, he describes it as agonizing. Yet, he also says talking to the families of the defendant is often just as agonizing. The fallout from violence is far and wide even when violence is done by the state in the name of justice.

The complexity of the death penalty has come to my mind recently as I have read the news coverage about Lisa Montgomery--which is a local story here in northwest Missouri. It seems to me that if anybody deserves the death penalty it would be her. I know that if I knew the victim, Bobbie Jo Stinnett, her kidnapped baby, Victoria Jo, or her family, I would probably want Montgomery to die. Yet, since I have some sense of objectivity, I still believe that only God should decide who lives or dies. I'm not sure how my own convictions would hold up if I were closer to a crime like this one, but I stand amazed when I meet people who manage to hang onto theirs in such dark moments.

Here in America, our convictions, ideals, beliefs and principles ask very little of us most of the time. In many parts of the world and throughout history, people of faith and principles have paid dearly and suffered greatly for what they believe. When death comes calling and the stakes really are life or death, what will you believe? What will I believe? What will we believe?

Grace and Peace,

Chase

A Letter to the St. Joseph News Press re: Rep. Sam Graves and SCHIP

Below you will find my first letter to the editor of The St. Joseph News Press. I submitted it tonight via e-mail and will drop a snail mail version off at their offices tomorrow. I've been meaning to write it since our representative in Congress, Sam Graves, voted against the recent bill which expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). He also supported President Bush's veto of the measure. We'll have to wait and see if the News Press publishes it or not. I will be sending a copy on to Rep. Graves as well. I'd appreciate your feedback via hitting the comments link below this post. Here's the letter:

Dear Editor,

Rep. Sam Graves has declared himself to be a supporter of “family values” and the “pro-life” movement, but his recent vote against the expansion of the State Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and support for President Bush’s veto of the bill supporting the program reveals otherwise. The congressman must not really care for families who cannot afford health insurance and he must not be concerned about the lives of children once they make it outside the womb.

Congressman Graves along with President Bush and other opponents of the bill have put their own political interests and the interests of wealthy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations above the interests of America’s children. Health insurance rates and prescription drug prices continue to rise at rates many times the rate of inflation, while the growth rate of most American incomes remains modest at best. All this is assuming, of course, that people without employer-provided insurance can get medical insurance. Have you tried to get health insurance lately? Unless your medical record is free of any and all prior conditions, expect coverage to be denied.

Graves and other opponents of the recent SCHIP bill justify their actions with several misleading charges. The first is a concern that children of illegal immigrants may get health coverage. Yet, instead of working to create a solution to America’s immigration problems that benefits businesses, American workers and foreign workers who seek a better life, Graves and others in Congress would rather put doctors and medical workers in the unenviable position of having to deny help to children who might or might not be here illegally. There is also the question, of course, of whether it is ever humane to deny health treatment to anyone, especially children, based on their national citizenship.

Graves and other opponents of the SCHIP bill love to throw around the charge that the bill would include families making $82,000 a year. Multiple reputable sources show that 92% of those covered would make under $62,000/year for a family of four. The remaining 8% would be in areas of the country where the cost of living is at a higher rate. A family of four that makes between $31,000 and $62.000 per year includes many families that make too much to receive Medicaid and makes too little to afford private insurance (assuming they could get it). $62,000 may seem like a lot in St. Joseph, but add the cost of health insurance to that of out of pocket costs for a major operation and you will find that money gone in a flash.

The final objection of Graves and others (including the News Press editorial board) is that families who could afford private insurance would then move to the government-funded program. To that, I say give me a congressman (and a newspaper) that cares more about the health of children and the pocketbooks of ordinary people than it does about insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

While Representative Sam Graves, President Bush and other opponents pull out the empty rhetoric of “Hillary-care” and “socialized medicine,” the health of millions of American children is at stake—children that were not covered in the past and will not be covered in the future if the opponents of the current bill have their way. Ensuring that every child has access to affordable health care should not be up for debate in a civilized country. To work for anything else is immoral. I urge all Missourians who truly value families and believe that a “pro-life agenda” should include a healthy life for all children to speak out against the actions of Rep. Graves and President Bush.

Sincerely,

Rev. Chase Peeples
First Christian Church (Disciples of “Christ), St. Joseph, MO

It's De Ja Vu All Over Again--Are We Going to War with Iran?

This week, it seems that the Bush administration has cranked up the imminent threat rhetoric in regards to Iran. Vice President Cheney today used some of the exact same language about Iran's potential nuclear program as he did about the non-existent nuclear program of Iraq. My frustration and fear levels are rising--frustration that the media, Congress, etc. seem to be taking no notice --frustrated that once again Christians who serve the Prince of Peace are ready to break out their Bibles and support another unnecessary war and frightened because if it happened before it can happen again.

Before I was able to articulate and express my own feelings on the matter and thoughts about what Christians should be doing in response, I read the most recent blog post from Brian McLaren. So, instead of offering an inferior parroting of his words, I'll just post the link to his words of challenge to where things seem to be headed with Iran. Click here to read what McLaren says, and then pray hard that we don't have another irresponsible and unethical war on our hands.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Three Quotations on My Mind: Dialogue Column 10.23.07

The following is my column written for "The Dialogue" a weekly newsletter of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), St. Joseph, MO.

As we wrap up our stewardship campaign this week, three quotations keep running through my head:

“Life is a gift.”—Elaine McCool

“The opposite of poverty is not property. The opposite of both is community.” —Jurgen Moltmann

“Sometimes I think our greatest fear should be God giving us exactly what we want.”—Barbara Brown Taylor

The first quotation was said by our own Elaine McCool during worship this past Sunday as she shared her inspiring thoughts on what First Christian Church means to her and why she supports it by volunteering time and energy, giving financially and praying for its spiritual health. (I forgot to get a copy of Elaine’s words from her on Sunday, but rest assured they will be in next week’s Dialogue. If you missed them, you will want to read them. Even if you heard them, they are worth contemplating a second time.) Elaine is not the first person to utter this phrase, but for me, when the words came from her mouth, they were more stirring of my spirit than any other time I had heard them. Through her many years of life experience, Elaine has learned and lived the essential truth that we exist by the grace of God and that all we have and are comes from God. Gratitude is the proper starting place for any activity we do as Christians, especially when we contemplate what our giving to Christ’s church should be.

The second quotation comes from the German theologian, Jurgen Moltmann, who offers an alternative to our usual way of thinking about the rich and the poor in our culture. He reminds us that God desires more for humanity than rich people giving charity, sympathy or pity to poor people, and poor people receiving these things from rich people. God desires the abolition of the barriers of class and wealth that separate people from each other. For the church, this means being a community of faith where all people, regardless of their economic status, contribute their whole selves to the service of God and humanity. Understood in this way, each person is valued as a child of God and caring for the material needs of one member of the community is not charity but an expression of love between equals. Now that most of the pledges have been turned in, my hope is that each member of our church recognizes her or his own responsibility to God and to others. The amounts pledged may be different, but hopefully each pledge represents a meaningful sacrifice for the work of God in the world.

The third quotation comes from the renowned preacher and seminary professor, Barbara Brown Taylor. She offers us the crucial insight that our wants and needs are different from one another. Often our wants represent a desire for greater comfort and pleasure or simply for more stuff. We want the things that do not bring true fulfillment. Worse yet, these things often insulate us from the joys of knowing other people in meaningful ways and distract us from experiencing the true life we can only have in relationship with God. By giving financially to the work of God in the world, we have the opportunity to examine our lives and reorder our priorities so that our lives are more fulfilling and of greater service to others and to God. Our financial gifts to God can help us to receive what we need instead of acquiring more of what we want.

As we look forward to what God will accomplish through First Christian Church in 2008, I pray that through your gifts to the church you will experience the blessings of gratitude, community and receiving what you need from God.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Genocide- and Rock-n-Roll

Once again truth takes second place to political necessity. The resolution in Congress to officially acknowledge the Armenian Genocide is pretty much dead, because of concerns over the war in Iraq. Is it mere coincidence that the Turkish parliament voted to authorize military action against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq during the same week Congress was considering this resolution? If you believe that, I've got some some resort property in Basra to sell you. For those who say it is not the right time for this resolution, I ask, "When will there ever be a good time? When we're out of Iraq? When will that be? When we stop having military interests in the Middle East? When will that be?" Meanwhile, the last of the survivors are dying and even the children of the generation directly affected are dying with no justice.

As I was thinking about the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the long struggle by the survivors, their descendants and the descendants of those who perished in it, I actually wondered what the rock group System of a Down thought on the matter. The popular alternative rock band is made up of Armenian-Americans--the only one I'm aware of, in fact they're the only Armenian-American celebrities I'm aware of--and they're fairly politically conscious. Sure, Sting has the rainforests, Bono has poverty in Africa, but it's interesting to find a genocide on the minds of rock stars.

Well, it turns out that the lead singer of the band, Serj Tankian, has lobbied Congress for a number of years regarding this issue and has some fairly articulate thoughts on the matter. His NPR interview is worth a listen--although the cut that is currently available is fairly rough. He asks if a democracy that denies the truth is a true democracy? Seems like a fair question to me.

Grace and Peace

Chase

Peace, Happiness and Stewardship

In this week's church newsletter I included two bits I've picked up from recent news for church members to think about as we complete our church's stewardship campaign.

1. A recent survey revealed that the number one thing Americans wanted for Christmas this year was a computer. “Peace and happiness” ranked second. My first reaction was judgment—typical materialistic Americans! Then I considered what I would have answered had I been asked the same question I realized that the first thing I would have thought of would have been a material object too. Don’t you hate it when you realize your priorities are out of whack?

2. Columnist Bill Tammeus shared statistics on giving in The Kansas City Star this past week. They weren’t good. According to one survey of 11 Protestant denominations in 2000, giving per member came to just 2.6 percent of annual income. I’ve noted before that I personally do not advocate a specific percentage of income to give, but I was taken aback a bit, since this figure is lower now than in the midst of the Great Depression. That’s quite an indictment.

There's a reason Jesus spent so much time talking about wealth and its temptations. His words about laying up treasure in heaven are just remain relevant today--if not more so, given our consumer-driven economy and the availability of goods at unprecedented levels through

technology.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Study Says Young People Find Christianity Judgmental and Anti-Gay--I wonder why?

As I mentioned in my sermon this past Sunday, my family and I happened to be driving through downtown Kansas City on Saturday night. We were driving up Grand past the new Sprint Center where Elton John was getting ready to do a show. Out front were a handful of folks whom I assume were from Rev. Phelps' church in Topeka holding signs condemning homosexual people to hell. They even had a pick-up truck driving around the arena with a giant billboard saying America is now like Sodom and Gomorrah.

I wanted to yell something at them, but my four year-old was in the car and I didn't feel that was a very good example. Also, although it might have made me feel better, it would not have done anything other than make them feel more righteous in their hate. I thought later about them and realized that they were a group of people ungrateful for the grace they have received, but then so are we all at one time or another.

Phelps and his gang are the worst of the lot when it comes to defaming gay people and presenting Christianity as a religion of bigotry, but just because most Christians aren't out there with nasty signs doesn't mean that there aren't nasty things being said in pulpits and Sunday School rooms across the nation.

There's a new study by the Barna group that says the majority of young people in the nation find Christianity to be judgmental and anti-gay. It seems the church's stance on homosexuality is one of the main reasons young people are turned off to the church in general. They recognize the hypocrisy of condemning people for who they are and how God made them They also recognize ignorance when they see it.

The stakes are higher than most Christians care to consider. Not only do American Christianity's narrow-minded views on sexuality leave thousands of people with minority sexual orientations confused, rejected and even suicidal--the irony being that the one place they should find guidance and direction is the place they are most likely to find condemnation--but the church's failure to listen to the experience of these hurting people in our midst reveals the utter bankruptcy of our beliefs to a generation of young people looking for something to believe in. A generation will be lost to the grace of God unless minds can be opened and lives can literally be saved.

After the service Sunday, I was sort of wondering if I should have held off once again mentioning the need for the church to accept and care for gay and lesbian people when a church member I know well came up to me. She took me aside and shared with me that her daughter is gay. It had been a difficult struggle for both of them, but they have both come to accept the daughter for who she is and to celebrate her as she is. She thanked me for what I had to say.

Also, last week I had a church member talk with me about the national event "Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights," which asks heterosexuals around the country to have a week of action promoting equal rights for gay. lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. We talked about trying to make it happen in St. Joseph next year. It sounds great to me!

Who knows? Maybe there's hope that the children and youth of First Christian will grow up learning that God loves them for who they are and desires them to show the same kind of grace to others.

Grace and peace,

Chase

The Daily Show covers the Armenian Genocide

This clip has been edited, I guess, so that it doesn't violate copyright laws. The inserted pics that also happen to be not that funny weren't on the original broadcast.

Why the Armenian Genocide matters

I suspect that for most Americans the fuss over a House committee's approval of a bill calling for the United States government to call the mass killings of Armenians during WWI a genocide must have seemed like much ado about nothing. Why the big deal about something that happened almost 100 years ago? Before a few years ago, I would have asked the same question.

I think I've written before on this blog about the time when members of my church in NY gifted me with their stories of the family members killed in the Armenian Genocide. Through their words, I began to glimpse what it is like to have the entire generation of your parents killed and then to have the world ignore the tragedy. Despite the alarms of Christian missionaries and diplomats at the time, the American government did little more than shrug its shoulders at the mass killings. Following World War I, American governments of both poliltical parties have refused to even acknowledge that the mass killings happened, because the modern state of Turkey which inherited the crimes of the Ottoman Empire refused to admit the terrible event happened and because Turkey proved to be such a crucial ally--first against the fascists, then the communists, then Saddam Hussein and now in Gulf War II--America will do nothing to offend its government.

All the while, the survivors of the genocide--a ruthlessly orchestrated series of mass deportations to work camps and then eventual executions that the Nazis used as a blueprint for the Holocaust (The best book I know of on the subject is The Burning Tigris by Peter Balakian. It documents that the genocide was systematic and well-planned.)--along with the children of Armenians who did not survive have waited for someone simply to acknowledge that the genocide happened at all.

The Armenian Genocide does not matter to you, unless it was your family that died in it--or unless you care about justice--or believe that those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Today, our local paper (always an astute observer of international events--not!) ran an editorial cartoon showing Democrats messing with Turkish history because they could not make any new history of their own. It is true that the bill is coming up now, because Democrats who have large numbers of Armenians in their constituencies hold places of power, such as Nancy Pelosi, but that does not mean that the cause is any less just. What is horrifying is to hear that Turkey has hired lobbying firms to influence Congress--firms that have big names like Richard Gephart and other former big wigs. Money trumps acknowledging a genocide every time, I guess.

As is so often ironically the case, the only voice out there decrying the absurdity of our government's position in the face of injustice was Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. The good news, I guess, Is that after almost a century of nobody caring about the murder of 1.5 million Armenians, the subject has finally risen to the level of public consciousness that The Daily Show is commenting on it. (See my post with the video.)

For Christians, the subject of the Armenian Genocide should strike a deep chord. The Armenian people have an ancient history that includes an early conversion to Christianity. That history not only includes the Armenian Orthodox Church, but also close ties with many Protestant churches thanks to missionary work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is, of course, beside the point that Christians should care simply because there is a genocide involved, but then most Christians in the West seem not to care about holocausts today--e.g. Rwanda, Darfur, etc.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

The Year of Living Biblically

Have I mentioned that I'm an NPR junkie?

In my last post, I mentioned the interview with Gary Wills on NPR's Fresh Air. Well, here's another one from the same program.

A. J. Jacobs, an editor at Esquire, has previously gone to the extreme of reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and then writing a memoir about what he learned. Now, he's got a book out about the year he spent trying to obey every law and rule in the Bible. It's a vivid example of how people who claim to take the Bible literally as "God's Word" really do not do so--they cannot do so and function in modern society. Jacobs takes a very sympathetic and open view towards the Bible. He grew up in a non-practicing Jewish family and when he became a parent began to wonder if he was missing out on religion and thereby depriving his son of something vital. So, to hear his lessons about wearing a robe in public, not shaving his beard, punishing his toddler with "rods" as instructed in Proverbs, not sitting anywhere or on anything that a menstruating woman has sat upon and even trying to stone an adulterer is enlightening to say the least. It turns out he learned a lot of lessons from reading the Bible so closely and took a lot away from the experience. Some of it is hilarious, because trying to follow all of the rules of Leviticus in today's world lends itself to comedy, but some of it is also inspiring.

His interview is worth a listen. I'll be on the lookout for the book.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

If you think church membership is bad now...

As a part of switching to a new denomination, I have to take a class on the history and polity of the Disciples of Christ. It's been an insightful class and I've really enjoyed the reading. As a part of that reading, I've had to review the religious history of the United States, and I guess I had forgotten (if I ever knew) what a non-religious country this was at its founding.

I've heard the claims of the Religious Right--that America was founded as a Christian nation--and recognized them for what they are a selective reading of history at best and an intentional rewriting of history for political ends in the present at worst. However, I think I have assumed that the upper crust of American society--i.e. the Jeffersons, Adams, Washingtons, Franklins, etc.--were Deists and the hoi polloi were the church-going types. It appears both I and the Religious Right are mistaken.

Most people did not attend a church of any type at all prior to the 1800's and the Second Great Awakening--the revivalist movement on the western frontier (out of which the Disciples of Christ emerge). One of my texts puts the figure of church attendance following the Revolution at less than ten percent! Apparently, the phenomenon of state churches in Europe left a bad taste in people's mouths and churches were associated with the governments they left behind, not to mention their centuries of warfare and corruption of those same churches. Although religion may have played a part in certain colonists coming to the new world (e.g. the Pilgrims), once they stayed a while religious devotion seemed to drop.

Despite references to the "creator", etc. in the Declaration of Independence and a general sort of language about God, the founding fathers seemed to view God from a deistic perspective--one where God creates a natural order but then lets it go to run itself. That view seems to be the extent God was thought of if at all by most people in the revolutionary era.

My reading coincided with my hearing an interview with historian Gary Wills on NPR's Fresh Air last week. Wills makes this same point while explaining the rationale behind the freedom of religion granted in the first amendment of the constitution. It's worth listening to and his book, I assume, is worth reading.

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Rumi: Islamic Mystic and Poet

In recent years, I have repeatedly come across quotations from Rumi, the 13th century poet and mystic, that have really resonated with my own experience of God. I'm no expert on him, but I really have found deep inspiration from his poetry. He hails from the Sufi tradition in Islam which emphasizes trancendence in a manner that seems to me cannot be limited to a particular religion. What I have read of Rumi and other Sufi mystics seems to have much in common with Christian and Buddhist mystics throughout the centuries.

NPR had a great story last Friday about Rumi and a new book on Islamic spirituality by a scholar that knows Rumi well. It's well worth a listen, not the least of which is because you hear Robert Bly read his translation of one of Rumi's poems.

Here are a few quotations by Rumi that I've picked up along the way:

"Observe the wonders as they occur around you--don't claim them."

"Keep walking, though there's no place to get to. Don't try to see through the distances. That's not for human beings. Move within, but don't move the way fear makes you move."

"Let the beauty we love be what we do. There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground."

Grace and Peace,

Chase

Kerouac and the Boomers

Occasionally, I find what David Brooks has to say to be really fascinating. He's a good social critic in my book. (I just wish his political criticism was as good. When he defends some of the conservative stances of politicians, he comes across as disingenuous.) In his column today in the NY Times he makes some hilarious observations about how Baby Boomers are reacting today to Jack Kerouac's On the Road today as compared to forty to fifty years ago.

Brooks begins his column with the words, "A few decades ago, before TV commercials became obsessively concerned with prostate problems..." Was there such a time? I can hardly remember it now. Oh yeah, it was before the largest population surge in American history in all its self-obsession began having such medical problems.

Brooks points out that in its day, On the Road was greeted as a celebration of life and youthful recklessness that would savor every event down to its marrow. Now as 50th anniversary editions of the book are beginning to come out, the introductions and critiques are all about how Kerouac was lost, lonely and obsessed with death. The book is about failed dreams and loss.

Brooks points out that in the critiques of aging Boomers "...you feel the gravitational pull of the great Boomer Narcissus. All cultural artifacts have to be interpreted through whatever experiences the Baby Boomer generation is going through at that moment."

Granted, the Boomers are an easy target in this regard, but as a member of the generation that grew up in their shadow having to endure whatever that great consuming generation ahead of me found fashionable, I will never feel too sorry about shots like the ones Brooks makes.

What does the ever-changing reading of Kerouac by Baby Boomers have to do with anything a Christian minister might want to say on his blog? I'm glad you asked. I point it out, not just because I'm a cynical member of Generation X, but also because it is a perfect, if obvious, illustration of the way we humans tend to interpret scripture, tradition and our experiences of God. Like Boomers re-reading Kerouac in light of their own mortality, we humans read ourselves into our interpretation of scripture especially but also all of our interactions with the spirit. It may be unavoidable, but we can be aware of it.

I've had a number of conversations with folks lately about the different ways we read scripture depending on our social class, culture, nationality and time period. Too often, we do not realize how our own context determines what we will take out of scripture. Just as owners of slaves in the 19th century found justification for their actions, so did abolitionists. Just as feminists find inspiration in scripture for the liberation of women, so do the men and women who support sexism and patriarchy in all levels of society. It may be unavoidable, but we can at least do our best to double-check ourselves and seek out opinions different from our own by people different from ourselves . Of course, that takes humility and security in one's own identity--two factors in short supply in American Christianity.

Grace and Peace,

Chase