Can you believe?

Words that defy translators

2009-07-09T18:38:00.009+04:00

Generations of American admirers of Russia have tried to describe the so-called "Russian soul"--but I'm not about to join them in this effort. Instead, I've been reading 93 Untranslatable Russian Words, a book that provides some fascinating soul hints, by way of a listing of Russia words that defy the translator's skill.

As the author Natalia Gogolitsyna explains, these words are not literally impossible to translate, but they have no one-word equivalents in English. Translators must bracket the target with multiple synonyms or use explanatory phrases. To me, that makes the reality or quality behind that one Russian word particularly interesting.

Now, there's no single Russian word that carries this soul-cargo alone. In part, the fascination of these 93 words is in their cumulative effect--the clues they give to the psychic shape of the Russian world, what is common knowledge or tacitly understood, when to struggle and when to be resigned, and so on.

(For Russian speakers, some of the words and quotations Gogolitsyna discusses are on this page of Bristol University's Web site. )

Here are some delicious examples. (I'm not keeping to the book's alphabetical order). In the book, each word or word family is followed by the author's definition and commentary, and then by illustrations from Russian dictionaries, literature, and conversational transcripts. I'm only giving a small part of the treatment of each example. I added the pronunciation guide, using the least academic system possible!)

быт [pronounced somewhat like the English word "bit" without widening the lips for the vowel]
{noun, masculine}
Way of life; everyday life, daily routine, habitual pattern of life; drudgery. The word (derived from the verb to be: быть) evokes the material world and a static conservative form of existence. It is contrasted to бытие--the higher, spiritual level of human existence. The English language does not have a word for this.

однолюб [odnoLYOOB]
{noun, masculine}
Somebody who has had only one love in her or his life, or who can love only one person at a time. The only possible translation is a description or explanatory phrase.

воля [VOLya]
{noun, feminine}
Freedom, liberty, free will. The word implies a lack of constraint, natural freedom, even a state close to anarchy. Воля often suggests open space, untrammeledness, distance. It is a more emotive word than свобода [svoBOda]. And it is one of those words which tacitly echose their opposite (here: тюрьмя [tyurMA, jail or prison], неволя [nyeVOLya, captivity, slavery]).

[Among Gogolitsyna's many illustrations, I particularly liked these:]

Volya is freedom + space and nature. Dmitry Likhachev

What is the difference between volya and svoboda? It is in the fact that svoboda is a positive and perfectly translatable concept. Whereas volya is absence of constraints (when the serfs were given letters of enfranchisement, this letter was called a volnaya), volya is when I do not have a yoke, when there is no authority over me, I do as I please, but there's no duty, no responsibilities. To get volya, people run absolutely anywhere, following their nose, to faraway lands, for example to the Cossacks. (But svoboda, you have to fight for it and treasure it.) Leonid Batkin

размах [razMAKH]
{noun, masculine}
Scope, range, sweep, scale, span, amplitude, breadth. When applied to character, the word may suggest an admirable expansiveness and generosity. In English, the problem is choosing between too many translations.

отходчивый [otKHODcheevee]
{adjective}
Describes someone who loses her/his temper with another person, but does not subsequently harbor resentment. 1. Not bearing grudges. 2. Easily appeased. 3. Forgiving. The antonym is злопамятный [zloPAMyatnee], vindictive.

авось [aVOSS]
{participle}
This colloquial word and expression combines the meaning of "perhaps," "I wish," "on the off-chance," and "hopefully," which creates problems when translating. In Russian folklore, it has both positive and negative connotations.

тоска [tosKA]
{noun, feminine}
Melancholy, anguish, pangs, depression, ennui, boredom, longing, yearning, nostalgia, weariness, tedium. None of these combines the notion of sadness, depression, yearning or boredom contained in the Russian word.

чужой [chuZHOI]
{adjective}
Someone else’s, other people’s, not mine/ours; foreign, alien, strange. The word is an antonym of роднóй [rodnoi, one's own due to ties of birth; native] and свой [svoi, one's own, belonging to the subject of the clause], and therefore has negative connotations. The problem with the first three translations proposed above is that they are not adjectival, and "foreign" and "strange" have much broader applications. "Alien" is often used to translate чужой, but it has too strong a connotation of something threatening or unappealing. It is strange that English does not have a word for this very basic and ancient concept. It is also important to note that чужой is very distinct in its meaning: "not mine, not ours, belonging to someone other than me."

подвиг [PODvig]
{noun, masculine}
Heroic deed, feat, act of heroism, something done for the general good. The Russian word подвиг tends to have a much wider usage than its English equivalents.

Righteous links: "Perspectives on Migration" gathered by OneWorld.net. And what about people of faith as immigrants? ~~ Karen Street probes Quakerly biases on the information we choose to support our energy-policy positions. ~~ Buzz Aldrin, moon explorer and philosopher. ~~ Vasily Aksyonov, talented author and beloved son of Evgeniya Ginzburg: NYT obituary, NPR obituary. ~~ Need marital communication lessons? We've got you covered.

The Waterfront Blues Festival continues to occupy the Portland, Oregon center stage every Fourth of July weekend, somehow combining the best features of a huge outdoor cultural event, a patriotic celebration, and an effective fundraiser for a nonprofit whose mission is more important this year than ever, the Oregon Food Bank.

I was there for three of this year's four days of blues, blues-rock, Zydeco, gospel, and swing music, and didn't see a dull act. Among my favorites:

D.K. Stewart	Fiona Boyes and Terry Hanck	The Insomniacs

Johnny Winter	Johnny Winter	Vito Liuzzi (Johnny Winter)

Johnny Winter's audience	J.P. Soars, Terry Hanck	Terry "Harmonica" Bean

Sonny Landreth	Sonny Landreth	Sonny Landreth

Nathan Williams	and the Zydeco	Cha-Chas

Also:

Value-for-decibel Prize: Hillstomp.
Sheer musical elegance: Lauren Sheehan
Eugene has the blues, too: Jerry Zybach and the Blues Scoundrels

I first saw Joanne Shaw Taylor five years ago in Birmingham, UK. Her fame is now worldwide. Here she is in Chicago:

Words that caress, words that cut

2009-07-02T11:19:00.005+04:00

This week, music takes priority over writing. The Waterfront Blues Festival is on! Last year at this time we were Russia bound, but this year our departure is later in the summer, so I can partake of the festival with a clear conscience.

So in a few minutes, we're off to Tom McCall Waterfront Park. But not before just a few words about ... words.

What's got me intrigued is the phenomenon of the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. Lots of people I know have gobbled down these Alexander McCall Smith novels about Precious Ramotswe and her detective agency in Gabarone, Botswana. I'm way behind the curve, having read the first novel in the series maybe five years ago, and just now finishing my second exposure--Morality for Beautiful Girls. Mma Ramotswe is trying to figure out who might be poisoning the son of an important Government Man at the son's farm, while her assistant is vetting the finalists of a beauty contest to make sure that the soon-to-be-selected winner doesn't embarrass the contest's sponsors and the nation. Meanwhile, Mma Ramotswe's fiance J.L.B. Matekoni's strange behavior recently can only be explained by clinical depression--otherwise, why would he turn his back on his car repair business, bury himself in his sofa, and sadly hint of past misdeeds beyond redemption?

Reading Smith's cotton-candy prose leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I totally see how his kind, lyrical, thinking-out-loud, often skippy style could appeal to many. It's like a combination of Alan Paton and A.A. Milne, and it appeals to me, too! And Smith's deceptively placid and economical wording touches often on deep issues of morality, tradition, and rural-urban disconnections.

On the other hand, how could any real country live up to the gauzy Botswana emerging from these pages? He doesn't deny urban corruption, labor discrimination, sexism, and tribal tensions, but they are blemishes on a country whose shining virtues, in Smith's portrayal, put the rest of Africa to shame.

And does the reader pick up respect for Mma Ramotswe's ability to get intuitively to the heart of a matter despite lack of prior context, or a tinge of (surely unintended) condescension, in the author's depiction of her grappling with new information this way?

Mma Ramotswe had listened to a World Service broadcast on her radio one day which had simply taken her breath away. It was about philosophers who called themselves existentialists and who, as far as Mma Ramotswe could ascertain, lived in France. These French people said that you should live in a way which made you feel real, and that the real thing to do was the right thing too. Mma Ramotswe had listened in astonishment. You did not have to go to France to meet existentialists, she reflected; there were many existentialists right here in Botswana. [Her former husband and self-centered jazz musician] Note Mokoti, for example. She had been married to an existentialist herself, without even knowing it. Note, that selfish man who had never once put himself out for another--not even for his wife--would have approved of existentialism, and they of him. It was very existentialist, perhaps, to go out to bars every night while your pregnant wife stayed at home, and even more existentialist to go off with girls--young existentialist girls--you met in bars. It was a good life being an existentialist, although not too good for all the other, nonexistentialist people around one.

Actually, I detect a challenge here to superficial sophistication as well--not a bad thing at all--but I'm still left with a bit of dis-ease.

Even so, I'm going to finish reading the novel, and probably read more of Smith's novels, for a reason that seems very important to me. Smith's words have a very different effect from the words I'm used to reading, especially in books about politics and history. For example, a couple of weeks ago I provided links to some of the current debates among Russia-watchers. After decades of reading books about the Soviet Union and about Russia, I've noticed that these commentators seem to feel obliged to use words as swords. They slash at each other and at their subjects; they thrust and parry; their words cut and slice. They spin their own errors, and dice their opponents'. The stakes are high--Europe's energy supplies, freedom of conscience in Russia, the battle against terrorism ... and their own reputations as intellectuals. Russia's own Mma Ramotswes--in other words, the innate decency of the ordinary Russian--are rarely factored into the equation. If Russian elites are accustomed to treating their people as a biomass to be shaped to the leaders' needs, then Western pundits seem to treat Russia as an undifferentiated punching bag to display their own slashing brilliance.

You know, after a steady diet of that kind of writing, the caressing words of Smith's novels come as a welcome respite!

Back to the festival: Among the people I'm looking forward to hearing are these: Rick Estrin and the Nightcats (with Kid Anderson as a worthy replacement for the amazing Charlie Baty); Lauren Sheehan; and Fiona Boyes. But I expect one of the biggest pleasures of the festival will be, as in previous years, the Arts and Entertainment Stage acts I'd never heard of before.

More links: "Getting to Yes in Iraq": Arthur Martirosyan's Mercy Corps blog. ~~ Carol Holmes tipped me off to this Riverside Church story on Brad Braxton's resignation. ~~ "How old is the old-time religion?" Teaser: "The debate over assurance illustrates how historical interpretation so often shapes theological discourse. If evangelicalism did not appear on the religious scene until the 1730s, then detractors gain a key point in their argument that novelty undermines credibility. If the Enlightenment created evangelicalism, then perhaps the movement should be re-created or abandoned altogether in our postmodern era." ~~ Nancy Thomas writes on "Stubborn Twig"--immigrants, America, and the Kingdom of God. ~~ Civil dissent: Andrew Sullivan posts a reader's criticism of Sullivan's coverage of Russia. ~~ For Ubuntu Linux fans who wonder what to do with the minor irritations they/we deal with daily: One Hundred Paper Cuts. Now, why do many pull-down menus go blank unexpectedly?? ~~ A Pew Research Center "... survey on aging among a nationally representative sample of 2,969 adults finds a sizable gap between the expectations that young and middle-aged adults have about old age and the actual experiences reported by older Americans themselves."

Etta James will not be headlining this evening at the Waterfront Blues Festival; organizers explained that her health has forced her to cancel her West Coast tour. Keb' Mo' will headline tonight in her place.

Here's a delightful video of Etta James with Robert Cray and Keith Richards:

A very good gospel

2009-06-25T15:50:00.004+04:00

The relational gospel--
two samples:

It was our first morning of our long Father's Day weekend in Pacific City that we heard about the stroke that would take Tom Mullen from us later that same day. We had just seen him and his wife Nancy Faus at Reedwood Friends Church a few weeks earlier, and he was in rare form. Who would have thought we could laugh so much during a Reedwood Forum session on, of all things, planning for one's death?? He and Nancy were great presentation partners for this sensitive topic, speaking candidly of their own experiences and their own preparations. Their central concern was helping relatives, friends, and the church know their wishes and the practical details the survivors will need to know upon their death.

Well, presumably West Richmond Friends do know those details, but there's one thing Tom couldn't help us with: It's simply hard to get around his absence among us! Being halfway around the world from him was nothing compared to having to wait for Hotel Glory to see again his face ripen the way it would before he'd let another joke fly--or, for that matter, to hear the passion in his voice as he constantly and faithfully asserted that grace is the core of Jesus's good news. I cherish my memories of his attempts to get me to take more classes at Earlham School of Religion: "We want you to graduate so we can take credit for you!" I'm sure I am not the only one who got his special brand of affectionate encouragement.

Here's where I find comfort--the encouragement is still there. I feel it when I close my eyes and picture Tom, and hear his voice again.

A couple of days after we got the news of Tom's death, I began reading a book that came out about five years ago. It's my Tom Mullen Memorial Read, and, appropriately, it's more fun than I should have reading theology: Donald Miller's Searching for God Knows What. Miller tenderly but directly diagnoses the control-oriented religiosity that separates too many seekers from the Good News. Central to his diagnosis is his insights about the "Fall" described by Genesis 2-3: God can and does tell us directly how much we are worth, how precious we are to God--but instead we substitute various counterfeits, comparing ourselves to each other according to false scales and values, even using theology to do that when it suits us. Our desire for God, and God's desire for us, are blocked out by all sorts of second-rate desires. (It's not desire that is bad, it's a fatal lack of perspective, lack of understanding that the Gospel is, before everything else, relational.)

Based on this diagnosis, Miller bluntly lists all sorts of terrible consequences, including racism, war, objectification of all kinds. Here's a sample, specifically concerning the misuse of "morality":

I confess, when I was young my mind rebelled from the standard evangelical mantra about morality. My rebellion was reactionary, to be sure. I can't tell you how many times I have seen an evangelical leader on television talking about this culture war, about how we are being threatened by persons with an immoral agenda, and I can't tell you how many sermons I have heard in which immoral pop stars or athletes or politicians have been denounced because of their shortcomings. Rarely, however, have I heard any of these ideas connected with the dominant message of Christ, a message of grace and forgiveness and a call to repentance. Rather, the moral message I have heard is often a message of bitterness and anger because our morality, our culture, is being taken over by peole who disregard our ethical standards. None of it was connected, relationally, to God at all.

In this way, it has felt like one group in the lifeboat, the moral group, is at odds with anther group, the immoral group, and the fight is about dominance in a fallen system rather than rescue from a fallen system. And I wonder, What good does it do to tell somebody to be moral so they can die fifty years later and, apparently, go to hell?

It makes me wonder, and even judge (confession) the motives of someone who wages a culture war about morality without confessing their own immorality while pointing to the Christ who saved them, the Christ who wishes to rescue everybody.

Morality, in this way, can be a circus act, giving a person a feeling of superiority. And while morality is good, anything we do to get other people to clap, or anything that gives us a more prominent position in a sinking ship, runs the risk of replacing a humble nature pointed at Christ, who is our Redeemer. The biblical idea of morality is behavior associated with our relationship with Jesus, not bait for pride.

The next pages are equally good, but I'm already stretching the fair-use doctrine, so I hope you get the book for yourself.

News of Tom Mullen's death in Richmond, Indiana's Palladium-Item, including information on Saturday's memorial meeting.

Judy and I are still prayerfully following the news from Iran as much as possible, including the sources I mentioned last week. We're now back in Portland, Oregon, for a couple of weeks.

Other righteous links: The Quaker Agitator provides a compact presentation of Chris Hedges' well-informed description of what war is all the time, "just" or not: it's sin. ~~ At bitterlemons.org, Yossi Melman comments on the implication's of Iran's internal crisis on Israeli and regional politics. ~~ More from Gene Stoltzfus on "Obama's War." ~~ FRIDAY PS on Guns and God: To balance this article on the New York Times site about the pastor who's asking his flock to bring their guns to church, I offer this rerun: Greenleaf Friends' pastor Alan Weinacht, also in the New York Times: "... How do you say we’re for community, and at the same time, the guns are cocked?"

I almost decided not to provide a blues dessert this week, but blues is what I'm feeling, so here's Dana Fuchs and her band:

Iran

2009-06-18T09:20:00.002+04:00

A brief entry for a change. We're on the move to Pacific City, Oregon, where we'll spend a few days before returning to Portland. Still awaiting news on the quota for foreign workers in our district in Russia.

My heart has been captured by events in Iran. Go elsewhere for political analysis, breathless updates, and journalistic speculation--all I can say is that, on the street, some very human messages emerge: Treat us with respect. We are not stupid. The nation includes us, too. Don't push us around. Our dignity is our strength. And, maybe most fascinating of all, and most terrifying for the old tyrant class worldwide, you cannot silence us or make us invisible.

The outcome for Iranian politics is completely unclear to me. A friend told us last night that he had heard a prominent Iranian say, long before the current situation, "Just leave us alone and don't interfere. We will take care of things ourselves." Maybe what we're seeing now is a validation of this advice. The Iranians themselves have the perspective, strength, and resources to shape their nation into a worthier reflection of their own extraordinary culture.

These events have a huge significance beyond Iran. A potent combination of courage and nonviolence is on display (thanks to the democratizing power of digital media) for all the world to see--and learn.

A few righteous links: "Evidence of Iran Discontent." ~~ National Iranian American Council blog. ~~ Does the content of this Beliefnet forum for Friends seem adequate to you? If not, you can fix that! (Thanks, Mary Kay Rehard.) ~~ After complaining (here, thing number three) about the dense language of an otherwise valuable book of theology, I was amused to come across this article. ~~ There's a big debate going on among specialist pundits about how the USA should relate to Russia. Read these samples (one; two) for information--a lot of assumptions are revealed--but not for much inspiration. ~~ Looking forward to this.

Jean-Rene's "Speak your mind"--the title of the song seemed especially apt in view of Iran.

Perpetual war

2009-06-11T22:32:00.016+04:00

Lots of smart people have been busy redefining the word "war." Maybe it once referred to lethal combat between nations or sharply-defined groups, with declarations and surrenders, truces and treaties. We Quakers were taught by our elders and our books of Christian discipline that war, and preparations for war, were inconsistent with discipleship. Sane citizens of all political persuasions at least united on wanting peace for ourselves and our children, imagining and working for the day that the country's war would end.

Now, things have become fuzzy. In particular, guerrilla warfare, counter-insurgency, low-intensity warfare, and the so-called stateless actors have changed the nature of warfare. In these bizarre times, a wealthy power like the USA can actually pay people not to shoot at our forces--and take political credit for the resulting reduction in violence--and at the same time define many detainees at bases abroad as implacable enemies and hold them for years without effective due process.

It's a crazy world, and it presents urgent challenges for believers.

The challenges of wartime faithfulness to the Prince of Peace may be increasing, but at root those challenges are not new. They are still extensions of the same old patterns of human sin, about which the Bible has always been refreshingly realistic:

In 1 Samuel, chapter 8, the Hebrew people ask Samuel to appoint a king over them, so they can be like other nations. God tells Samuel to respond to the people with an explicit warning as to what this means: (verses 11-18)
He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.
Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

Psalm 14:2-3 (The Message):
God sticks his head out of heaven.
He looks around.
He's looking for someone not stupid—
one man, even, God-expectant,
just one God-ready woman.

He comes up empty. A string
of zeros. Useless, unshepherded
Sheep, taking turns pretending
to be Shepherd.
The ninety and nine
follow their fellow.
More realism: Ecclesiastes 5:8: "If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still."

Romans 3:10-17:
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Ephesians 5:11-14a: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible...."

Ephesians 6:10-18:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
James 4:1-2: "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God."

Biblical realism not only prepares us for the prospect of perpetual war, it equips us to confront some of its specific features.

Back in 1961, Eisenhower warned about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex. "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," he said, "can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." But part of today's challenge is that it is extremely difficult for citizens to stay "alert and knowledgeable." Here are some of the reasons:

The policies of permanent war are rarely discussed in accessible public forums. If Tom Hayden is correct, military thinkers are focusing on a "long war" with a fifty-year time horizon. When have you heard a congressional debate about this? "The way of peace they do not know."

Some of the specific methods used in this long war are even less likely to be discussed openly--everything linked to "torture," to the "dark side" ("for it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret"), to the methods that made Gen. Stanley McChrystal's reputation as a can-do commander for the Afghanistan-Pakistan front.

We routinely forget our Biblical realism when we recount American history. Over and over again, we put our trust in glib experts whose collective reputation for accurate forecasting and sound management stands at near zero. We are overawed by the nesting bureaucracies and crisp technocratic orgnames of the Pentagon, as if the new cult of the Zen Warrior armed with a PhD, precision drone airplanes operated from Colorado, along with the naive goodwill of Americans who have entrusted their sons and daughters to this machine, can make up for fatal levels of hubris and lack of a shared moral center.

"National security" has been raised to cult status; it justifies everything from rude treatment of airline passengers to pre-emptive warfare. However, a super-nation that has established military and economic trip-wires all over the globe cannot help but hear alarms constantly. Only genocidal civil wars in central Africa, apparently, do not trip loud enough alarms, but a self-serving politician in the country of Georgia can summon billions of dollars of US weapons to aim at Russians. When do we discuss the "national security" of a just world, and of health care, educational reform, and environmental sanity within our own borders? "You yourselves have become his slaves."

Biblical realism allows us to confront perpetual war by reminding us that the hearts of nations as well as individuals are inclined toward deceit, and the Bible doesn't make an exception for us. This is why it is so important for us to demand clear definitions of loaded terms such as torture, enemy, national security, bases, experts, extremism, terrorism, and patriotism. Yes, it's hard to keep up with Eisenhower's expectation of an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry," but it should not be for lack of trying.

Biblical realism allows conservatives to make common cause with progressives, as long as both sides are willing to have some of their favorite oxes gored. For example, progressives might have to be willing to see what conservatives see, looking around the world--evil exists, sworn enemies exist, and a sentimental, mindless isolationism provides no security for anyone by any definition. Imperialism and an unceasing search for geopolitical and economic advantage is an unsustainable policy (progressives are right about that) but, what ARE sustainable policies? Are there some among us who would be able to work on that question, confronting the realities of a fragile, unstable, angry, and often ecologically oblivious set of global actors? Christian conservatives are beginning to realize that they can't only be conservative when it is convenient. If you believe in biblical inerrancy, for example, doesn't that cover the Bible's teachings on wealth and poverty? Immigration? Peace? Loving one's enemies?

The same skepticism that conservatives like to train on bleeding-heart idealists might also help create a more critical and careful examination of wealth, power, the possibility of structural injustice, and the possibility that some enemies might even become friends--and at less expense than it would take to kill them.

Both progressives and conservatives, unfortunately, get too caught up in their own identities, rather than using their philosophies as analytical disciplines and sources of inspiration. Checking to see if someone puts out the right cultural signals, shares the same visceral dislikes of certain politicians ("who makes you hear the dog whistle?"), and laughs at the usual stereotypical jokes about nutcases--all that builds false community, not true national security.

Biblical realism challenges liberals and progressives alike with thousands of years of evidence that its diagnosis of the human condition is absolutely right. Power corrupts, period. When people try to go it alone without God (with or without a religious cover--see Jeremiah), disaster results. Here's where we can start a conversation that crosses the divisions: Conservatives have years of experience with the protection of individual rights and promotion of individual responsibilities; progressives have years of experience promoting a vision of sustainable interdependence. Together, we face a new challenge--a system of undeclared perpetual warfare that arguably poses a spiritual, economic, and political danger to all our children, and our global neighbors' children. What can we tell our children together--or will we keep the walls up, conspire to give them only half the picture?

Right now, if I look at the momentum that's already been built up for the "long war," a more or less permanent state of imperial armed vigilance in some of the world's most troubled regions, it's hard to feel much optimism. In part, that's what makes this a spiritual issue. For Friends, especially, I hope and pray for a new burst of creativity and (humble) confidence. We have progressives and conservatives already in close quarters in our tiny global family; we have political scientists, mystics, evangelists, social critics, libertarians, economists, poets, scientists, even veterans and a Quakers' colonel! .... I'd love to believe we could rehearse and model what an biblically-rooted, ethically-shaped, prayer-driven revival might look like--one that not only transforms individuals, revealing Jesus to many people and communities without hope--but also equips us to confront and replace the vision of perpetual warfare.

Alice Yaxley asks, "Why not call yourself a Christian, like Lucretia?" I love the open and kind spirit of her question, and was fascinated by the responses. I see no reason to change my belief that the word "Quaker" covers at least two different religions with important historical roots in common. Those of us who cherish spiritual unity will value honesty about this, even as we also value those common roots and the urgent ethical drive that we all share. A few Friends will have a valuable bridge ministry, able to span the gap, but I don't think this will or should be the vocation of most Friends. And, what is more awkward, I believe that a Quakerism without Jesus at the center is, to put it as diplomatically as I can, incomplete. (Related thoughts here.)

Perpetual war watch: Engelhardt on "six ways the Af-Pak war is expanding; and Alfred McCoy, "Back to the future in torture policy." ~~ An experiment in crossing ideological lines for Christ's sake: Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. ~~ Video of Eisenhower's military-industrial-complex warning. ~~ Sent to Hell from Ann Arbor: A College Student's World War One...Rosalie Grafe's book is out! ~~ "Europe is Shaking"--24-7Prayercast. If any Friends have been involved directly in 24-7 Prayer, please let me know! ~~ Christian Peacemakers are reporting from Hebron again, after a year-long closure of CPT work there. ~~ Christopher Priest on the latest Star Trek. ~~ Need a quick course in energy and climate issues? Severin Borenstein presents a well-organized video introduction to the economic, geopolitical, and ecological issues. Click on the link at A Musing Environment. ~~ Remembering Ralph Winter. A news story. Recognition in Time. And another memory. I never met him but loved reading his editorials and articles. He had that wonderful combination of spiritual and intellectual devotion to the missio Dei with no fear or false piety.

The Roadhouse Moscow Blues Club presents Vladimir Rusinov, Kseniya Dubrovskaya, Mikhail Belov--the Jumping Cats!

The Jumping Cats! live from Andrey Belyaev on Vimeo.

Obama's hour

2009-06-04T23:43:00.011+04:00

Today in Cairo, Barack Obama's speech did as much as one 55-minute speech from one politician could do to open up new hope for US relations with global Islam. Afterwards, plenty of disappointed commentaries from his would-be ventriloquists told us what he should have said, and even I have some regrets--but none of them/us would have had to deal with the chaos that would have engulfed him had he wandered outside the bounds of diplomatic necessity. Within those bounds, he actually did quite a lot. Some high points for me follow, but I'm also aware: the space he opened up with these points will close again if he and others don't follow up with concerted repetition and implementation.

"...I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. ... Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire." (I'm absolutely ecstatic that Obama bluntly challenged the hypocrisy that is practiced by practically every government, including those governments that hope the USA will do their regional dirty work for them while absorbing simplistic and diversionist anti-Americanism.)

"... [W]e reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children." (What does this rejection mean for drone airplane attacks in Afghanistan?)

"Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." (Important implication: we did not in fact use diplomacy and international consensus in the case of Saddam Hussein. Continuing implication: Subject our actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan to this same rigorous test. I think it is interesting that we cannot recruit serious international military support for the fight in Afghanistan. Does anyone actually believe that "we" can prevail in Afghanistan without the deaths of many more innocent and semi-innocent, honestly conflicted people?)

"[W]e do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. ... I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own." (Will we seriously abandon the enormous bases we have built and are building right now in these countries? If not, then Obama lied. If so, let's think for a minute about the mind-boggling price tag for those disposable bases! In any case, I wonder whether the imperial reality of American garrisons in every corner of the world will drown out these few sentences of Obama's speech. The USA does in fact "lay claim"--whether by affinity, persuasion, or pressure--to territory for 850 "sites" in 150 countries, scheduled to be reduced to 550 by 2014.)

"...[I]t is also undeniable that the Palestinian people--Muslims and Christians--have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations--large and small--that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." (I see no evidence to support those who charge Obama with asserting equivalence between the Holocaust and today's suffering of the Palestinians. He said what he said; interpretation inevitably reflects the rhetorical interests of the interpreter. However, some would argue that the same sin, objectification of the "other," is behind both situations--Holocaust and gratuitous humiliation--despite the assymetry. Today, I simply appreciated the blunt and accurate description of the Palestinian reality, the courtesy behind using the designation "Palestine," and the reference to Palestinian Christians.)

"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered." (Again, it's probably not easy for imperial leaders, no matter how well-intentioned, to remember that these true words apply also to them and their drone-delivered missiles.)

"America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true." (If implemented with persistence and trustworthiness, this could be a breakthrough principle.)

"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere." (America has in fact practiced the reverse of this principle: We have presumed to know what is best for everyone, but we have only selectively supported human rights by pleading "realism" and political prudence. I don't have easy answers for Obama and the USA, but let's be honest, because dishonesty breeds cynicism.)

"Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's." (A quiet hint that Obama is willing to risk honesty in dialogue with Islam--not simply trading empty compliments. Honesty would also lead to acknowledgment that among some Christians, the same tendency exists.)

"I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice." (Again, I appreciate the willingness to issue a respectful challenge.)

Obama's international critics keeping repeating the point that they want action, not words. But words are powerful. If the USA's president can model telling the truth, expressing respect, acknowledging errors, confronting hypocrisy, exposing secrecy, rejecting simplistic formulas, and making commitments in the face of doubts about his country's motives, he empowers those of goodwill and creativity in every camp. Now he--and we--must stubbornly keep the space open for their (our) efforts to bear fruit.

And, tell me: who else on the world stage right now is taking the rhetorical risks that Obama took today? Most international politicians seem to be saying why they can't rise to the occasion, whatever it is, or why their problems (their country's problems) are somebody else's fault.

Friday P.S.: I can't help contrasting this speech with the last time I commented on a presidential speech on Islam.

Meanwhile ... What is the state of Jewish-Christian dialogue today? In her article "Terms of Engagement," Books & Culture columnist Lauren Winner comments on three related books.

. . . Christians need to participate in these conversations, it seems to me, for at least three reasons. First, for people who are called to love God with our minds, and who are called to love neighbor, substantively theological conversation between Jews and Christians may be seen as a form of neighbor-love. Second, these conversations are an act of repentance—repentance for the violent consequences that Christians' stories about Jews and Judaism have had for Jewish communities for centuries. Third, we need Jewish conversation partners for the integrity of our own theological narration.

More links: A former AIPAC lobbyist tells Jerusalem Post columnist Douglas Bloomfield, "There is no military option in Iran." ~~ Mennonite resources for Christian-Muslim understanding. ~~ "Not bothering" vs Christian citizenship: Considering today's European Parliament elections. ~~ Quakerspring at Barnesville is just a few days away; here's who is coming and what they are hoping for. ~~ Here's a Sotomayor "core dump"--thanks to Noli Irritare Leones for the link. Here you can find out more about the nomination process and get the public version of Judge Sotomayor's nomination questionnaire. And an evangelical columnist agrees that "empathy matters." ~~ Gene Stoltzfus on "Pentecost in Pakistan." And aren't Friends actually Pentecostal? Shouldn't we be? Ashley sees many parallels. ~~ Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill: "It shall take quite a bit of time until those who are Orthodox in name become firm and active believers." ~~ In my years of work in three Christian bookstores, I sold many Francis Schaeffer books, so I've been fascinated by the evolution of son Frank's thinking. The murder of George Tiller prompted Frank to issue an apology for some of the old Schaeffer rhetoric; coverage here by Anj (including video) and here by Wess. ~~ Internet Monk is running reruns. Here's one of the best: "Credible Christianity for the Cultural Atheist." ~~ Almost everyone I know who takes the Bible seriously struggles with Old Testament cases of apparent genocide. Here's a place where you can contribute your questions and insights.

Janiva Magness and Charlie Baty are delightful together in this video posted by bassist Mookie Brill:

My Baby

Things to wait for while waiting

2009-05-28T18:04:00.002+04:00

On top of my list of all-time favorite recursive radio show names is the CBC's "Music to Listen to Jazz By," which I used to hear late at night during my university years in Canada. Today's theme is an echo of that name. Since I have no choice but to wait, why not learn more about the virtues of waiting?

What are we waiting for? Generally, peace on earth. Specifically, our teachers' visas for Russia. We are waiting to see if we'll be included in this year's quota of foreign workers in the Moscow Region, or will have to settle for visitor (volunteer) status again and try for the more long-term visas in January. We hope to hear from the relevant authorities in mid-June, but by then the 2008-09 fifth year students will have graduated. I've seen them at least briefly every year they've been studying at the Institute, so I am peeved that they'll graduate without me right there to cheer them on--but of course I WILL be cheering them on, wherever I am.

In the meantime, ...

1. Never stop hoping and dreaming! For example, I could be an Israeli-Palestinian peacemaker, at least in my Walter Mitty fantasy world. As preparation, I've just read an excellent book by Aaron David Miller, long-time U.S. State Department analyst and policy advisor, The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace. I don't think I've read any book that better describes the complex combinations of leadership, willpower, timing, sheer happenstance, trust, and obstinacy in the creation of impasses and breakthroughs. Although at the end, Miller gives us a list of general principles and factors for progress, his primary vehicle is an amazing series of anecdotes and interviews with the surviving principals of all the major rounds of negotiation over the last quarter-century.

His book, paradoxically, left me very sober (there are few description of the Israeli-Palestinian standoff that don't include the word "intractable") and optimistic (we're not talking about violating the laws of time and space; we're talking about creating sufficient trust and motivation among key decisionmakers--it's happened before and it can certainly happen again).

For more on the book, including audio clips from the author's interviews with many central figures, go here.

2. Keep preparing for our return. For example, we continue to work on material for our students. Among other things, we continue to collect DVDs, including two more seasons of House, M.D. My favorite episode from last year's classes was "TB or not TB" (from season two), after which we discussed the nature and reality of true selflessness. Do such heroes such as the episode's passionate anti-TB crusader really exist? We're continuing to collect films, books, and other resources that will help us contribute to the Institute's goal of forming "the crucial communication skills that will equip young people for life in society, in a wholly interdependent world."

3. I could read more theology. That can certainly be an exercise in patience. As an example, there's a book I've previously mentioned, Evangelism after Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness, by Bryan Stone.

Here's an example of what makes this important book an exercise in patience:

As we construe evangelism as a Christian practice, then, MacIntyre's more formal definition of a practice as the action of humans ordered virtuously toward a telos narrated by and embodied in a tradition will need to be qualified theologically as the action of the Spirit ordered toward the Spirit's own telos, peace, and as embodied in a community that does not exist prior to the Spirit but which is instead "constantly re-enacted and re-received in the Spirit" (Zizioulas 1997:207). This means that MacIntyre's category of narrative will also need to undergo a pneumatological qualification, for history can no longer be simply about "the past," nor can historical causality be understood as moving from past to present to future. Instead, "the sequence of 'yesterday-today-tomorrow' is transcended" in a Christian eschatology, for "the Spirit is 'the Lord' who transcends linear history and turns historical continuity into a presence" (ibid. 180).

Don't give up; an important point is coming (my emphasis):

To evangelize, therefore, is not only to transmit a story but to invite persons into that story by inviting them into a future that has been made present in the Spirit. In this respect, Christians never cease to be "seekers." Rather, they continue "looking for the city which is to come" (Heb. 13:14).

It is temptingly easy to poke fun at this dense language, and I really do think a good editor would have helped (first: ban the phrase "constitutive of"!), but I want to come to the author's defense in a couple of respects. First, the author is participating in a very specific conversation with other authors whose work is crucial for his purposes--McIntyre, McClendon, Yoder, Hauerwas, Zizioulas, and others, some of whom are concerned to build a vision and vocabulary for something like a unified field theory of christology, ecclesiology, and ethics. In the course of this intense conversation, words such as "narrative" and "practice" have taken on huge significance. If Stone had to explain these words' full cargo every time, the book would be much longer. Instead, he's trying to make his own specific contribution to a larger conversation across time, space, and Christian traditions, and expects us to do our part in understanding the context of that conversation.

Second, it's an incredibly important conversation, arguably worth hard work. Maybe, in the respectful division of labor that should constitute our gift-driven Christian community life, it's the job of some of the rest of us to translate for wider discussion and inspiration.

4. We can stay in virtual touch with our Elektrostal community. Two mornings ago, I was on Facebook, and one of our younger friends "caught" me using Facebook's "chat" function. An hour later, I was checking e-mail, and replied to something from another Elektrostal friend, who immediately replied back. The resulting exchange lasted the rest of the morning, until we absolutely had to leave for an obligation in Portland. It made my day.

5. We could listen to the onions grow, as Mitch Hepburn (perhaps apocryphally) was said to have described his involuntary retirement from the Liberal leadership of Ontario.

6. We can "pray without ceasing." I truly cherish this tradition, which I find wholly compatible with our Quaker understanding of "waiting."

This week's news from Russia included the intriguing business-news item concerning Digital Sky Technologies' investment in Facebook. As the Reuters article points out, "Curiously, DST is also the sole investor in vKontakte, Russia's most popular social network." vkontakte does a lot of what Facebook does, but has a much larger following in the Russian Internet. (A few of our Elektrostal friends are on both.)

The Reuters article charges vkontakte with being a "ripoff": "Its format looks almost exactly the same, right down to the color scheme and fonts used. The features are similar, too, with options to add friends, videos, and events, as well as post on another member's 'wall.'"

Actually, the appearance is similar, but the feel is quite different. To me, Facebook is far more "pushy" with lots of application-driven messaging, while my experience of vkontakte.ru is that the interactions are more driven by direct person-to-person (or person-to-group) posts--wall posts, a nice spray-gun "graffiti" feature, tagged photos and videos, and so on. Another useful resource is vkontakte.ru's huge library of audio and video files--including some blues clips I've not seen elsewhere! To sum up: my experience of Facebook is that messages come from a bewildering variety of directions and channels, driven by lists and surveys and quizzes of all kinds, while vkontakte interactions are generally more personal.

While we're on Russian-American business relationships, I was interested in this (video) news item about the first American commercial contracts to import nuclear fuel from Russia. (Here's a text version of the story in Russian.) Elektrostal's own nuclear fuel factory is part of the Russian combine that signed the deal, so I'd like to imagine that this story is good news for us. ~~ Friends Committee on National Legislation asks for our help in banning cluster bombs. They particularly want those of us living in U.S. states whose senators have not become co-sponsors to lobby those senators. In terms of states with "big" Quaker populations, this means North Carolina (both), Pennsylvania (Specter), Ohio (Voinovich), Indiana (both). ~~ "Christ and whose culture?"--"A new wave of Native American evangelical theologians rejects the false choice between following Jesus or embracing their traditions." ~~ Thanks to opensourcetheology.net for this referral: The Times on "God is back: How Ned Flanders won the evangelical crusade." Having experienced years of arched-eyebrow commentary on American religiosity from British friends, I find the tone of the article as interesting as the content. ~~ And now to tease those arched eyebrows yet again: Donald Rumsfeld's crusade memos, courtesy of Gentleman's Quarterly. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe the most offensive slide to me was the one quoting Isaiah 26:2, "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, The nation that keeps faith." ~~ Thanks to Wendy Clarissa for leading me to this moving story of a genuine hero and martyr, Fr. Larry Rosebaugh--perhaps the most authentic possible answer to today's fashionable macho evangelicalism.

Few things satisfy my waiting heart like the blues! In Moscow, Kenny Neal performs his version of "It Hurts Me Too." (Thank you Axledog!)

Ventriloquists for free speech

2009-05-14T18:39:00.007+04:00

No results for "Ventriloquists
for free speech." Who'd like to
be first?

Is it just me, or are we flooded by political speech that tells the audiences what so-and-so intended to say or should have said or must have meant to say (thereby, presumably, deserving derision and oblivion)?

One of the most precious disciplines we Friends offer the world is "plain speech." Unfortunately, that seems to rule out a lot of what passes for rhetoric among many popular commentators--heavy irony, sarcasm, imputing and impugning motives, and scare tactics. Among the specimens from the last few days:

Ross Douthat, "Faking Left," New York Times. He writes, "Among their many aspirations for his presidency, Barack Obama’s admirers nurse a persistent hope that he might be able to end the culture wars. And by end, they generally mean win. The real hope is a final victory for cultural liberalism, and social conservatism’s permanent eclipse." That's right, we all shudder to think that there might be a diversity of views, an ongoing dialogue among those who differ passionately but care about our societies' future with equal passion; we view all social conservatives as useless. (Sorry, sarcasm.) There's more: "They [gay marriage opponents] can argue from tradition, custom and Christianity — as Obama himself does, albeit with dubious sincerity, to explain why he backs civil unions but not full-fledged marriage." (My italics--just to point out that Douthat himself uniquely writes with utter sincerity about the unstated motives of others. Oh, sorry.)

Again from the New York Times, "On His Tour, Pope Runs Into Politics of Middle East and Holocaust." Whatever else the Pope is, he's an intelligent adult. His audience includes millions of other intelligent adults. So why are so many people telling him what he should say, should have said, and should not have said? Would a symbolic message imposed on him by his hosts under some reasoning of political necessity really be taking by those intelligent audiences as something he actually believes and urges upon them? He is who he is, with all his complex German and Catholic history--why aren't we trusted to grapple with all that ourselves? Instead, his every line is analyzed for signs of sufficient shame, sufficient evenhandedness, sufficient innocuousness. Here are his dirty little secrets: he believes Catholic Christianity has a better understanding of God's will than some other spiritualities; he is very willing and able to be courteous and respectful to others, but probably unwilling to pander; he believes Christianity is a vital element in the cultures of Europe and the Middle East; he even seems to believe that Palestinian Christians deserve a word of encouragement. My friends and I emphatically don't agree with him on everything, but how would we know what we disagree with (and agree with) if he didn't have the freedom to say it?

Guarding Christian turf at the BBC: With the appointment of a Muslim producer as new head of the BBC's religion and ethics programming, some Christians are worried. Apparently, they're not worried about what it looks like to secular audiences to see Christians arguing, sometimes in alarmist and ethnocentric terms, that they ought to have an institutional head start over the competition. (Thanks to Simon Barrow for starting these thoughts.)

Two Pew Forum items side by side--I'll present them without comment, since (unlike the Pope, BBC programmers, Obama, etc.) they are probably capable of speaking for themselves: (1) "National Day of Prayer gets a political makeover"--"'I am sad to say this morning that this is the first time since the year 2000 that there has not been a prayer service in the White House,' said Shirley Dobson, leader of the National Day of Prayer Task Force and wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, at the Cannon House Office Building." (2) "Torture debate prompts evangelical soul-searching." Instead of making sarcastic remarks, I'll simply invite supporters of the Dobsons to express themselves on the subject of torture, specifically torture that is paid for and even approved by Christians.

Meanwhile, "Every Day is Doomsday in Washington."

(Related: Plain language.)

More links:

Salvation and Christian community: Thanks to InternetMonk for linking to and commenting on a thoughtful post by Scot Mcknight. ~~ The Mike Foster and Anne Jackson Porn Show, addressing an addiction (and not just a male addiction) with rare candor. ~~ What's up with the Hubble Space Telescope? (Background video: history of the Hubble project.) ~~ Christian Peacemakers announce the theme of their tenth congress, "Restoring Balance: Peace through Right Relationships." ~~ May 17 is almost here!

"When the Lord gets ready, you got to move"--Delta Moon's version:

Evangelism and enemies

2009-05-07T23:42:00.005+04:00

The New York Times reported today that "United States officials acknowledged Thursday for the first time that at least some of what might be 100 civilian deaths in western Afghanistan had been caused by American bombs. In Afghanistan, residents angrily protested the deaths and demanded that American forces leave the country."

A little later in the story, "The United States defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, questioned by journalists as he visited the capital, Kabul, apologized for any loss of innocent life. But he said that 'exploiting civilian casualties and often causing civilian casualties are a fundamental part' of the insurgents’ strategy."

I grieve these deaths and losses. I don't want to think about how my country's equipment rained death down on people I never knew. Among the victims, those who did not wish us harm died for the glorious reason that they inhabited our margin of error, or because their deaths were seen as a reasonable price to pay to accomplish the deaths of the "real" enemy. Our officials knew that this real enemy apparently likes to cause or provoke us to kill innocents, and by the criminally stunted morality of low-intensity warfare, we oblige.

Well, I can't help going a step further. What about that real enemy, the Taliban, or El-Qaeda--how do I know that they deserve to die at the hands of officials answerable to me and my neighbors, with bombs our taxes have purchased?

I've been following this story for the last couple of days, and at the same time I am continuing to make my plodding way through Bryan Stone's Evangelism after Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness. (The book is an inspiring/frustrating mix of excellent content presented in jargon-laden, underedited prose--but more about that another time.) I came across these thoughts (pages 179-80):

Much of the confusion regarding Christianity and politics swirls around whether (and if so, how) the church should be involved in politics, or which options a Christian should choose within a particular society or nation. But this typically cedes far too much to a secular politics, construing it as the only game in town and failing to recognize that living together as the people of God is itself already a politics. It presumes politics as an autonomous sphere of the social order having a fixed boundary that separates it from the realm of faith, so that faith can only ever be related to politics as a subsequent application or engagement. By contrast, to speak of the politics of evangelism in the way I intend it here is to begin with the church as itself a politics and to point to the visible, bodily, and corporate way that persons are invited to be formed into that alternative polis. The church then is not called merely to be political but to be a new and unprecedented politics; not merely in public but as a new and alternative public; not merely in society but as a new and distinct society, a new and extraordinary social existence where enemies are loved, sins are forgiven, the poor are valued, and violence is rejected. Yet if evangelism is political or if, for that matter, this politics is no utopian ideal, nor is it a lofty set of "causes" that we are merely summoned to stand in favor of. Evangelism is a summons to take the reign of God seriously, and it is an invitation to allow our lives, commitments, and relations to be ordered within that deviant politics called the church.

Skipping to pages 193-4,

We do not start with "world" in order to understand what we mean by "church." However subversive this politics may be, it is so precisely because it embodies the good news of God's reign in a situation where hostility to that reign passes for normalcy. Nor may we absolutize the difference between church and world. For one thing, there is a good deal of "world" in all of us, including the church. But more than that, while it is true that the church's story is not the world's story, Christian evangelism operates out of an unyielding trust that it can be, the audacious confidence that it should be, and the outrageous hope that it will be.

In my sorrow about the Afghanistan slaughter, I'm trying to make a concrete application of this theology. The world's story (at least the Pentagon's story) is that (a) the Taliban are our enemies; (b) we have justifiably deployed forces within range of Taliban bullets; (c) their violence against our forces and allies is illegitimate; (d) our lethal response, including risk to civilians, is legitimate and normal.

Jesus severely complicates this neat arrangement. As Paul says, "God has given us the task of telling everyone what [God] is doing. We're Christ's representatives. God uses us to persuade men and women to drop their differences and enter into God's work of making things right between them." But in the "real world," hostility to that starting point, that urgent ministry of persuasion and reconciliation, passes for normalcy.

Our first step, if Bryan Stone is right, is to declare independence from both the Pentagon story and the Taliban story--not to depart from the world in which these combatants are killing each other, but to place the legitimacy of their stories under question. I don't mean a glib or sentimental claim of equivalence, declaring both sides equally loveable and blameless. On the other hand, I do mean putting sacrificial effort into finding out what each side actually knows about the other, and whether they're telling their audiences the whole truth about what they know. What in fact are U.S. forces doing that far away from home; what do they know about their opponents' grievances and motivations, and what has "our side" done to break out of this lethal embrace with the enemy? The other side faces equally awkward questions concerning their ultimate goals--is their quarrel primarily with foreign intervention and occupation, or do they actually seek to set up a totalitarian theocracy? Have they in fact declared war against anyone who disagrees with them?

And we evangelists--what will we do to communicate the hope of reconciliation, the necessity of mercy and forgiveness, in parts of the world where the hostility is not just normal, it's deadly? We can and should assert that no government is entitled to command Christians to kill anyone. When our governments tell us who should be our enemies, we should be persistently skeptical. Even when the government has correctly identified a group that truly wants to harm me and my neighbors, we should never accept blindly the government's limited list of options for meeting the danger. (Don't deny danger that truly exists! Raising an alarm is a legitimate purpose of government--just refuse to be manipulated into immoral responses that reinforce the powers that be , and blind us to the humanity of the "enemy," rather than meeting the danger. Remember that the world we live in--and therefore our politics--has changed decisively since we've put Jesus at the center!) And, in the meantime, we should be organizing our prophets, evangelists, apostles, pray-ers, teachers, administrators, pastors, and everyone else to be sure that eventually the ministry of reconciliation is in every place in this "real world" where guns and missiles are aimed at each other. The stakes are high--there are children living right now in those margins of error, and our taxpayer-financed fingers are again tightening on the trigger.

For almost the whole Bush II presidency, I yearned for a respectful and assertive dialogue between our leaders and those who seem to hate us the most, particularly among Muslims--not a pandering apology but a straightforward engagement with our enemies' assertions, both right and wrong. Obama has made a new and hopeful start, but the agonies of innocent victims, shredded in full public view by our forces, is drowning him out.

Here are some links I liked this week: Do our convictions and exhortations lead to behavioral changes? ~~ Cherice asks some related questions here. ~~ Seth Godin on "ten years of Permission Marketing." ~~ Plans afoot to make a movie of Blue Like Jazz. ~~ Abu Ghraib crucifixion (my reflection: where is the enemy here?) ~~ The curious case of men like Michael Steele. ~~ Christopher Buckley on losing parents, and on the fear of death. ~~ Rick Warren vs Rick Warren.

Blues from Finland: Erja Lyytinen, again--"Rolling and Tumbling."

Saturday PS: Please ask for a torture commission

2009-05-02T11:38:00.000+04:00

Friends Committee on National Legislation is asking us to write or call to urge President Obama to appoint a bipartisan commission of inquiry on allegations of torture. (Writing instructions; calling instructions.) Please prayerfully consider whether you might join this important campaign.

I can think of a couple of thoughtful observers of the USA in Russia who really expect a higher standard of behavior from the USA than from other countries. In Russia, I never get into comparisons, and certainly I'm NOT a mouthpiece for the USA. But at the same time, it grieves me when we Americans as a nation betray those who had expected better. What do I say to my friends?

Here's a chance to move things in the right direction. "Repent and believe the good news," says Jesus. We know that the Good News is VERY good, but who can doubt that this is also a season for repentance? Here's what I wrote, through the FCNL facility, to President Obama:

Thank you for releasing the torture memos and for stating unequivocally that the United States will not torture.

Please create a nonpartisan, nonvindictive commission of inquiry to investigate how and when deliberately cruel interrogations, including repeated waterboarding, were actually carried out, and by what authority. Is it true, as some charge, that at least one person was tortured simply to get information confirming a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, because evidence for that link was politically needed?

I absolutely agree that our main thrust in this difficult period should be the future, not the past. At the same time, the USA should never join the ranks of those countries where public officials can commit criminal acts with impunity. Furthermore, those who tortured "innocently," with motives of pure patriotism, should by virtue of that same patriotism be willing to have their actions examined by fair-minded commissioners of inquiry. We cannot go "into the future" with the essential doctrine of due process under a cloud.
Sincerely,
Johan Maurer

Thank you!

Notes from Woodland

2009-04-30T21:29:00.004+04:00

Woodland Friends Church

Bob Adams (center), Tom
Hancock (pastor, Woodland
Friends, right)

McIntires' farm, Woodland

A Woodland morning

Awaiting breakfast

More breakfast

View of Kamiah from
Bob Adams' hilltop

I'm just checking in briefly from La Grande, Oregon, on the way home from Woodland, Idaho. I am still trying to absorb all the beauty of that little Woodland community, twelve nearly vertical miles uphill from the nearest incorporated town, Kamiah, Idaho.

It's not just the physical beauty, as extraordinary as that is. This was my second experience of the hospitality and friendliness of the Woodland community, including the descendants of the Quakers who originally arrived from Kansas and settled in the newly opened territory at the end of the 19th century. Woodland has changed a lot since then--the beauty, isolation, and fertile land has attracted an interesting combination of farmers, workers, retirees, inventors, scholars, along with survivalists and activists (example) of various stripes--not all of whom always see eye to eye, and many of whom don't share Friends emphases, but the Quaker center seems to be holding.

A few years ago, Pam McIntire compiled Woodland Remembered, a collection of personal recollections of Woodland history. The profile contributed by Mrs. Floyd Finney on Woodland's earliest Finney brothers, sums up with these words:

These times, from 1895 to 1910 or so, were often wild and wooly, but the settlers only wanted peace and stability; gun-play and other violence was discouraged. The Finney brothers were from a Quaker background, many of their ancestors were educated in Quaker schools, married in Quaker churches, and buried in Quaker cemeteries in Indiana, Kansas, and points south and east. Mostly, their descendants are quiet, decent people.

They're not just decent, these people are fascinating! For example, thanks to Tom Hancock, who with his wife Lola serves the Friends meeting, we were able to meet Bob Adams. At age 78, Bob is constructing a new home for himself half a mile uphill from his childhood home. Having given up cars, he bicycles to meeting and to town (Kamiah!) and he's busy digging a new garden. His careers ranged from a first education at telegraph school (leading to his first job, telegrapher for Union Pacific railroad) to a PhD study of Japanese folklore and 25 years as a scholar in Japan. (To my delight, he also speaks Russian!) Friend Floyd Schmoe played a crucial role in bringing him and his late wife Yasuko together. (Floyd was, among many other things, a leader in organizing American students to help rebuild Hiroshima, Japan.)

Bob Adams also spent some years at Indiana University in Bloomington, and I was delighted to find that he had known Bloomington Friend Bill Edgerton, late professor of Russian history.

Part of the reason we were in Woodland was to tell our friends there about our experiences in Elektrostal and our travels in Russia. The roomful of people assembled at Woodland Friends two evenings ago listened thoughtfully to our program and asked great questions.

Some people probably settle in Woodland to hide from the world, but others have found an anchor there, from which they can reach out to the whole world. I'm not about to change my urban identity, but if I were, I think I know where I'd like to settle....

June Hodson Schoeffler, one of the contributors to Woodland Remembered, included memories of homesteader George F. Beam. She appended these documents:

Woodland, Idaho, August 14, 1923

Mr. J.L. Johnson,
Woodland, Idaho
Dear Sir:-

Following is a resolution passed by the board of highway commissioners at their regular meeting August 11, 1923, a copy of which I am directed to transmit to you.

WHEREAS: J.L. Johnson, commissioner for sub district No. 2, or Woodland Highway District, having willfully absented himself for two consecutive times from the meetings of the board of highway commissioners, and WHEREAS: his advice and counsel being needed that the affairs of the district may be properly and effectively administered, and, WHEREAS: the public welfare being seriously jeopardized by his continued absence from the deliberations of the board, therefore be it RESOLVED: That the said J.L. Johnson, (familiarly known as "Johnny" Johnson), shall be, and is hereby fined one box of peaches; said peaches must be sound, without spot or blemish and of the proper ripeness and succulency. Said peaches must be delivered by the said J.L. Johnson, his heirs or assigns at the road house at Woodland in the county and State of Idaho at the next meeting of the board of highway commissioners September 8, 1923, for the especial use and enjoyment of the two remaining members of the board of highway commissioners, namely: O.J. Harvey and W.R. George together with their faithful and hard working secretary, Geo. F. Beam. And be it further RESOLVED: That if the said J.L. Johnson (familiarly known as "Johnny" Johnson), shall deliver or cause to be delivered, the said box of peaches at the aforementioned time and place he, the said J.L. Johnson, shall be acquitted of all blame; but failure of the said J.L. Johnson to comply with the spirit and intent of this order shall incur a further penalty of two (2) boxes of peaches.
In witness whereof we, the commissioners of Woodland Highway District, have hereunto set our hands and the great seal fo Woodland Highway District this 14th day of August A.D. 1923 and of the independence of the United States of America the 149th.

[seal and signatures]

I have been instructed by the commissioners of Woodland highway district, O.J. Harvey and W.R. George, to express their profound regret that necessity and a deep sense of their obligation to their constituency compels them to take such severe measures against one for whom they entertain only the most sincere feeling of friendship, but the public welfare is of paramount importance and should outweigh personal and individual wishes.

Commissioners Harvey and George respectfully but firmly decline to accept anything of a pecuniary or intrinsic value in lieu of peaches as they feel that nothing but peaches can atone for your continued absence from the sessons of the board of highway commissioners.

Hoping that you realize the enormity of your offense and that the box of peaches will be a big one, I am

Regretfully yours
[signature] Geo. F. Beam, Secretary.

I've been away from the Internet most of this week, so I have just a short list of links to recommend:

Nicholas Eberstadt on "Russia's depopulation bomb." (Thanks to robertamsterdam.com for the reference.)

Mark Galli suggests that the "strict-church" thesis needs revising.

Mary Kay Rehard links to a conversation with Kenyan environmental leader (and Nobel winner) Wangari Maathai.

Another clip of Floyd Lee, subject of the film Full Moon Lightnin ...

Floyd Lee Ground Zero Full Moon Lightnin
Загружено fullmoonlightnin

Twin Rocks shorts

2009-04-23T19:50:00.003+04:00

Lord, Save Us From Your Followers: Filmmaker Dan Merchant, producer and director of the film of this name, was the guest speaker for this year's Northwest Yearly Meeting pastors' conference.

As part of his presentations, we saw the full movie, which presents, by turns, both the ugly and hateful face of the contemporary evangelical church in the USA, and its most extraordinarily gracious face. Dan doesn't shield the viewer from full-on exposure to our reputation among many in today's America--judgmental, hypocritical, vindictive, shallow. Interestingly, he contrasts these indictments (gleaned from street interviews as well as TV samplings) with what these same people say about Jesus, who enjoys almost uniform approval from this skeptical public. Why the gap?

In the film, one of Dan's street-interview devices is wearing white overalls covered with bumper stickers and asking people-in-the-street for their reactions. He also presents a game show, "Culture Wars"; includes a Michael Moore-like segment proposing to change the name of St. Paul, Minnesota, to something less religiously offensive; and, adapting an idea used at Reed College, sets up a confession booth at a Pride Northwest festival in which he confesses TO gays and lesbians, asking forgiveness for Christian hatefulness. He interviews such observers as Tony Campolo, John Perkins, Tom Krattenmaker (USA Today), former senator Rick Santorum, and almost senator Al Franken. But nothing in the film portrays the polarized extremes as vividly as the confrontations between Ron Luce's Battlecry demonstrations and the counterdemonstrators in front of San Francisco's City Hall. Dan Merchant's subsequent teasing out of the human realities of those confrontations is a theme throughout the movie--and beyond, as Dan told us about his ongoing friendship with Sister Mary Timothy of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

In our discussion with Dan Merchant and each other, Friends had a tender discussion of the nature of grace, of "loving but not condoning," and of the priority of relationship. It just would not work to tear bits of that discussion out of context and report them here, but I can pretty well guarantee that any group willing to grapple with this film thoughtfully will have an equally valuable conversation.

Shortly after the pastors' conference ended, Gregg Lamm let us know that a national distribution contract for the film--to get it beyond the church and college circuit and into commercial theaters--was perhaps on the edge of being concluded.

One of the participants at the conference was Mike Berry, pastor at CrossRhythm Church, Annapolis, Maryland. Among many other interesting things, Mike told an amazing story of the legacy of slavery on Annapolis, and its effects on the spiritual vitality of the area. He went on to describe his and the church's participation in an act of reconciliation between the descendants of slaves and the descendants of the slaveowners and their allies. For video clips of this story, see the "Foundation for Transformation" videos here.

Many of the pastors' conference attenders had read Gregory Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church, in preparation for the book discussion scheduled for day two of the conference. I had not read the book, but remembered the coverage Greg Boyd got in the mainstream media when, as the evangelical pastor of Woodland Hills Church in Minnesota, USA, he questioned the alignment of conservative Christianity with nationalist politics. (See this interview.) This alignment is sometimes present among evangelical Friends, including Northwest Yearly Meeting, so I was impressed by the seriousness, depth and forbearance of the discussion led by Newberg Friends pastor Gregg Koskela.

Do you know any women church planters?

"Torture is a moral issue." -- Friends Committee on National Legislation. -- National Religious Campaign against Torture..

A different kind of conference: QuakerSpring. This year it's June 9-14, 2009, Barnesville, Ohio, USA.

George Fox and a Great Basketball Team to Be Gathered.

After that wonderful conference at Twin Rocks, I'm looking for something bluesy but with more than usual grace. Jean-Rene's beautiful version of "Twelve Gates to the City" qualifies:

Tea with the President

2009-04-16T15:28:00.008+04:00

Click on photo for original interview (Russian);
go here for a translation.

I saw a few fragmentary references in the mainstream English-language press to a long interview with Dmitri Medvedev, conducted by Novaya Gazeta editor Dmitri Muratov and published in his newspaper yesterday. Immediate assessments seemed to cluster around the following points:

Interview contained no substantial news.
It's important that Medvedev's first presidential interview went to a newspaper known for being critical of the Kremlin and the ruling party--a deliberate encouragement to so-called liberals.
Don't get too encouraged; Medvedev is playing "good cop" to V.V. Putin's "bad cop."

I don't want to join the "what's the subtext" analysis game, either optimistic or cynical. It's sufficient for me to notice that Russians themselves are all over the map on these questions, including those commentators questioned by the Western press.

I'm more interested in why such a long interview got such brief notice from Western reporters. Medvedev said a lot about the values and ideals that motivate him; much of the interview was an extended meditation on the meaning of democracy, surely a crucial topic for our times. Do Western editors assume we all already know what Medvedev thinks, or we don't care, or he's not saying what he really thinks? The Western press publishes a fair amount of material that feeds distrust of Russia; why not publish some firsthand material that helps readers make up their own minds?

Of course, it really might be true that all of Medvedev's assertions are designed to spray idealistic perfume on an essentially authoritarian project, or that his fine words conceal a high-stakes behind-the-scenes struggle among the interests competing for power in today's Russia. The reality is far more complex, but in any case, ideals and values, such as those placed squarely in the public arena by this interview, have a power of their own. And as Medvedev surely realizes, their future betrayal would also have a terrible negative power, reinforcing the cynicism that perpetuates corruption and the "legal nihilism" that he claims to oppose.

For a newspaper editor and a president to have a courteous on-the-record conversation on civil society and judicial independence cannot in itself be a bad thing, whatever we might guess (without actually knowing!) about motives; but cynicism is spiritual poison!

Finally, I appreciated this interview simply as a reminder about how typically Russian it is--a conversation over tea, touching on important ideas, thinkers, even a new film. It's a fascinating glimpse of two men, one of whom is wrestling with countless complex leadership issues, while the other struggles to understand the role of journalism in a time and place where his own co-workers can be killed with apparent impunity.

A few of my favorite moments (my translations; boldface follows Web format of original):

Novaya: On April 15 you will be holding a presidential council on civil society and human rights. ... Do I understand correctly that civil society is more important to you than "official society"?

D. Medvedev: You know, for Russia, "civil society" is a category that we've still not learned to understand completely. Everywhere in the world, civil society is the flip side of the state. The state isn't just a political machine, it is a form of organization in life that is based on state power and relies upon law, whereas civil society is the human dimension of any state. Although it functions within legislative boundaries, still it operates by its own human rules, which by the way aren't always expressed in judicial form. Not long ago, many people didn't understand what we meant when we said "civil society." The state--now that was more or less clear, but what is this thing called "civil society"? The society of citizens? But aren't we like all citizens of our country? But now there's an understanding that civil society is an essential social institution of any state, a feedback institution--an institution of people who don't occupy government posts but participate actively in the life of the country. And it's absolutely essential for the president of the country to have meetings, contacts with the representatives of civil society. I want to point out that these contacts are never simple for any power structure anywhere, because civil society and the representatives of human rights organizations always have a great number of grievances addressed to the state and its leaders. They've got many questions. And sometimes there's a reluctance to answer. But for that very reason these contacts need to be made part of the system, for example in the framework of the council you mentioned. I'm counting on having an interesting conversation with them--probably a tough one. But that's what makes it valuable.

. . .

Tony Halpin of The Times speaks with Russia Today
about the Medvedev/Muratov interview.
Novaya: Dmitri Anatolyevich, ... I'd like to turn to your favorite theme, courts and their independence. I'd like to ask about the "second YUKOS case" [charging Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev with embezzlement and other crimes; trial underway in Moscow]. Is the outcome of this case a foregone conclusion for you? The outcome of the first case, sadly, was obvious to the majority of those following the case. Is the outcome a foregone conclusion this time? Here's what someone wrote to me: Maybe Medvedev at first will make phone calls to judges, including the judge in the YUKOS case, and say: "You're independent, you're independent, I remind you, you're independent, you're independent, you're independent"--putting the controls on "manual" in order to restore judicial culture.

D. Medvedev: I can tell you that any kind of manual control comes with a high cost. I'm not just speaking about courts. We simply must direct our efforts towards ensuring that the machinery of state works reasonably well on its own. In connection with courts and their specific processes, I'll answer briefly. It's possible that for a given person the outcome of one or another case is predictable. It's their freedom, their privilege, as a free analyst, let's say, one without government responsibilities to say: I believe it will turn out this way. And later to say, See, I told you! Or--forgive me, I made a mistake.

But for a public servant, and even more for the president, there is not, and can't be, that kind of freedom to comment.

Predicting a judicial decision, a judicial sentence, by a president is unlawful. It's a sign of a violation of law. For all other independent commentators--it's a personal matter. Government officials or the president, however, cannot and should not get involved in any kind of predicting in any judicial process, including the one you've mentioned.

Novaya: Here you're almost repeating a noteworthy eighteenth-century phrase from Emperor Frederick--I'm quoting from a lecture by M. Mamardashvili. When Frederick wanted to seize a mill from a miller, the miller said to him: "Mr. Emperor, besides you, we have judges in this country." The emperor left the miller in peace and ordered the following inscription to be placed on his residence: "Mr. Emperor, besides you, we have judges in this country." This was a good thing for the miller--he had an emperor, but he also had judges.

D. Medvedev: There are other maxims on this subject. For example: "The whole political system exists for the sole purpose of allowing judges to fulfill their functions without interference." Hume said that.

Novaya: An excellent thought.

. . .

Novaya: I recently saw Andrey Khrzhanovsky's film on [poet Yosif] Brodsky. It had that wonderful phrase, "In Russia, inhumanity is always the easiest thing to organize." In fact, inhumanity is always easier, while justice and freedom are more difficult. I wish you luck on your difficult journey.

Medvedev: Thank you. I can't help but agree--it really is more difficult.

Quakers Uniting in Publications--QUIP--is (are?) meeting this weekend on the Pacific coast, but this evening, participants gathered with local Friends at Newberg Friends Church for an informal meal and conversation time. Among many other things, we heard that QUIP has remodeled its Web site--take a look. Among the great reunions this evening, it was also wonderful to meet someone new to me--Sherryll-Jeanne Harris, the current editor of The Canadian Friend--a publication that I served briefly as guest editor and business manager too many years ago. The evening passed much too quickly, but by now I hope all the participants have safely arrived at Twin Rocks to continue their work together.

Technocrat, meet interrogator: these legal memos from the U.S. Justice Department to the Central Intelligence Agency try to define the line between acceptably abusive and humiliating interrogation, on the one hand, and impermissible torture on the other. In my opinion, the tragic absurdity of the task is reflected in the incredible detail and skewed logic. Really, you can write recipes for combining waterboarding with sleep deprivation?

Part of me wishes I'd not read these memos. There are countries whose interrogators would cheerfully waterboard and hack off fingers without benefit of 46 pages of legal opinion, and I'm glad I'm not from one of those countries. But, honestly--how much better do I feel that we can deliberately, carefully, reason our way through to such cruelty?

I wish Barack Obama would go further and initiate investigations, but in a way I understand why he doesn't--he needs every bit of the loyalty and energy of the executive branch to carry out a program that is already massively different from his predecessor's. But that should not stop the other branches of our tripartite government from weighing in--particularly the Congress, which now finally needs to assert its role in our government's system of mutual accountability.

Other recommended links:

A (rare?) example of national modesty: Norway says "the North Pole is not ours." ~~ Jesus from a Middle Eastern perspective. ~~ The American Way--something in Bob Herbert's passionate op-ed felt like a memorial to my sister Ellen.

Paul Oscher, veteran of Muddy Waters' band, slows it down and asks "What Have I Done?"

Love's laboratories

2009-04-09T22:14:00.008+04:00

A few weeks ago I wrote "I would love to see some of our churches and meetings and yearly meetings, and some of the peace and justice boards within those bodies, begin to transform themselves into laboratories of love where we can apply our creativity and resources to a more powerful vision of evangelism." (Here, toward the end.) It was great to be able to provide a couple of examples from churches in our yearly meeting.

I wish I'd thought of that metaphor when I was on Friends United Meeting's staff. Wouldn't it be interesting, maybe even liberating, if we saw our worst controversies as opportunities to experiment with love? All those years of division and agony around homosexuality, for example, or our memberships in the councils of churches--what if we had said, "How lucky we are as a small denomination all laced together with bonds of love--we're in the perfect position to confront this divisive issue! Maybe we can do something that would be harder for a larger denomination to accomplish."

Truthfully, I can't imagine any denominational executive greeting a controversy with joy and glee. Why would they? Aside from the cost in human relationships, I remember those angry letters, cancelled subscriptions to Quaker Life, financial contributions cut or eliminated, speaking invitations withdrawn, and yearly meetings departing or threatening to depart. I witnessed battle lines (yes, Quaker battle lines!!) being drawn, with the aid of the tired old rhetoric of factional mobilization--the predictable cliches of both "evangelicals" and "liberals" sizzling through the grapevines, while too many of the centrists wrung their hands, bemoaning the end of the good old days of affable conflict avoidance.

In my fantasy world, controversies would still occur, but the reaction of all sides would be, "With enough love and patience, we can see this through!" Our first priority would be to ensure that any decisionmaking process is transparent and trustworthy, meaning that we would do our best to let those making decisions know that we were going to uphold them in prayer, provide them with our most passionate advocacy for our insights, and then let go and let them do their job. No threats, no manipulative campaigning. Presiding clerks would hear every voice, and discount only those one-issue people who showed no love, no larger commitment to the community.

At the end of such a love experiment, not everyone would be satisfied. In fact, some might well say, "I really do love this community, but the gap between its values or priorities and mine is too large. I need to find another community where there's more affinity." Better the pain of honest differences honestly faced than the pain of betrayal.

Scientists in laboratories work "objectively" with objective phenomena--things and events that can be verified by anyone, given the right conditions. Such objectivity is impossible in the love laboratory, since there is no objective observer, no "scientist"--we are heart and soul participants in the experiment. We can't control the variables, we are the variables! But it's important to remember that the controversy--any given controversy--is objectively real, and affects real people. We cannot just wish it away or honestly pretend not to know that people whom God dearly loves have a different point of view. We can't take cheap, ruthless shortcuts that simply consign those people to oblivion, somewhere outside our private little world. Once we're in the lab, we are bound to put on our aprons and get messy.

Charles McCarthy

A few righteous links before we head to Eugene to spend celebrate Christmas 2008 on Easter weekend: Prayer bulletin from Christian Peacemakers: Pray for the people of Tiquisio in northern Colombia. ~~ Skybalon continues to hold Christians' feet to the fire; read in this order I will be brief; death is a prophylactic. ~~ The Russian news agency RIA Novosti offers a communication link to Barack Obama. ~~ The Worcester Cathedral Choir offered an Evensong service and gave a Holy Week concert earlier this week at George Fox University. Their last song was "Lord of the Dance," one of my favorite Easter songs. They didn't comment publicly on the interesting coincidence that the author of this song, Sydney Carter, also wrote the song "George Fox." ~~ bitterlemons.org offers a selection of articles on Avigdor Lieberman and the situation of Israel's Arab citizens. ~~ Although not all Israeli Arabs are Muslim, there's food for thought in Joshua Stanton's case study of Jewish-Muslim mutual tolerance in a different time and place. ~~ A dictionary of American empire-speak. I was particularly intrigued by the American military's charge that the "collateral damage" of civilian deaths in American attacks on El-Qaeda and Taliban suspects is actually the fault of those suspects, since they're hiding among civilians. Unfortunately for our enemies, they're not allowed to use the same argument, that their enemies are also located among civilians. It's in the very nature of an empire to make plenary and peremptory decisions about when violence is legitimate and illegitimate. Good thing Christians have a different point of view, right? ~~ Newly revised (PDF format) edition of Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love. (Linked from this page.) ~~ Another Easter favorite of mine: Julia Ewen on war taxes.

Lyrics | Pawnshop Bound lyrics

I promise to stop picking blues clips based on the economic crisis theme, but this week it was just too tempting. Here's a delicious performance of "Pawnshop Bound" by the late William Clarke and his hot band. The clip is loud, blurry, shaky, but wonderful for all that.

(One other note: One after another, previous clips are getting yanked for violations of copyright rules. If you notice one gone, let me know and I'll search for a substitute to plug into that spot.)

Meridian Street Shorts

2009-04-02T18:46:00.004+04:00

Teaching idioms. A while back I praised the book The Gift of the Stranger. In a paper I wrote for a conference at the New Humanitarian Institute, but delivered in my absence because we were back in the USA, I tried to say a bit about how this book helped shape some of my teaching.

The authors challenge instructors to clarify (1) the motivation of foreign language instruction; and (2) the whole-life influence they desire to have on their students. Often foreign language instruction is marketed as a way to be a more effective businessperson, persuader, tourist, connoisseur--all ways of enhancing the learner with little regard for the value of the target culture, or even for the value of the learner to the target culture. Smith and Carvill ask us to consider, instead, what kind of people our students will become, and what kind of relationship with the target culture we are preparing them for. They advocate helping our students become “gracious hosts” and “sensitive strangers,” with “spacious hearts” capable of recognizing boundaries and differences as well as our essential common humanity.
read more....

Relating to the Bible: honesty, pain, and guilt. Not long ago I sat with a circle of evangelical Friends who were telling each other about their relationship with the Bible. Almost nobody in this circle of about ten people, most of whom had a lifetime of church experience, had a serene relationship with the book. One frequent theme was knowing that the Bible was important, and therefore feeling guilty that it was not an important part of daily life. Another overlapping theme: former diligence replaced at some point by current neglect. One person said, helpfully, that he had learned that when people say, "The Bible says," he knows that this really means, "I interpret the Bible as saying...." Some people had been on the receiving end of judgmental applications of Scripture. Others simply didn't know what to make of God's apparent cruelty and ruthlessness--for example, in the books of Joshua and Judges.

A couple of people simply confessed that their eyes tended to slide over the words and they had a hard time retaining the material. For me as an adult convert, the Bible is the community-ratified story of my family, a source of endless fascination simply as documents, aside from their inspired origins and equally inspired process of compilation. As I've said before, the Bible itself does not require us to treat it as magic. In their own way, those famous verses of Paul are as servant-spirited as they are powerful: "... Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother's milk! There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us." (from 2 Timothy 3:14-17, The Message.)

I was grateful for the honesty of these participants. The session challenged me to think about what might be required of those who love the Bible to provide fresh access to its treasures, while DEcreasing the factors leading to these frequent neglect/guilt cycles.

Voracious consumers. President Barack Obama was put in a nearly impossible position on the G-20 world stage: expected to demonstrate leadership without dominating, to defer without abdicating, to inspire modestly. I think he succeeded. I was particularly grateful for a challenge from Obama that is directed as much to us as to those internationally who have a dysfunctional love/hate relationship with us: the USA isn't likely to return to its "voracious consumer" role in the world economy. (And he might have added, "nor should it.") I hope that "stimulus" money that goes into health and education and better energy stewardship wears new patterns into our global economy, so that the planet can simply find a more sustainable metabolism rate.

Unfortunately, it's not just the booms and busts of consumer appetites that threaten global stability. We're going to need significant amounts of energy and resources in the foreseeable future, whatever near-term changes we succeed in making. How do we find new patterns of trade that recognize the moral and ecological poverty of the petroleum chess game being waged ferociously even as the G-20 leaders politely say goodbye to each other? Will there ever be a G-20-style table where the resource-rich and the resource-hungry lay their cards out, recognize that ANY unfair configuration lays the basis for future conflict, and make honest and transparent bargains?

Ordinary citizens may feel relatively powerless, but we ought to beat a constant drum for honesty. Among Russians, for example, nothing inspires more cynicism (in my experience) than the claim that the USA only desires to spread freedom and democracy. All a Russian observer needs to do is look at which countries in the world flagrantly violate their citizens' rights without fear of American reaction, and what resources those countries supply to the USA. I only hope that President Obama's performance in the last couple of days signals a new era of candor. If it does, he'll need all our prayers.

Righteous links.

No More Hummer Nation . . . wishes Maureen Dowd.
American Religious Identification Survey, 2008 version: plenty of fascinating details to poke around in. And here's a Russian news story about the survey; if you don't read Russian, look anyway to see the photo they chose to head the story. (Thanks to Sasha Gorbenko for tipping me off.) I can't help wondering if that choice of photo reflects an assumption about American spirituality!
Friends Committee on National Legislation testifies before the U.S. Congress; see site for link to the testimony presented by Bridget Moix--a graceful, succinct document.
Friendly Circle--Cincinnati publishes Mary Kay's eloquent plea to stop obsessing on our Quaker diversity and other well-worn domestic agendas and start asking what's on God's agenda??? This is a highly inadequate summary--please read for yourself.
open source theology offers a thoughtful critique of Richard Rohr's attempt (video provided) to describe a growing consensus in the emerging church movement.
Thanks to DVDs borrowed from Luke, I'm catching up with a year and a half of Battlestar Galactica, hoping that I find an episode or two worth using in class so that I can justify this amount of happy video escapism. This article helped me believe I'm engaging in worthwhile cultural/theological reflection.
To end: one more eloquent reminder of the stakes involved in our worldwide economic "reboot." And a theological reflection: who really counts?

Charlie Musselwhite's question: "Blues, Why Do You Worry Me?"

Are Quakers Protestant?

2009-03-26T19:53:00.009+03:00

A few days ago I was talking with a group about the importance of the Protestant-Eastern Orthodox dialogue, identifying us Friends with Protestants. Someone in the group said that Friends in her country, particularly when relating to the ecumenical movement, asserted that we Quakers were not Protestants but entirely a separate movement.

I don't agree, and will continue to identify Friends with Protestants, even though I respect the "outside the box" thinking that the separate-movement idea can encourage. Here are some of the reasons why I think it is important for Friends to understand our Protestant grounding:

1) The "we're not Protestant" position plays on a familiar conceit shared with many other Christian movements: "We're different, original, authentic, primitive." Given Friends' abiding temptation toward spiritual elitism, I think it is important to recognize that almost every renewal movement worth its salt makes this claim. The original Protestants of the 16th century didn't say, "We are launching a new movement," they asserted that they were returning to apostolic or biblical authenticity. And almost every "innovation" we Friends like to credit ourselves with was anticipated by earlier Christian reform movements.

2) Furthermore, I've often observed that the "we're not Protestant" Friends sometimes use a simplistic comparison, viewing Protestantism simply as a Christian movement that puts the Word first (theologically, the Bible; liturgically, the sermon), in contrast to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tendencies to prioritize the Eucharist and church tradition, and the role of the hierarchy in intrepreting the Bible. There's some value in this analysis, as long as it is applied modestly and cautiously--I've seen plenty of Protestants who emphasize the sacraments, tradition, hierarchy, mysticism, and so on. And Catholics and Orthodox congregations vary widely in the functional importance of Bible study, teaching, preaching, and lay participation.

3) The Friends movement began in the specific historical context of England in the mid-17th century, as Christians confronted their compromised leadership, the church's political enmeshments and tensions, new access to the Bible, and expectations of the impending end of history. In conducting these controversies, they drew directly from the arguments and categories of the Reformation. These were often life-and-death issues. If we spiritualize our origins and pretend that we are somehow outside history, or invent a direct historical line of descent to the apostolic era, it's only a small step to the next expression of our irrelevance--the conceit that we're a whole new religion. Of course we rightly acknowledge the inspiration of God's primordial Holy Spirit in our formation, but every Christian movement does the same!

4) Another reason that we need that historic anchor: the false accusation that we are a heretical sect or a cult. In the consumerist context of North America, this may now seem like a minor problem, but for Friends in Russia and East Africa, and elsewhere, this issue is huge. (Not so many years ago, East African Friends were confronted by a prominent source with precisely this accusation--that Friends were a cultic novelty.) In conducting our loving and worthwhile dissent from the majority Christian perspective on certain issues--including the nature of leadership and discernment, the role of social status vs spiritual gifts in leadership, the disciple's attitudes to violence and wealth, and the realities of sin and perfection--we have every right to engage with our conversation partners as peers who love the same God and live in the same stream of salvation history. Protestantism, with all its defects, is a concrete, known, honorable movement in world Christianity; in comparison, what weight and presence does a disembodied, self-mythologizing Quakerism have?

5) It's sometimes argued that Friends have evolved into a movement that would not fit into the categories of traditional Protestants. However, it's hard to think of any Protestant body that's been around for more than a couple of centuries which isn't in a similar situation.

6) My most important reason for claiming the Protestant label is that the core tenets of Protestantism are important parts of the Quaker DNA, even though in our self-absorption we may forget that we didn't manufacture that DNA ourselves. Salvation by faith is closely related to "convincement." (We get into trouble when we forget salvation by faith and begin to think that we have to reproduce every nuance of certain quakerish folkways to be truly Friends.) The doctrine of Scripture alone does not depend on a tightly calibrated understanding of authorship or inerrancy to make it clear that the Bible protects us from extrabiblical requirements, gnostic expertise, and other false authorities. The priesthood of all believers is central to Friends.

Paul Tillich proposed a "Protestant principle"--

. . . the divine and human protest against any absolute claim made for a relative reality, even if this claim is made by a Protestant church. The Protestant principle is the judge of every religious and cultural reality, including the religion and culture which calls itself "Protestant."

Friends honor this principle in our radical skepticism toward presumptuous authority and, more positively, when we understand that "Christ has come to teach his people himself."

I do not believe that Protestants are better Christians than Catholic or Orthodox people. The best insights of Protestantism are not in fact owned by anyone, nor are these insights, by themselves, a sufficient basis for a whole church. The original role of Protestants may have been to confront corruption in a specific time and place; but that focus probably also led to an undervaluing of the Holy Spirit, tradition, and the role of nonverbal communication of faith, which in part are the strengths of the Catholic and Orthodox streams. I just think that we Friends will be best equipped to participate in crucial ecumenical conversations when we operate as embodied people fully aware of our public history, with all its prophetic elements as well as its deficiencies.

Serge Schmemann, son of the eminent Russian Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann, writes about the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia today for National Geographic. (Thank you, NPR.) ~~ Russian deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov says that Russia would be better served by not emerging too soon from its economic difficulties. ~~ Another book for my wish list, based on this review: Kevin Roose's The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University. ~~ David Finke's Easter message. ~~ Unexpected ministry: Bart and William speak in meeting.

Speaking of roots, here is my dessert for this Thursday evening: Lucky Peterson plays a slow "Tin Pan Alley."

Lucky Peterson : Tin Pan Alley
Загружено ripa170

Ten things I love about Russia

2009-03-19T21:47:00.011+03:00

I've only been in Newberg, Oregon, for five days and already I'm impatient to return home. As therapy, I decided on an exercise: to list ten reasons I want to be in Russia instead of back in new-visa limbo. Maybe this exercise is also a good rehearsal for my responses to a question we get all the time from both Americans and Russians--although their reasons for asking may differ): why do I want to live in Russia?

(When Americans ask, there may be a slight tinge of cold-war memories behind the question, or perhaps they reflect the conventional wisdom in the USA that xenophobia and anti-Americanism are on the rise in Russia. Or they may simply be aware that the Moscow region is a LOT colder than Oregon. On the other hand, when Russians ask, sometimes there's a frank implication that we must live more comfortably in the USA than they do in Russia, at least by the standards we seem to regard as important, so what motive could we have for relocating?)

Russia is not heaven on earth any more than the USA is, so as I present the following modest and woefully incomplete list, I assure you that I'm aware that every positive point has its shadow side. I may be romantic, but I'm also a political scientist by training, and the cynic within me gets his fair share of attention. In any case, the Web is full of essays on Russia's faults and problems; I'd like to grab a few electrons' worth of space for a more positive viewpoint.

10. Sheer diversity!! Russia is a multinational, multilingual, multicultural federation. The peoples of the Soviet Union moved about and intermarried, and post-Soviet Russia still reflects that variety.

9. Scale. Russia is a seventh of the world's surface and includes eleven time zones. This is a country which is not afraid to think big--something it has in common with the USA.

8. Public transportation. From our apartment in Elektrostal we can go anywhere in the city on frequent buses and microbuses. A bus for Moscow leaves from our street every twenty minutes; if we prefer to go by train, the nearest suburban train station is ten minutes away by bus, and trains depart every ten to 30 minutes during most times of the day.

7. Urban layout. Some of the city blocks (in Elektrostal and many other places), as defined by the area bounded by four city streets, actually form discrete microdistricts with an attractive village feel. crisscrossed by small traffic lanes and walking paths, with courtyards, schools, apartment buildings, parks, playgrounds, and little green spaces. Buildings in the interior are numbered according to the boundary streets, so sometimes this arrangement is difficult for a newcomer to navigate, but it results in human-scale communities within the larger city.

6. Chocolate!--Krasny Oktyabr, Babayevsky (in Russian, but a fun site to explore), A. Korkunov. Bread. Pelmeni. Golubtsi. Even the simple kasha. In fact, Russian cuisine in general.

5. Culture--OMG, this is the land of Rachmaninov, Akhmatova, Dostoevsky, Pasternak, Chekhov, Gogol, Tsvetaeva, Tarkovsky, Galich, Zemfira.... Need I say more? (Because I certainly could!)

4. Humor. The Russian capacity for humor, all the way from wicked satire to all-out hilarity, may be the country's best-kept secret, in view of the Western stereotype of the stolid, taciturn Russian. One expression of Russian humor that I really love is the KVN tradition of team competition in humorous skits and songs.

3. Spirituality. Russian Christianity, for example, emphasizes growth in God rather than our separation from God. "The true aim of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit," said St Seraphim of Sarov; the Holy Spirit plays a far greater role in Russian theology and spirituality than in many Western expressions. My formation as a Quaker Christian owes a huge amount to such Russian Christian thinkers as Anthony Bloom, Alexander Men', Nikolai Berdyaev, and Catherine Doherty--and to the amazing experience of Russian Orthodox worship.

2. Hospitality. Anyone who has visited a Russian home already knows what I'm referring to. Home hospitality is generous, frequent, and unanxious, unlike some of our Western patterns.

1. Capacity for friendship. To risk a stereotype, this is one of the most endearing and humbling qualities that I've encountered in Russian people. Most Russians take friendship and loyalty very seriously. Genuine friendships are not undertaken casually, and once they are established, they feature amazing generosity and care--both given and expected. If this list of "ten things" were pared down to just the present item, that would be enough of an attraction for me.

One thing that does not appear on my list is the "mysterious Russian soul." I think I know what it refers to--a special blend of passion, pragmatism, a whole complex of opposites (passivity and impetuous energy, sentimentality and ruthlessness, binge and remorse--in fact a mystical ability to accept paradox)--and I agree that it is a fascinating quality. However, probably every nation has a national conceit of some kind, and I resist honoring any such conceit that reinforces a sense of superiority. I don't know why I fell in love with Russia all those years ago, but it was NOT because Russians are superior to others. They are humans, with all the clutter of gifts and defects that the rest of us have. (As I've said before: Russians have fierce pride but are also their own strictest critics!) I don't need to think that the peculiar Russian combinations and proportions of these elements are better than others to feel grateful and blessed that they have enriched my life.

In the meantime ... Demand accountability for torture. ~~ For that matter, what would John Calvin say to Dick Cheney? ~~ And Bill Richardson signs repeal of New Mexico's death penalty. ~~ Mark Galli on "soul care" in a narcissistic culture. ~~ Swedish peace activists (including one with ties to Christian Peacemakers) get four months imprisonment. ~~ Epistle from the recent Quaker Volunteer Service Consultation at Pendle Hill in Wallingford, Pennsylvania. ~~ And in the consumer fantasy department: The news of the successful flying car test flight reminded me of my own secret desire since childhood: a personal submarine of my very own. (An ideal gift for terminal introverts!) Do submarines have carbon footprints? Anyway, at $20 million, I guess I might be waiting for a while. ~~ Friday PS: Tony Blair visits At-Tuwani, long-term site of Christian Peacemakers' ministry of accompaniment and documentation in Palestine.

Carolyn Wonderland shall not be moved.

The American addiction

2009-03-12T20:49:00.004+03:00

Ten years ago, in the March 1998 issue of Quaker Life, I wrote about "the American sin," for which status (in view of a cluster of events at the time) I nominated impatience.

I remembered that editorial as I was reading Tom Engelhardt's pithy article, "Addicted to force, addicted to failure," on his "Tomgram" Web site, and I couldn't help thinking about whether there was a lethal connection between the sin of impatience and the American addiction to force. Actually, force and violence are a nearly universal addiction, but with our usual industriousness, we Americans have let our national imagination, culture, and resources become enmeshed with it to deadly effect. To what extent has this gradual but thorough enmeshment resulted from our constant, and otherwise often creative, drive to get results now?

Here's a core sample of Engelhardt's article:

In these last years in Washington, force became something close to an American religion. The Bush administration's top officials were all fundamentalists in their singular belief in the efficacy of force. In fact, they arrived convinced that an all-powerful, techno-wondrous military, unrivaled on the planet, left them with the ability to project force in ways no other power ever had. When it came to remaking the world, anything seemed possible.

What this meant was that an extreme version of military fundamentalism went hand-in-hand with an extreme version of economic fundamentalism. Today, both of these fundamentalisms are collapsing, even if a pared down version of the military half of the equation is anything but dead.

In those same years, Americans also began to genuflect before the idea of our military in ways previously unimaginable. They pledged their unending support for "our troops," now commonly referred to as "warriors," who were repeatedly hailed as the bravest, most valiant, most successful fighters around, part of the most awesome military ever. It -- and they -- simply could do no wrong. Given this faith, when things did go wrong, mistakes would never be blamed on the military.

As a result, while actual American soldiers were sent halfway across the planet in a distinctly unreverential way on their third, fourth, and fifth tours of duty (with few here giving much of a damn), Americans treated the idea of those "warriors" and their "mission" with ritualistic fervor.

A cold-eyed look at the record of the U.S. military in these last years, however, tells quite a different tale. It's no small thing, after all, that U.S. military actions in two disastrous wars managed to burnish the reputation of one of the uglier fallen dictators on the planet and pave the way for the return, as a national resistance force, of a brutish, retrograde, failed regime almost universally rejected by its own people when it fled in November 2001. I'm speaking, of course, about Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the Taliban of Afghanistan. Worse yet, the ever greater application of force, including recently the repeated firing of missiles from CIA-operated drone aircraft into the Pashtun borderlands of Pakistan, has resulted in the spread of the Taliban, religious extremism, terrorism, and war into the heartland of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country now being destabilized.

As evidence of our cultural bondage to force, in addition to our new tendency to "genuflect" to the idea of the American warrior--though not of course to the overextended soldiers themselves--Engelhardt also points out that the spokespeople for failed military policies somehow get to have permanent status as experts and pundits, whereas those who (rightly, as it turned out) counseled against military options continue to be excluded from their exalted ranks.

If any cultural bondage begged for passionate commentary by Christians, you'd think this pseudo-"religion" might be the one. Consider these words from Bryan Stone:

The practice of evangelism ... is to some degree confrontational and is, in fact, the sort of practice [Baptist/Anabaptist theologian James] McClendon calls a "powerful practice".... It challenges the violent, oppressive, and enslaving practices of the world (which are themselves also powerful) by forming us into a people capable of recognizing and resisting such powers and of recognizing and confessing our own sinful complicity with them.

That does not mean that evangelism is only or best carried out through strategies of irritation! Nor does it mean the universe or human life is founded on conflict. It is peace rather than violence that is the foundation of the universe, because God is the universe's source and end. But evangelism is inescapably a conflictual practice that counters and disarms the world's powerful practices, unmasks the narratives that sustain them, and ultimately subverts them by offering a story that is peaceful. Like other core practices of the church, evangelism is very much about power and inevitably involves a contest of power....

Within the ecclesial reimagining of evangelism I am attempting in this book, to be saved by God is to be saved not only from sin but also from powers that make us incapable of recognizing and resisting sin--powers that form and discipline us into the kind of people who are incapable of being the church. The demonic power of various institutions such as the nation-state, the military, the university, the market, and even the church derives from their having been co-opted by these powers. The church, however, bears a unique relationship to the powers, because it is the public of the Holy Spirit and because its worship has been made possible by the resurrection of Jesus and by his patient and lamblike triumph over the powers. [page 113]

And what is one of the primary red flags marking this pseudo-religious bondage?

At the heart of the Constantinian story [of the enmeshment of state and religion] is a denial of the apostolic conviction that Jesus is Lord. That denial need not be verbally explicit, indeed, it usually is not. But when Christians serve the emperor, the king, the president, or the state as Lord (whether confessed verbally or not), then, as [John Howard] Yoder argues, worship has been rendered and the lordship of Jesus has been refused.

One of the most important ways this happens is when Christians give their obedience to a state that has asked or commanded them to kill on its behalf.... [page 120]

Well, this is inspiring theology, but how does it look when translated into Christian practice--specifically, Friends practice? I would love to see some of our churches and meetings and yearly meetings, and some of the peace and justice boards within those bodies, begin to transform themselves into laboratories of love where we can apply our creativity and resources to a more powerful vision of evangelism. And, really, this would be a way of modeling the more creative paths we want our own countries to take when confronting international challenges. After all, if we succeed in breaking the monopoly of the violence-addicted experts and opinion leaders who mesmerize the public now, what would we suggest putting in their place?

The trouble is, I want this to happen now!!

Speaking of laboratories of love:

I was fascinated by 2nd Street Community Church's use of the "cardboard testimonies" program for meeting for worship on February 22. Sample it here at their Web site, click on "topical/holidays," and scroll down to TOPICAL TEACHINGS for the pdf documents. A video is promised.

More examples, as reported by Northwest Yearly Meeting's Gar Mickelson on the pastors' e-mail list and copied here by permission:

I was in Northern Idaho at the end of last month and stumbled upon some really cool stories:

River of Life--Post Falls Idaho, multi generational guys Bible study meets weekly, ages 17- 70’s! Get this: the younger guys bring their friends who have questions about God to this study so that they can benefit from the wisdom of the older guys! They younger guys love the support that they get from the older men, and the old guys love it that the younger guys WANT their help. This group started up spontaneously and has been going since last summer.

Hayden Lake Friends Church: The 24/7 recovery group has been meeting Wednesday nights for the last couple of years- (that’s not the story!). Last fall one of the classes from the Christian school that uses the building during the day, found out that folks in recovery used their room during the evening every Wednesday. This class of teens began to pray for that recovery group. Out of this praying a group of students got the idea to hang a piece of butcher paper on one of the walls, and they began leaving random notes of encouragement for the adults in the recovery group. From this the kids decided to ask the leader of the recovery group to tell the others that they wanted members of the recovery group to leave prayer requests on another banner sized sheet, which they hung next to their first one.

Soooooo, the adults in recovery began sharing their prayer requests with the teens from the Christian school, via a wall poster, and the teens responded by continuing their notes- some of them personal, to the folks in recovery. Each week there is a clean banner for new prayer requests, each week there is a new encouragement banner posted by the kids. The leadership of 24/7 has reported that this innocent and spontaneous act of love and kindness, (borne of prayer), has been the source of transformation in many lives. Folks in recovery immediately go to the poster every week to see if they have a message. Each week there are tears shed on both sides of the bridge, and much rejoicing!

This has been going on since November, I suppose it will end at the end of the school year. BUT, the seeds that the teens are planting will ripple out through eternity… AMEN to that?

The link between these examples and the "powerful practice" of evangelism advocated by Stone and McClendon may not be obvious, but when we routinely see and promote that link, and nurture it lovingly, I'm convinced that our meetings will find a whole new pastoral AND prophetic fertility.

We're forming a calendar for our visits to several local Friends meetings in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, USA, in the next few weeks. We'll try to post it soon on www.jjinrussia.org.

A few righteous links: Is a bad economy good for church attendance? Perhaps not. ~~ One of my favorite Oregon (USA) nonprofits, Free Geek, redoes its Web site. ~~ If you're going to be at this nearly irresistible Calvin College event, April 2-4, can you grab some souvenirs for me? Leave it to Calvin to create yet another amazing synthesis of voices for the benefit of the larger church. ~~ But here's a calendar that is more realistic for us. Note Derek Lamson's event on March 22. ~~ An interfaith "Charter for Compassion"--is it possible and useful? (Thanks to Joan Chittister, via Kathy Torvik, for the reference.) ~~ Christian Peacemakers try to turn the world's attention to the situation of Iraq's Kurdish villagers. ~~ Moscow as the Third Rome: RFE/RL reports on a contemporary manifestation. ~~ My brain asks "do we really need this expenditure of national resources?" but my heart loves it! And talk about patience!!!

I'm feeling blue about leaving Yalagin Street for a time, even though it will be wonderful to see our family and friends back in the Pacific Northwest.... Turning for comfort to my very first blues hero, Albert King:

Albert King & Blues Breakers - Why Are You So Mean To Me
Загружено bebepanda

Yalagin Street economic shorts

2009-03-05T23:24:00.008+03:00

We're back from Prague. Along with gifts and books, we imported colds--genuine, hard-to-shake colds that are, thank goodness, slowly losing their grips on our noses and sinuses.... Unfortunately, my head has been too thick to remember all the interesting home remedies we've been hearing about over the last week or so.

The worldwide economic crisis has affected Russian humor from the very start of the stream of bad news. One of the most obvious lines of humor involves the frequent use of the word "anticrisis" in ads announcing new lower prices. At the pet supply store on Pobeda Street, there's a huge, humorously painted sign announcing "Prices have capitulated!"

McDonald's is announcing lower prices as well. Last month for 26 rubles (about 65c US) you could choose between a chickenburger or cheeseburger; the campaign going on right now is for 25-ruble hamburgers.

One Russian friend told us a joke, which I've cleaned up for my family readership: a baboon is racing through the forest, announcing the bad news: "Haven't you heard? We're in an economic crisis? A crisis, I say!" The lion replies calmly, "A crisis, eh? Maybe so, but I ate meat yesterday and I'll be eating meat again today." The fox is equally unflappable: "Maybe so, but I had a fur coat yesterday, and I still have a fur coat today." A bird said brightly, "There might be a crisis, but I'm certainly not giving up my frequent flyer status." The baboon reconsiders his situation: "Well, maybe you're right. I had a bare behind yesterday, and I guess that won't change, either."

This is not an easy period for Russians--any more than for many other countries suffering from this global crisis. But Russian humor is a reminder that people here have seen it all before, and have generally learned to cope. They're often actually proud of this ability to cope. (See the Zadornov item among the righteous links on this page.) To the frustration of some foreigners, "coping" in Russia often includes an apparent high level of passivity and fatalism, but to cite a typical American cliche, "You can't argue with success." Or, alternatively, a Russian saying might also apply: "There's always a way out."

Righteous links: Jane Austen and the 21st-Century Man. ~~ George Amoss on "the psychology of salvation." ~~ NYT columnist David Brooks publishes his "moderate manifesto." As usual, his sober cautions are helpful, but I can't help seeing a possible false dichotomy in this statement: "They [moderates] will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun." The primary issue is whether government spending is a legitimate anti-crisis measure, and the prevailing wisdom seems to be that it is. In that case, isn't it legitimate to spend that money (with care, of course) on the widest possible range of genuine problems--if only to spread risks?

Big Joe Turner, "Hide and Seek." Four and a quarter minutes of crisis relief.

Big Joe Turner - Hide And Seek - 1966
Загружено anabelasugarlee

Why, part two; and some thoughts on pork

2009-02-26T23:10:00.002+03:00

For some reason, I've been itching to revise the diagram I used a couple of years ago to illustrate the urgent organizational importance of asking "why." I suggested then that if organizations didn't remember to keep that question central, they'd get fatally diverted over the "how" and "what" questions, the favorite terms of the eternal struggle between technocrats and spiritualizers.

One of the big flaws in my original diagram was that, although those arguments could prove to be tangents flying off the path, even asking "why" was no guarantee against decay and fragmentation--it just might put off the inevitable for a while.

In my new diagram, the spiritualizers and the technocrats manage to stay within the organization, accompanying it on its path through the cycle, at least until fragmentation starts to occur. (There's no particular symbolism for the colors I chose in either diagram, except that green stands for "fertile.")

The divided circles stand for the conflicts that grow more and more frequent along the path of decay. Conversely, the green hearts symbolizing the question "why" have the capacity to anchor or retard the decay. In fact, if the organization remains within the founding inspiration, there is no need to embark on the cycle at all. But those hearts grow smaller and more scarce as decay progresses.

Basically, I still agree with most of what I said in that earlier post. Someday, when I've mastered better drawing software, I'll make another attempt at this diagram!

I was reading Robert Pear's article, "House passes spending bill, and critics are quick to point out pork," in the New York Times. For some reason, I found the actual porkchops sampled in the article particularly interesting:

$1.8 million to conduct research in Iowa on “swine odor and manure management”
$173,000 for research on asparagus production in Washington State
$206,000 for wool research in Montana, Texas and Wyoming
$209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production in Georgia
$208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass in Mississippi
$1.2 million to control cormorants in Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Vermont
$1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah
$162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii
presidential library allocations: Franklin D. Roosevelt ($17.5 million), John F. Kennedy ($22 million) and Lyndon B. Johnson ($2 million).

It suddenly hit me: these actually sound like reasonable approximations of what would in the nonprofit world be called not "pork" but "grants." To me, that puts a very different light on these expenditures, and on Congress's role in approving or not approving them.

A grant application normally has to show the proposed benefits of the expenditure, the competence of the organization requesting the money, and the proposed method of evaluating success. Federal grants, such as the ones I've dealt with from American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (for the Ramallah Friends Schools), only go to organizations with financial safeguards and adequate auditing procedures.

So instead of simply being constituency-pandering largesse, evidence of congressional corruption, and fodder for sanctimonious speeches, these piggy projects may actually have some merit. But how do we know? The issue isn't necessarily the value of the projects--who knows what lonely scientists have waited for the day when their expertise in swine urine is finally given proper recognition. (I'm not kidding, either--it's a serious problem.) The issue is whether the 535 members of Congress are the competent body to ratify these expenditures.

Wouldn't it be better to end ANY grant-like activity on the part of the Congress, worthy or unworthy, and budget a proportional amount of money for each congressional district and each state, to be allocated through the kind of review process that grants normally must follow? U.S. embassies and USAID offices overseas have grant funds at their disposal to assist worthy projects; why can't members of Congress have access to similar funds for qualified and perhaps quirky projects within their fields of vision? Assuming reasonable controls and audits are in place, how could this money go wrong, no matter how unusual the projects, how laughable they might sound to someone whose local water supply doesn't depend on solving those swine waste problems?

In the meantime, all these projects are matters of public record. Let's find out which ones are going to do actual valuable work before dismissing them all as wasteful. After all, the Chicago planetarium's expensive "overhead projector" that McCain dismissed so summarily at the presidential debates a few months ago actually turned out to be quite a different story when the details came out.

A few more links: Helena Cobban visits Ramallah. ~~ Spiritually speaking, women are stronger than men. ~~ Thinking ahead to October 2009--who's tempted by this gathering? ~~ In The Atlantic, Richard Florida considers "how the crash will reshape America." Teasers: "Metabolism and talent-clustering are important to the fortunes of U.S. city-regions in good times, but they’re even more so when times get tough." "If there is one constant in the history of capitalist development, it is the ever-more-intensive use of space. Today, we need to begin making smarter use of both our urban spaces and the suburban rings that surround them—packing in more people, more affordably, while at the same time improving their quality of life." ~~ George Fox University will host Victor Nakah, a Presbyterian pastor and president of Theological College of Zimbabwe, for its annual John Woolman Peacemaking Forum March 9-10. ~~ "Experiencing the depths of Jesus Christ"--an exchange on aspiration vs reality, or as Mike Morrell puts it, "truth in labeling."

Erja Lyytinen with yet another cover of the classic "It Hurts Me Too." I'll be looking for more from her.

Evangelical machismo, part two

2009-02-19T18:52:00.009+03:00

A Marty Marty Center "Sightings" essay, "Hyper-Muscular Christianity," by Joseph Laycock, got me to thinking about evangelical machismo again. I've been hearing noises about Mark Driscoll and Seattle's Mars Hill Church for a long time, but until I read Laycock's essay, I hadn't heard of Justin Fatica's Hard as Nails ministry.

I continue to have mixed feelings about the phenomenon summarized by Laycock's essay and by Molly Worthen's recent description of Mars Hill in the New York Times magazine. It's hard for me to be totally negative about expressions of church that break through the in-group domesticity that seals so much of the world out of our communities. I've been part of a good number of congregations now, and I've visited hundreds. The majority are solidly mild, middle class, and conventional, and maybe I should be grateful; for the most part, so am I! (And what a coincidence--so are most of the people I know.) But those attributes should define neither the full range of the church's hospitality, nor the shape of its access points.

Access is important to me; it's central to my understanding of evangelism. The Gospel is an invitation, not a description, and woe to us if we block the entrance with our stated or unstated prejudices. If we say "God loves you" and truly affirm the universality of that "you," it has to apply to people who may be completely unlike us. How might they be unlike us? Not only in the obvious ways--appearance, ethnic identity, socieconomic status, preferred addictions and sins--but also in their maturity, their own prejudices, their capacity to understand the universality of grace. They may in fact respond to forms of invitation, such as the in-your-face methods and authoritarian styles of Driscoll and Fatica, in part because of the match with (or the refreshing contrast with) their own experiences. How reasonable is it for us to expect a deep level of leisure-class reflectiveness from everyone who yearns to know more about Christ?

So I think I'm ready to honor experiments in evangelism that may have far more adrenaline or testosterone than I require in my own faith community's culture. At the same time, don't we need to be in these authoritarian leaders' faces about the ways they themselves may be cheapening the Gospel? To throw open access to the household of faith is a good thing. But to use spiritual language to gain power, to trash others' very different approaches to completely different audiences, and especially to freeze male-female relationships in a power lock of inequality--these are legitimate and urgent controversies.

(Maybe our passionate and public arguments--about whether these sensation-driven ministries represent the Gospel adequately--can themselves serve the cause of evangelism. "How these Christians love each other--they love each other enough to argue assertively but ethically about their methods, audiences, and prejudices.")

On that last point about male-female relationships--Driscoll and his church apparently toe the complementarian line that men and women are spiritually equal but have different functions, and that among those functions are men as heads of household. (How that leads to a prohibition against women preaching is beyond me--even if the general rule were granted, what if the husband as head of household believes that his wife is a better preacher--it happens!!--and therefore asks her to preach?) The fundamental flaw of "different function" theology to me is that it confuses description (even biblical description) with prescription. Spiritual gifts and functions may be distributed unevenly among various groups for various reasons, including cultural biases, but a general tendency should never require a compulsory decision. What is "manly" or "hard as nails" about refusing to subject gender role decisions to discernment, prayer, and dialogue? (Why are biblical cues about situational decisions taken as eternal laws, trumping scriptures about liberty and equality in Christ?) What else is going on? For one thing, sheer abuse of power--let's just name it. For another, a fear-driven search for certainty, sometimes masquerading as courage or manliness. All of this shows how desperately we need a new willingness to analyze how much wishful thinking pervades biblical interpretation.

This week's crop of righteous links: An old but good trick lives again: pastor tests congregation's compassion. (Thanks to Monday Morning Insight.) ~~ A powerful testimony from our own Yearly Meeting, New Life Mission: Possible. (But note this alarm signal.) Thanks to Gar at the Yearly Meeting office for these leads. ~~ Global Poverty Prayer Week. ~~ Books I want to read: here's one about an African Christian movement that rejects the Bible, the Friday Masowe. ~~ Ever wondered whether goal-setting has its down sides? Read this. (Registration may be required.) ~~ Petitioning for Pete Seeger's Nobel Peace Prize nomination. ~~ My grandfather Knut Maurer was a captain most of his life for the Bergen Line, which operates this service. ~~ Sean's Russia Blog on "Beatlemania Soviet Style." ~~ Friday PS: "Fight against poverty unites Christian left and right" (thanks to Pew Forum for the reference).

John Lee Hooker and his hypnotic storytelling style, from a British television appearance 43 years ago.

John Lee Hooker 1966 - The Beat Room - BBC Live
Загружено fredozydeco

Publishing truth

2009-02-12T22:04:00.003+03:00

For four very interesting years I worked closely with Crane MetaMarketing Ltd. as a writer and editor for educational and nonprofit marketing programs. Working with such wonderful clients as Calvin and Houghton colleges, the Washington Christian Academy, and similar institutions, I became convinced that marketing, properly understood, is as appropriate for Christian concerns as it is for those in the secular world.

Crane's "values-based" marketing philosophy basically says that ethical marketing equips potential customers (for example, students and their families) to make a decision that is in their own best interest--and that the interests of the institution and the customer are best served when the choice to affiliate with each other is based on shared values. This kind of marketing means that the institution's communication resources can concentrate on the engaging, creative, and transparent presentation of who they really are, what they really promise and can faithfully deliver, and make those presentations to those likely to respond intelligently, rather than wasting resources on futile and unethical exaggerations or scattershot marketing.

Before any creative work was started, our relationship with a new institutional client would begin with a huge research effort--as I knew firsthand, having participated in several such projects as the writer/editor on the team. Using all the disciplines of marketing research, including confidentiality, we did everything we could to figure out what the institution's values were (no matter how deeply embedded or perhaps incompetently expressed), how well they were known, how well they were communicated internally and externally, and how their community and the public judged their success in living by them.

In an earlier corporate configuration, Crane's team worked with a whole Christian denomination--the Church of the Brethren--which is why I first found out about them back in the early 1990's. Later, they did some consulting work with Friends United Meeting's board, and made a national study (article one, article two) of Friends which is still available. I'd still love to see Friends (or at least Friends United Meeting) go a step further and engage this kind of consultation in helping us shape more effective communication with non-Friends. I'm convinced that now we only communicate with a tiny fraction of those who might well see Friends as their spiritual home--or to put it another way, with whom we share important values. I also want those values to be advocated more creatively and persistently, because they are so badly needed.

But however urgent the "marketing" task is, we Friends don't need to add another layer of generic evangelicalism or subtle antiquarian progressivism to the spiritual spam already in the culture. We need to do what the first generation of Friends poured their lives into doing: publishing Truth.

But what is "Truth"? This is where the discussion among Friends often breaks down: some of us probably meet that question with a formula answer based on whether we're from the liberal or evangelical end of the Quaker spectrum. But at the moment I am not asking for propositional truth, no matter how beloved our own evangelical or liberal camp's well-worn phrases might be. Propositional truth is absolutely crucial for shaping and perpetuating our identity as Christians and Quakers, but it has little persuasive power in the wider post-modern market. When, late in his career, Karl Barth was asked to sum up his theology, he said, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." This was powerful language within the community, but for non-Christians, it was made credible (if at all) mainly by the life testimony of Barth himself, not because the statement was self-proving.

Let's take a core Quaker testimony: "Christ has come to teach his people himself." If "publishing Truth" involved saying anything verbal at all, this would seem to me to be a prime candidate for the status of "Truth." It's the core assertion around which we base our testimonies (that is, our discipleship) and our concentric ecclesiology. But, just as with Karl Barth's summary, the theological importance of naming Jesus Christ, and the theological implication that he is alive and active today, is not self-evident truth to a non-believer. One of the most important Quaker "values" (using that word in the sense we used it at Crane) is truthful speaking, so how do we "prove" that this central Quaker conviction is publicly, objectively true?

This is how I think we do it:

By creating and upholding communities where we experience being taught by Jesus;
by the way we trust the Holy Spirit to lead our worship (and not pre-empting the Spirit with our own programming to hide our fear);
by the way we choose our leaders (by their gifts, not their social status);
by the way we pray and sweat our way through the Bible, including its hard teachings on economic discipleship, nonviolence, radical hospitality, and forgiveness;
by the way our internal messages to each other are coherent with what our external communicators say to the wider world (as in the diagram above)--for example, we observe the same disciplines of ethical conflict among ourselves that we urge upon the world;
by the way we treat visitors with hospitality, neither exaggerating nor minimizing our role as host;
by the way we work together in mutual forbearance, realizing that gifts and temperaments and maturity levels vary, so we'll sometimes get on each other's nerves, but we're all needed!!
and by the way we hold each other tenderly accountable, even risking being wrong as we try to express the way Jesus is teaching each of us how to live with him at the center.

If we can truly open ourselves and our meetings to being taught by Jesus, we'll sometimes stumble and trip, and we'll certainly not always agree even on what that means. But if that's our wholehearted intention, confirmed by the Holy Spirit in our meetings and by the outward signs--prophecy, justice, evident love--then we really can publish the Truth that Christ has come to teach his people himself. And when new people come to see whether there's a "values match," it's a truth they can verify for themselves.

Query: Is my Friends meeting or church experiencing Christ coming to teach us himself?

Righteous links: Taizé's representatives greet the new Russian Orthodox patriarch--article at Taizé's site (thanks, Mary Kay Rehard) and at the Moscow Patriarchate's site, with photos). ~~ How happy is your country? Check this site and particularly this frame. ~~ An interview with Richard Foster. ~~ Bishops blocked at Gaza checkpoint. ~~ Let's dialogue with the Christian right (this page links to PDF book; thanks to John Lamoreau). ~~ Simon Barrow on being Christian in a skeptical climate. ~~ Those of you who are without sin, apply RIGHT AWAY for jobs in the Obama administration. (A thought provoked by this Frank Rich op-ed.) ~~ Paul Oestreicher, Friend, pays tribute to Sergei Haeckel, Russian Orthodox--scroll down within Issue 4 on this page for the link to the PDF-format article--and browse the other interesting titles as well. ~~ On Afghanistan: Don't say we (specifically Engelhardt) didn't warn you.

This is the red-hot Buddy Guy I remember from my high school years in Chicago--watch the clip before it gets pulled by the cyber-police!

Politics and religion shorts

2009-02-05T23:43:00.007+03:00

In the last couple of days, we've had a flood of news related to politics and religion. I only have a few minutes for this week's post, so I'll let the sources and other commentators carry most of the burden. But before turning to them, I wanted to play once more with my old fantasy question: what if Christians really made an effort to collaborate globally on the seeds of war and other crises?

During the Lebanon war of 2006, I tried to put some words around this idea. Today, I'm reduced to a diagram:

This idea has ancient roots, but the person who really got me thinking about it was Justo González, whom I quoted here ...

We must learn how to trust the church--unfortunately, this is the weakest link in the chain. By this I mean the church universal that hungers with the dispossessed in Ethiopia and with the uprooted in El Salvador. What was happening in the Philippines was known and decried for over two decades by Christian leaders all over the world. Yet most church people did not come to believe it until they saw it in the network news. By then, thousands of Filipinos had died as a result of our disbelief!

(Complete article is here.)

Friday PS: The fantasy graph above is my answer to the perennial question intended to one-up pacifists: "What would you have done in Hitler's case?" One problem with this question is that it assumes we can only act at the moment when armies are already on the march. The history of successful nonviolent campaigns for social change, such as in the Philippines and Eastern Europe, includes years of prayer and risky prophetic action on behalf of biblical values. How might we organize a more comprehensive set of research and mobilization resources so that these successes might become the rule rather than the exception?

Jim Wallis, about
a year ago, in
Portland, Oregon

The New York Times reports "White House Faith Office to Expand." Sojourners co-founder and magazine editor Jim Wallis will be a member of the associated advisory council, according to Sojourners, Politico, and elsewhere.

Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown points out that these council members are likely to disagree, quoting Obama campaign advisor Shaun Casey: "These are people who are not used to going along to just get along." The prospect of conflict among faith representatives on a political council doesn't fill me with dismay, as long as there is commitment to civility and to their assigned tasks. If they conceal their convictions, they're not much good as a council. I imagine that, individually, council members will hope that their opinions might at least occasionally help to form better policies. This seems a reasonable goal, and worth a certain amount of noise and static. When politicians exploit church leaders mainly to curry popularity, the picture may look more peaceful, but what's really been gained?

Another New York Times article: "Vatican Move on Bishop Exposes Fissures of Church." What happened to the Vatican's legendary gifts of diplomacy? Conflicts between religions are proper and inevitable when the issue is competing theological truth claims; in fact, on this level their debates are useful to themselves and each other. (Otherwise I have no idea what I am communicating beyond those already predisposed to agree with me.) But nobody of any religion has a license to participate in the dehumanization and objectification of anyone, past or present. If you assert that the Holocaust didn't really happen, we have the right and obligation to say that you don't speak for our community. I'm glad that the Vatican eventually made that clear, but wonder how they didn't see this mess coming earlier.

So now let's combine the two topics above:--"If Obama Were Pope." Actually, I sympathize with much of Pope Benedict's campaign for a more direct and honest expression of Christianity's claims, both theological and historical, in the public arena (instead of a meek, relativist role). But that program will fail miserably if not pursued with humility, courtesy, and an incredible attention to historical accuracy.

The Internet Monk interviews the author of Fall of the Evangelical Nation.

Iraq reflection from Christian Peacemaker Teams: "What Choice Did They Have?"

Friday PS: Research suggests that "Europe does religion without the politics." What really intrigued me was this counter-stereotype textbite: "On average, nearly three-quarters (74%) of people surveyed in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, Switzerland and the UK think of themselves as religious or very religious."

Thanks to novaresearch.eu for the reference.

Blues from Barcelona: Another version of "It Hurts Me Too." (Compare to Eric Clapton's two weeks ago.)

Home town news

2009-01-29T23:10:00.013+03:00

Congratulations to the New Humanitarian Institute's design faculty dean Tatiana Nikolaevna Vilde on the occasion of the opening of her beautiful exhibition at the Paustovsky Central Library in Elektrostal last Thursday. Several Institute people were among the crowd at the opening, along with other local artists and art lovers, the local press, and representatives of the artists fellowship of neighboring Noginsk.

The exhibit was named "Changes." Tatiana explained that, for her, this series of paintings marked a change in genre, in format, and in technique. With one exception, there are no people or human artifacts in these paintings--unusual for Tatiana, who often paints scenes in cities and towns. As fellow Elektrostal artist Alexander Poroshin (shown with Tatiana in photo at right, below) pointed out, even the pictures without humans or animals seem full of energy and activity.

While we've been here in Prague, Elektrostal's home-town newspaper Novosti Nedeli published an interview with me by reporter Yuri Lunin:

TO RUSSIA WITH LOVE

Sometimes I think: what would compel me to leave Russia and to spend at least a few years in a foreign country? Certain political reasons?--In my case, it is hardly possible. An interest in travel?--But in six months, I think, this traveler would be longing to be back in Russia. Love for the culture of a foreign country?--No, our own culture is plenty rich enough. Finally, the notorious financial problems?--But that is too trivial a reason to exchange one's homeland for an exile existence.

A conversation with Johan Maurer has helped me understand this complex question. Johan is a man who has voluntarily chosen «exile» in Russia--or more precisely, in your home town and mine.

A MAN WITH A RICH GEOGRAPHY

A rich geography, it seems, marked Johan from birth. His parents were a Norwegian and German, who met at university in Chicago. Johan's mother tongue (in which he thinks) is English. Nevertheless, we chatted in Russian. Our hero was born in Oslo. In this city he would also like to conclude his time on earth. The great Norwegian Grieg is one of his favorite composers.

Johan has a warm musical memory associated with Electrostal--a festive evening in the Paustovsky Library, where he heard the music of Grieg performed by violinist Murad Abuev, People's Artist of Daghestan. "So," says Johan, "I asked myself, can this be?—I'm here in a Russian city, listening to the music of a Norwegian composer being performed by a Dagestan violinist..."
Journalists Tatiana
Kuzikova and
Yuri Lunin

Johan has lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Germany, Norway, and finally, in Russia, and now he feels that music blurs borders, and all the lands in which he has traveled extensively seem like one great motherland. Maybe becoming a citizen of the world and getting rid of man-made frames and borders helped Johan overcome grief in his life. His sister became friends with a black girl.... His mother, a German, was brought up in the years of Hitler's racist terror, and despite the fact that she was an educated woman, she did not approve of this friendship. A serious parting of the ways developed between mother and daughter. The daughter ran away from home and was murdered on a Chicago street. "I felt a huge pain at that time. But thanks to this pain I came to realize a purpose for my life: I want, whenever possible, to the limits of my abilities, to promote peace between people."

THE WAY TO RUSSIA

Johan is a genuine romantic--and a romantic is above all someone whose soul can catch fire from a high and wonderful idea and turn away without regret from the usual pattern of life. While still in school, he read Dostoevsky's «Crime and Punishment»--and immediately fell in love with Russia, captivated by the dream to visit the country. "I then read all the novels of your great writer. His ideas about history, about God, the soul, and human relationships became so close to me that I realized: only a great country could give the world such a unique thinker." Johan began to study the Russian language. "Your language is also surprising to me. Its flexibility, its rich possibilities reflect the richness of the Russian mind."

In 1975, at age 22, Johan received an inheritance from his grandparents and first came to Russia. This visit was only a few weeks, to see Moscow and Leningrad, but the idea of permanent residence in Russia was born.

In the nineties, a friend of Johan's told him about the young city of Elektrostal near Moscow. She lived with us for several years and with great warmth commented on our people, and the city's cozy atmosphere. In 1994, Johan first came to our city. "I understand that Elektrostal is not as rich in historical roots as Suzdal, Novgorod and Vladimir, but any city is first and foremost about people. I'm very comfortable among the Russian people, among Elektrostal citizens, and I am glad that I can be useful to them."

Today, Johan is in Sergei Kazantsev's New Humanitarian Institute, teaching American studies and conversational English. The students love their teacher very much.

ABOUT OUR BELOVED PLACE

Since I myself am not exactly new in Russia, and I know that life here is not always 100% positive, I asked Johan whether he hasn't sometimes encountered rudeness, ignorance, or some disenchanting experience. Johan said: "I understand your question. One of my Russian friends expressed a worry: 'You appear to be maybe a bit too open.' (Your «Novosti Nedeli» correspondent assures you that this is indeed the case.) Still, I have not had bad experiences here. [At the time of the interview, I completely forgot to mention the taxi driver who almost ran me over in an alley and drove off without checking whether I was hurt! I ended up with just bruises and a damaged camera.] I expect good things from people right from the start, and this expectation hasn't deceived me yet. Maybe this way of looking at people helps me."

Of course, it was interesting to find out what Johan believes are, so to speak, the essential, unique qualities of Russian people. "First of all—the ability to put aside trivial things in favor of the most important. Russian people, in any situation, think about the main thing, the essence." Johan noted another quality, which made me smile: "Russians are inclined to put things off as long as possible, but when there they are up against the deadline, they can mobilize. Then they can get done quickly what others might have taken weeks and months to do. And, most importantly, they can do it well."

"I also like the optimism of Russian people. I love when they say: "No problem" or "It's all fine." To me, these are very important phrases, and I myself use them often.

By the way, Johan is not living alone in Russia. With him is his wife. "I am pleased that my wife has been touched by the same love for your country as I experienced. There are problems with language, but live communication is the best textbook."...

Perhaps, just as we get used to our own apartments with the passage of time, we also get used to our city, and to our country. This may all seem very ordinary to us, but together it comprises our uniqueness, our originality. This is why Johan's words about Russia and Elektrostal inspired in me a certain pride—a feeling I hope the reader shares with me.

Righteous links: A Gaza parent's agony. ~~ 60 Minutes on Palestine. ~~ 60 Minutes on our former home town of Wilmington, Ohio. ~~ Where we are now. ~~ Hope and prayer in Haifa. ~~ Cambridge, Boston, Worcester, Massachusetts; Haverford, Pennsylvania; Dublin, Ireland; San Antonio and Houston, Texas; Greensboro, North Carolina... will Margaret Benefiel (The Soul of a Leader) be visiting near you? ~~ Why Christians should love dolphins!

A break from pure blues this week in favor of soul. The lyrics are pure co-dependence, but this song nevertheless remains one of my favorites. I used the movie it came from, Standing In The Shadows of Motown, in several recent classes at the Institute in Elektrostal, with subtitles switched on because dialogue and song lyrics all have such rich material for English instruction. In the film, the Funk Brothers and Meshell Ndegeocello perform the song in the old "Hitsville USA" Motown studio in Detroit.

Interestingly for my students, the late Funk Brothers keyboardist Joe Hunter, speaking in the film, credits Sergei Rachmaninoff as one of two major influences on him, along with Art Tatum.

meshell ndegeocello.you really got a hold on me
Загружено zorore0