In 1839 Methodist missionaries established, in Liberia west Africa, a high school that was and is called “The College of West Africa.” Sometime in the late 1950’s a young African Methodist woman named Ellen Johnson graduated from that school. She went on to further her education in the U.S. at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government. After a distinguished career in banking and in the Treasury Department of Liberia, she joined those who resisted the dictatorships of Samuel Doe and, later, Charles Taylor. For her resistance to dictatorship, she spent ten years in prison. Her name now is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and on January 16, 2006 she became the first democratically elected president in Africa.

On May 27, 2008 this active United Methodist lay woman became the first African head of state to address a United Methodist General Conference. What follows is a series of quotations from her address:

“The greatest challenges we face as a post-conflict nation fall in three critical areas: the challenge of reducing income poverty through skills training and jobs, the challenge of helping our youth claim their future through education, the challenge of nurturing and strengthening democracy through the exercise of participation and choice.”

“The GDP of 41 heavily indebted countries, of 567 million people, is less than the combined wealth of the world’s seven richest people…..One in two children, or one billion children, live in poverty. Four hundred million have no access to clean water 270 million no access to health services. Around the world 27,000 to 30,000 children die every day, equivalent to one child dying every three seconds.”

“Distinguished United Methodists, for more than 175 years, you , the Methodist Church, have stood by and with the Liberian nation….The Church has been a forerunner and a leader in education in our country. Our country’s first president, Joseph Jenkins Roberts, was a United Methodist. Our longest serving president, William V.S. Tubman, was a United Methodist. The establishment of the first secondary school, the College of West Africa in 1839, was made possible by the United Methodist Church…..True to its commitment to its educational ministry, the Church, currently owns and runs 13 parochial schools that serve more than 27,000 students and operates one of our leading universities.”

“In Liberia, the Church has also fought to give democracy meaning and life. The Church has worked to give our citizens their dignity by addressing issues of poverty, illiteracy, and health. The Church has worked to give public voice to the voiceless, care and love to the needy and abandoned, shelter to the homeless, and education and hope to the young, the destitute, the underprivileged, and those in despair.”

“Fellow United Methodists, despite the enormous challenges which face the world, Africa, and Liberia, the good news is that the world is still today a better place. Many of you know that the universal bad news out of Africa has changed. Slowly but surely a growing number of African countries have begun to turn around, ending conflicts, installing good governments, implementing stronger economic policies, and getting back on their feet. But because of this good news and because of this happening gradually it generally does not get the attention it deserves. The recent good news does not guarantee long-term success, not by any means. Nevertheless, I assure you, the signs are encouraging and hopeful.”

“I am proud to say that we have moved Liberia from a failed state, from that awful flicker on your television screen of a nation in chaos, death, and destruction, to a potential post-conflict success story.”

Don’t ever doubt that the simple work we do, week in and week out, to worship God and to support the church of Jesus Christ makes a huge difference in the world.

United Methodist | 1 Comment »

This week and next I am participating in the United Methodist General Conference. The GC is the top governing body of the denomination and today’s activities were largely ceremonial in nature.

Long time readers of this blog may remember an entry some time ago titled “Nothing but Nets.” That entry described a partnership between the UMC and several secular organizations to raise funds for insecticide treated bed nets for Africa. Malaria is one of the most deadly diseases haunting the underdeveloped world. It is transmitted by mosquito bites and bed nets are one of the least expensive and most environmentally friendly ways of preventing the spread of malaria.

This morning we were introduced to a seven year old girl who has made it her mission to raise money for bed nets. To date she has raised $40,000 to stop malaria with bed nets. She says her goal is to see that every child in Africa sleeps under a bed net.

This child’s story is the story of what United Methodist people can do with a vision and motivation. She is a young hero of faith. When we say that the UMC exists to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world,” we are talking about people like this little girl. This small child is transforming the world. Think of what we could do as we make it our purpose to make disciples of Jesus Christ who transform the world. Whatever the size of the mission you envision for the church, this little girl’s story tells us that our vision is too small.

United Methodist | 3 Comments »

As a preacher, I have considerable sympathy and admiration for Jeremiah Wright.

As you probably know, Jeremiah Wright is the recently retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and was, for many years, the pastor to presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama and his family. Senator Obama has gotten considerable heat lately for remarks the Rev. Wright has made over the years. My view from a pulpit is somewhat different that the views we are hearing about Mr. Wright.

First of all, anyone who has preached for very long has said any number of things he or she would have said differently if given a second chance. We all say unfortunate things and preachers have the sometimes embarrassing experience of saying some of those things in public. Mr. Wright preached for decades and is being sliced up in some quarters of the media for two things he said in decades of preaching. I doubt any of his self righteous detractors would like the most unfortunate things they have ever said taken out of context and presented to the world as if those few things accurately represented them.

As an aside, it is also interesting to note that while some are prone to attach the words “liberal” and “media” together as if they were on word, the Rev. Wright story has primarily been a campaign of the conservative media.

Second, as a preacher I know that virtually no one who hears me preach regularly wants to be judged by everything I say. If only people who agreed with both the meaning and the wording of the sermon attended church, all churches would be empty. Give Senator Obama a break. I for one am glad we have at least one candidate who actually worships regularly in a local congregation.

So, I have considerable sympathy for Mr. Wright. I would hate for my worst statements to become national news.

I also have considerable admiration for Mr. Wright. Trinity UCC is one of the great churchs of Chicago and the nation. It has 8,000 members (enough to get the admiration of most preachers!) and is deeply involved in the mean streets of Chicago’s South Side. Trinity UCC provides a wide variety of programs to serve its neighbors including mission, education, social services, AIDS education and treatment programs, and health care. The church has been able to combine effective evangelism reaching 8,000 members with prophetic social service and witness. It is the kind of church most preachers would be proud to serve. Mr. Wright served that congregation for decades, grew it to its present size, and inspired its unusual record of service to the city.

All things considered, this whole controversy is more about Senator Obama’s political opponents finding something to hold against him than it is about the true nature of the relationship between a pastor and a family in his church.

American Emipre, Religion | 6 Comments »

“To be alive is to have a story to tell.” If Daniel Mendelsohn is correct in his observation, he is very much alive.

Mendelsohn’s grandfather was the family storyteller, but some of the most important stories of the family always seemed beyond the reach of Daniel when he was a child. Many older members of the family did not want to talk about it. Grandfather would make passing references to it, but would not, or could not, tell much. Mendelsohn’s grandfather was one of a large group of siblings who left Poland in the first three decades of the twentieth century. One of his brothers, Shmiel, did not like New York and went back to Poland where he could be “a big fish in a small pond.” There in a small town in eastern Poland, Shmeil returned to the family business of meat cutting and prospered as he always said he would. He married and had four daughters.

Then came the Nazis and all six perished in the holocaust. All that remained of those six family members were fleeting stories, hints about their fate, a family plagued by the memories. And the letters. In the family archives were letters received from Shmeil asking, with increasing urgency, for help in escaping before it was too late. Those letters opened up the Biblical questions of families and the relationships between brothers. Had Grandfather done enough? Anything?

Young Daniel becomes the family historian and as he moves into adulthood and loses his grandfather’s generation, he becomes increasingly driven to discover just what had happened to his great uncle and his family. The results of decades of hunting, travel to three continents and many improbable twists and turns has become Mendelsohn’s book, The Lost: A Search for Six of Six Million.

The Lost is engaging reading as it personalizes the loses of the holocaust. The numbers of the holocaust are so staggering that it becomes difficult to imagine the six million as individuals with families, jobs, personal histories, joys and sorrows, hopes for their children, or that many of them were children. In following Mendelsohn’s journey to learn the specific fate of his family members, the reader is caught up in a deeply personal story that spans many generations.

Mendelsohn not only gives us the story of his search, but he also weaves into his family story reflections and commentary on the first chapters of Genesis as those stories shed light on the stories of his family. In telling the family story and retelling the Biblical story, Mendelsohn reminds us of the timelessness of certain human mysteries.

Yes, at times we learn more of Mendelsohn’s story than we would like. The story is long and sometimes one can weary with too much information. But “to live is to have a story to tell.” In telling the story of six members of one family, Mendelsohn gathers us all into this story that must not be forgotten. As the remaining survivors of the holocaust dwindle to a rapidly falling handful, their stories slip from our consciousness. From Darfor, Ruanda, to the killing fields of Cambodia, all the way back to the exterminations described in the first book of the Bible, we are confronted with horrors we must not forget. The Lost helps us remember and teaches lessons we must never forget.

Books | No Comments »

It has been holy season in at least two ways.

First, we have just come out of the Lent/Holy Week season.

Second, March Madness just finished Monday evening.

Both seasons are sacred to me and have made me very busy. That is my very weak excuse for not posting more material here.

I have three or four topics I want to write about and will be posting more soon. Please don’t give up and keep checking this site!!

Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Recently I had an interesting conversation with a person looking for resources to share with a relative who is a religious skeptic. From what I could tell, this skeptic was a person with a scientific bent and was prone to dismiss religion or God because it was not subject to scientific proof. My parishioner was looking for something that offered some kind of proof that would be hard for the sceptic to challenge.

The problem with that request is that it sought to carry out the discussion about God on the playing field of “proof” and “evidence.” Indeed, that is the playing field of modern science. One technical name for this world view is “empiricism.” Empiricism is the belief that truth can best, or perhaps only, be found by examining data through the senses. Empirical means objective, tangible, and observable.

The position of the empiricist is that things that cannot be objectively and rationally measured, repeated, and verified are not be real. This is the methodology of science and it is a very useful and helpful way of looking at the world. We owe a great deal to empiricism. Modern medicine, transportation, food production, entertainment, the computer age, and more are just a few of the valuable products of scientific empiricism.

The problem comes when people begin to believe that the empirical method is the only or best way to discover all truth. Because God cannot become an object of scientific research, cannot be placed in a test tube, or described mathematically, many empirically minded persons dismiss the idea of God as superstition. Not only that, the conversations tend to be pulled onto the playing field of the empiricist. When religious folks are drawn into defending God by trying to use logic, evidence from nature, etc. they play right into the hands of the empiricist.

The best response to religious sceptics is to shift the debate by pointing out that empiricism rests on faith statements. It is an unprovable matter of faith that the empirical method actually works or that it is the most appropriate method for finding all truth. The sceptic may claim to be objective, but in fact, their claimed objectivity is itself a faith of sorts.

For the religious community there are truths that are not accessible through the scientific method. This is a faith statement that cannot be proven, but a similar claim about the scientific method is also based on faith…faith in that method.

The scientific method is no threat to religious faith. It is simply one useful way to look at the world and its many uses are obvious. At the same time, the scientific method is not very useful for many important things in life. It does not give us values, it does not give us hope, it does not account for courage, it has no measurement for love, it cannot appreciate beauty, and it has no methodology for the mystical components of human beings. These things are not particularly accessible through science, but they are of enormous importance for life. I celebrate science and all that it adds to our lives. At the same time, life would be terribly flat, cold, and empty if the only truths we could celebrate are those that can be investigated by the scientific method.

Religion | 8 Comments »

The journal Foreign Policy asked twelve intellectuals what one policy or gesture the next president could make to improve America’s standing in the world. The responses were published in the January/February, 2008 edition of the journal.

Former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich suggested that the new president should go on a pre-inauguration tour of capitals around the world with the sole task of asking questions and trying to understand the other leader’s points of view.

In regard to those remarks, I say, “Hooray for Mr. Gingrich.”

One of the subtle dynamics of an imperial point of view is the belief that we know best. Presidents of both parties have often behaved as if America knows best and that wisdom is uniquely resident in the U.S. An imperial power tends to see the world solely through the eyes of it’s own culture and interests. It is just assumed that the empire knows best. Imperialism is, at least in part, the sin of pride writ large in national behavior.

A much healthier point of view is that wisdom resides in many places and that there is more than one legitimate way of addressing challenges and problems. Whether the questions be economics, trade, systems of government, war and peace, or bilateral relations the viewpoints of other nations and people’s are often trumped by the imperial power’s monolithic thinking.

It appears now that our next president will be coming from the U. S. Senate. The Senate prides itself as being the nations most deliberative body with deep traditions of dialog and mutual respect. It would be a welcome step away from our imperial tendencies if our next president brought some of those values from the Senate to the White House.

American Emipre | 2 Comments »

As a political subject, the Iraq war has lost to the economy its status as the top issue in the minds of voters. At least, that is what the wise ones in the media are telling us. Even so, what to do about Iraq is still much in the political news.

It is likely that the fall campaign will offer starkly differing options on our future in Iraq. In the mean time, we find ourselves in a time of speculation and conflicting convictions that cannot be supported except by appeal to each sides own set of “facts.”

I have written before about the theologically misguided case for the war. Questions about future actions are influenced by our view of past actions. But the question before us is not “Should we have done it?” but “What do we do now?” The answer to the first question influences the answer to the second, but does not necessarily dictate the answer to the second question.

One of the key questions is, “Has the surge really helped?” Those who support the war argue that violence is down, therefore the surge has worked. There does seem to be objective evidence that the violence levels have decreased in recent months, but Iraq remains a very violent place. Today’s news carries stories of a Bagdad bomb attack that killed five American soldiers and several civilians. Another attack today outside of Bagdad killed a Sunni leader who was aligned with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. Iraq, particularly Bagdad, may be somewhat quieter, but violence and grave uncertainty still are the overall theme of that deeply divided country.

In my view, we have no real idea whether we have made any progress that promises to last. Any reduction of deaths and violence is welcome, but only the future will tell us whether this is a temporary pause or the beginning of a positive trend. Ultimately, the question will hang on whether the various groups in Iraq are willing to share power peacefully. The current decline in violence does not give us any information on this most basic question. It has bought the government some time, but has it brought any greater willingness for the various factions to make accommodations and compromises necessary to form a stable society? Most claims of progress are wishful thinking at this point. It is possible they will turn out to be correct, but only time will tell and no one has a very reliable crystal ball.

Ultimately, the American people will have to decide whether the original decision to invade Iraq was a correct one, whether we can or should continue to provide basic domestic security for Iraq, and whether staying for an extended time has any real hope of creating a stable country. We will have to answer those questions without perfect insight into the future.

The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. Following that war, stable domestic societies were created quickly. While the cold war lead to continuing military presence in Europe, the domestic tranquility of the defeated countries was quickly established and U.S. troops did not spend long periods of time patrolling the streets. It seems to me that the burden of proof rests with those who believe our role is to provide internal security for Iraq indefinitely into the future. Any progress to date is largely because we provide at least some control of the ground. How long are we willing to internally police Iraq and when do we decide we have done all (for good and ill) that we can? Do we stay indefinitely or when do we force the Iraqi factions to figure out how to manage their own lives and country?

Like the decision to begin the war in the first place, these decisions will carry theological and moral dimensions as well as political and economic ones.

American Emipre, Religion | No Comments »

In a comment on a previous post, the observation was made that the writer disagreed with my view of the implications for Jesus’ teaching related to guns. Anyone making a case on a controversial issue expects disagreement on the basic assumptions. I do not think the tone of the responses on this blog have been especially “emotional.” I do think it is a topic that generates much emotion.

In an effort to be clear, I will once again try to make the case that “the teachings of Jesus leave no basis for private ownership of handguns.” As Jeff points out in a comment to a recent post, there is a two step case here. Step one is whether the individual Christian can, consistent with the teachings of Jesus, own/use handguns. Step two addresses whether, from a Christian perspective, this prohibition would make sense as a social policy.

One of Jesus’ most fundamental teachings is, “Love your neighbor and your enemy.” This is not just a one time saying of Jesus, but some version of this teaching appears in all four gospels. Additionally, the great preponderance of Jesus teaching and his actions are entirely consistent with this bedrock teaching. Further, no case can be made that this teaching is “taken out of context” or in any other way is subject to nuance, compromise, or exception.

If the fact of Jesus teaching on loving neighbor and enemy is accepted, one has a very difficult time arguing shooting someone is consistent with loving them. I would point out that Jesus never makes any distinctions between love for family or friends and the love we are to express to our neighbors and enemies. There simply is no way to present the teaching of Jesus in a way that prioritizes love for someone close over someone distant or that suggests we have the right to make moral judgements about the relative worth of one person’s life over another. There is no “self defense” loophole in Jesus teaching. We might wish there was such a loophole, but it just isn’t there.

Jesus teaching about loving neighbor and enemy is not about some mushy sentimental feeling about these persons, but about the way we value and interact with them. I stand by my earlier statement in a previous blog entry that you just cannot shoot people you love. Since handguns have little or no practical value beyond shooting people, therefore, obedience to Jesus teaching requires me to refrain from arming myself in a way that would lead to armed violence.

I would be glad to hear any arguments that find any other reasonable interpretation of the Jesus’ teaching.

The question of social policy is separate. At its base, the case for social policy that bans private ownership of handguns (and assault weapons) is based on the same moral imperative of loving one’s neighbor. In this case, it is loving the neighbor who may be threatened by the widespread availability of handguns. Every study I have ever seen says that many more people are accidently killed by family members using handguns than are killed or injured as intruders foiled by handgun welding homeowners. Everyone wants to claim that they are careful and are the exception to this data, but the data proves otherwise. Without a gun in the hand of a citizen, the deaths at the recent Kirkwood City Council would not have occurred. So, it would seem that loving one’s neighbor would call upon us to eliminate threats to that neighbor’s will being. The numbers don’t lie. A gun in the home is more dangerous to the residents of that home than it is to anyone else.

Finally, I will repeat an argument that I made in comments to an earlier blog. There any number of potentially dangerous things society keeps out of private hands. An argument could be made that private ownership of hand grenades might make us safer, yet social policy prohibits individual ownership of them. We prevent private ownership of dynamite, even though some people might safely engage in hobbies of blowing up old cars. Society has long prohibited private ownership of tools that it deems are too dangerous to be in private hands. All the data says that handguns and assault weapons are properly in this category.

American Emipre, Religion | 2 Comments »

Last week’s post on the gun culture drew considerable comment. This is to be expected as guns are such a hot topic. Objectively, I don’t think guns ought to attract any more comment than many of the other topics discussed on this blog.

For some reason, mention of limiting individual access to guns seems to strike a nerve for many people. If I were to write a blog entry on rationing food, I don’t think I would get the level of response that I get suggesting gun access should be limited. We see this phenomenon not just here, but almost anywhere guns are discussed. Politicians tremble at the power of the National Rifle Association. Something more than policy disagreement is at work here. There is a deep emotional bond that Americans have with the idea of gun ownership.

I appreciate the civil tone of the comments posted in response to the “Gun Culture” article. The views expressed were presented in a calm and reasonable way. Yet, the volume of responses says something about the touchiness of the subject. The small sample of responses on this blog is just representative of the larger radioactivity of the subject in the society as a whole. One the broader societal level, the debate is often anything but civil.

What does this say about us? Why is this particular subject so “sacred” to so many Americans? Somehow it seems to be tied up in the very human desire of self protection. But, even this connection is irrational. The number of people who actually protect themselves with private handguns is tiny. The number of people who are killed or injured by handguns that should not be out there in the first place is large. The average American is much more likely to be killed by an illegal use of a gun than they are likely to protect themselves with a gun. It isn’t the wild west out there anymore. We would all be safer if no private citizens were armed. Yet, there is this huge feeling in the society that guns make us safe.

Anybody out there understand the emotion connected to this subject?

American Emipre | 4 Comments »