Synod Assembly Well-Attended; Cultural Immersion in Juarez Still On

I felt my heart soar when I arrived this first day of our Assembly and found that most people had set aside all the nervousness about gathering at the border and had come to gather as leaders of the Church.   The trip to Juarez scheduled for tomorrow is still on, and people are still going.  Some adjustments have been made to account for the concerns of the spread of the flu.  But the hosts on the Mexican side of the border have been most careful and caring in making sure the trip unfolds in the safest way possible and there still seems to be a whole host of Lutherans getting ready to go there.  Ought to be interesting.

We have some tough budget business to deal with this time around.   The economic crisis has hit the larger church pretty hard.

It’s been a long trip to El Paso from Colorado.  I know I’ve had it easy compared to those who used to make the journey by foot or by burro, but I still find myself rather tired and ready to turn in early.

A failed laptop battery is going to keep me from live-blogging the Friday and Saturday proceedings, but I will try to post recaps if time and energy allow.  El Señor sea con ustedes.

Synod Assembly in El Paso Amid Swine Flu Fears

My heart goes out to our hosts on both sides of the border for this upcoming Rocky Mountain Synod Assembly.   The timing of the flu outbreak couldn’t be worse for this event, which planners have been working long and hard to arrange at this southern-most point of our synod.  The expectation was that attendees would see first-hand the mulitiplicity of cultural issues at play in this major border city and it’s sister Mexican ciudad, Juarez.  Folks had been nervous about the growing drug-related violence making the news, and now this.

I’m hoping that most of us will follow the advice of Jesus and not give in to fear.  Yet we also need to follow the advice to “be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.”

I’m leaving this morning, by ground, for El Paso.  Assembly starts tomorrow afternoon and runs through Saturday afternoon.  Sunday afternoon there will be a Dedication Service for our new Iglesia Luterana, Cristo Rey, and at this point I feel I need to be there.  So I may not be posting much between now and next Monday evening.

In the meantime, it’s probably a good time to make sure we all begin carrying little containers of hand sanitizer with us, and be a bit more “Felix Unger-like” in our hygiene practice.

La paz del Señor.

This Book Sounds Like a Must-Read

“Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate,” is written by British literary critic Terry Eagelton as a response to the most recent trumpet blasts by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  The book is based on a series of lectures he delivered at Yale and, based on the Salon review, finds many of the same flaws in “Ditchkins” anti-religionist positions as one can find in Bill Maher’s satirical, anti-religion film, Religulous.

But Eagelton doesn’t stop with them.  He sizes up that which passes for dominant American religious practice and finds it to be seriously deficient.   He takes American Christian fundamentalism to task for being essentially faithless, in part by speaking to the problems that I’ve encountered with them:  their ideology basically is so self-centered that it ignores and tacitly approves the ongoing, devouring exploitation of  both people and natural resources.  Meanwhile, despite being turned in on themselves, they champion any social and governmental movement that would ram their narrow-minded ideology down the throats of the rest of us.

“Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate” is now at the top of my reading queque,  following right behind my current read which also talks about religion in our time.

I’m about a third of the way through Phyllis Tickle’s book, “The Great Emergence,” also a very interesting read.  In brief, her book explores the very plausible likelihood that we are currently caught up in a tumultuous period of religious and cultural change,  change that seems to erupt like a volcano about every 500 years.  I’ll post a review after I’ve finished the book.

Quote of the Day: A Wake-Up Call for the GOP

If the GOP has any real desire to survive as a significant political influence in America, it would do well to rethink its allegiances to the Religious Right and the rabid social conservatives who decided, eight years ago, that America was their personal feeding ground. It would do well to listen to moderate Republicans who remain steadfastly loyal to their party, like Olympia Snowe of Maine, who have admitted that moderate voices in the Republican Party are regularly drowned out and dismissed.

It would do well to take a long hard look at not only itself, but what America sees when it think of “the Right,” and ask itself why so many people are backing away from it—slowly, carefully, as from a rabid dog you don’t want to provoke into an attack.

–Michael Rowe, Author and Journalist, writing in HuffPo about the significance of Arlen Specter’s party switch.

Study Results: Conservatives Think Stephen Colbert is Serious

Note to Michael Steele:  in revamping your party, you may want to incorporate some widespread workshop exposure for your party faithful that will help them begin to grasp and apply the concept of satire.

Ohio State University recently conducted a study to examine how people with different political ideologies receive and process the messages that come from Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report.”

Here is a portion of the results they uncovered, courtesy of Jason Linkins at HuffPo:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

GOP Killed Funding for Flu Pandemic Preparedness

They’re in enough self-made trouble as it is, but should the Swine Flu epidemic become a pandemic, the blame for our lack of preparedness and the resulting social crisis can be laid squarely at the doorstep of the Republican Party (I was going to say Republican Leadership, but these days that term just doesn’t sound right).

Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins, who postures as a “moderate” Republican, was the vocal leader in the fight to strip some $780 million worth of pandemic provisions from the recently enacted economic stimulus package, despite the concerns of Democrats led by David Obey of Wisconsin.  Here is an excerpt from Senator Collins’ own website:

After meeting with Mr. Obama, Sen. Collins expressed concern about a number of spending provisions, including $780 million for pandemic-flu preparedness. “I have no doubt that the president is willing to negotiate in good faith, that he wants to have a bipartisan bill,” Sen. Collins said.

Well, there you have it.  Bipartisanship to Ms. Collins and the GOP means placing the nation at great risk of being unable to respond to a major health crisis in a time when it is teetering on the brink of economic collapse.

I suppose we should have expected such things from the political party that produced our last response to a threatened pandemic.  In 2006, the Secretary of Health and Human Services took this action in response to a possible outbreak of Bird Flu:  he advised all Americans to start stocking cans of tuna and powdered milk under their beds.  Seriously.  That is what he said.

Then, of course, you also had the Republican brain-trust behind Homeland Security  advising Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape in case of a bio-chemical attack.  Not that it isn’t such a bad idea to have some plastic sheeting on-hand, along with a roll of duct tape.  That could also help Americans be ready in the event a terrorist breaks out a window in one’s home or car.

But, back to the latest threat of pandemic and the mindset (so to speak) of the Grand Old Party.

From The Nation:

When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year’s emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.

Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse — with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.

The attack on pandemic preparation became so central to the GOP strategies that AP reported in February: “Republicans, meanwhile, plan to push for broader and deeper tax cuts, to trim major spending provisions that support Democrats’ longer-term policy goals, and to try to knock out what they consider questionable spending items, such as $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.”

Nice work, Republicans.

So let’s cross our fingers, lift up our prayers, and hope once again that a major natural catastrophe can be avoided, because once again, our response will have been gravely hampered by our clumsy version of Monty Python’s “The Knights Who Say ‘Ni!” –The Numbskulls Who Say ‘No!’

Oh, and on your way home, you might want to stop by the store and pick up a couple of cans of tuna.  And powdered milk.  And duct tape.  One must always have duct tape.

Clean Language and Christian Proclamation

Harsh interrogation techniques, coercive tactics, enhanced techniques – These are the rebranding tools for torture. In order to avoid turning our eyes away or burying our heads in the sand, we grab politically acceptable words and terms to diminish the sting and shame of actual torture, so we can brag about being a moral society open to the discussion of stressful questioning of enemy combatants. Sterile words remove us from the very real sins of torturing human beings. And the more we become adept at anesthetic language, the easier it becomes to talk without vomiting when we speak our sins aloud. The easier it becomes to torture. The easier it becomes to maintain the nobility of torture as a tool of patriotism.     –John Cory, Truthout

I wonder how many of my fellow clergy are speaking to the torture issue, either in studies or from (gasp!) the pulpit.

But, hey, this is the Easter season, and what with declines in church attendance, membership, and income, maybe it’s best to keep things light and chipper.  Let’s not get into these “political” issues that just don’t have much bearing on the “spiritual” good news of the resurrection.

Except… Jesus didn’t come back as a spirit.  He showed up in all of his appearances in a bodily sort of way, the same body the authorities had tortured and killed.  He appeared again in that body, showing that he was a whole person again, in body,  mind and spirit.  And his appearances were so powerful they influenced followers like Peter to make rather dramatic and risky proclamations to people who’d probably have rather heard something different from him.

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.  (Acts 3:13-15)

Not a feel-good sort of message, is it?  Yet with that convicting message also comes the words of grace that offer hope from the new life offered by the Author of Life.

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.  (Acts 3:19-20)

It’s sobering to reflect on the historical reality that Peter’s message went mostly unheard by his audience.  They still clung to their own ways and beliefs.  They still thought the best way to solve their collective problems was to continue down the path that would lead to violent insurrection, to fight fire with fire.  And the ultimate outcome of their behavior was the wholesale destruction of the Judean economic, political and religious system that was centered in Jerusalem and in the Great Temple of Jerusalem.

And yet, a few people did listen to Peter and the other apostles.  They changed their lives, even though it put them at odds with their dominant culture.  Some lived.  Others died.  But because of the personal changes they made, they ultimately provided the beginnings of change that would spread throughout the world like a prairie fire, bringing a transformational power that is still at work touching lives and changing people for the better.  It’s a power based on another proclamation made before Peter’s, a proclamation that wasn’t merely unpopular, it was flat-out disconcerting in the way it upset accepted truths and behaviors.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.  (Matthew 5:38-45,  Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount)

This is the truly clean language that has led to some amazing results in the ongoing work of liberating  the human race from the hard shackles of its own barbaric cruelty. It’s the language that cuts through all our denials and willful ignorance with its shocking demands and seemingly impotent and ineffective lifestyle choices.  Yet this is the language that has propelled people throughout the centuries to stand against apparently overwhelming forces and to subdue those forces–not fighting fire with fire, but by meeting ignorance, fear and hatred with the awareness, caring and courage that flows from God’s agape love.    That love was revealed most powerfully in the appearance of the crucified Jesus as a complete, living person–he was alive in body, mind and spirit.   And it was that appearance that stripped away the appearances of superiority posed by all other powers, systems and authorities.

What will our language be, and how will it shape the appearances of the elements of life in our world today?  Whose language will we allow to shape our lives?  Is it the Orwellian language that seeks to mask and deny–and perpetuate(!)–the human sins of violence and cruelty.  Or is it the unpopular message that shows us who we truly are and what barbarism we’re capable of carrying out in the name of peace and security.  These are the questions about language that shape our lives and our future in this new century, whether we’re willing to admit it or not.

Thursday Nite Music Club: The Ventures

There was a bar band in San Antonio during the mid-to-late 70’s that did a great cover of this song.  I want to say their name was Stardust, but don’ t waterboard me if I’m wrong.  Here are the Ventures at peak strength, and at peak strength, they were pretty much untouchable when it came to West Coast Surf Rock.  Yeah, I know…you got yer Dick Dale, yer Surfaris, yer Beach Boys, and let’s not forget Jan and Dean.  And the Surfaris recorded “Wipe Out” first, doing so with that whacky opening vocal.  But these Ventures were clean-cut boys who could cut loose with this amazingly wild sound that combined simple, melodic  hooks with a driving beat and  frenzied–yet also stylish–guitar runs.  For years and years in my house it was the Ventures blaring from the console TV that let us know one of our favorite shows,  Hawaii 5-0, was coming on.

This cover of Wipe Out  shows the Ventures at their best, with some smoking guitar work.

What George Bush Thought Waterboarding Was

“A Few Bad Apples”