Hiatus

Hello! 

Yes, I'm still here.  Just ended up taking a bit of a break.  Work was particularly hectic.  Family life too.  A lot more on my plate than normal.  Something had to give.  Eventually I had to push the pause button on blogging for a while.  That is over now.  I'm back at it.

Taking a step back from every day responsibilities and routines is deeply entrenched in Christian culture.  Jesus took breaks to spend time alone in prayer with his Heavenly Father.  He encouraged others to do the same.  Throughout the ages, Christians have periodically taken a step out of the hussle and bussle of the world for spiritual renewal and reflection.  Those of us who tend to be more like Martha need to follow Mary's example, at least sometimes.

Taking those breaks can be helpful on many levels.  Our weary souls need a little R&R sometimes.  But those breaks to listen to the Holy Spirit can also lead to epiphanies, both great and small.

During my time away from blogging, I read and listened to a lot of perspectives.  I was exposed to a lot of information relevant to the focus of this blog.  I believe I had at least a few epiphanies while I was away.  Some are going to shape the focus of this blog in the future.

For example, I had some time to get back to why I wanted to start this blog.  During my lifetime, I had been perplexed by the use of Jesus's name and teaching in secular politics and in the shaping of public policy. 

My first exposure to this was in the late 1970s.  Ronald Reagan was divorced, rarely went to church and was passionately devoted to his wife, who was an ardent follower of astrology.  Yet he was embraced so vigorously by the "Religious Right." He was touted by many as a president with "Christian values."  This was particularly perplexing to me because they embraced him over Jimmy Carter, who has tried hard throughout his life to integrate his faith and his politics.  You may not agree with his politics in all cases, but he did seem to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  I found Mr. Carter's efforts to use diplomacy over militarism in keeping with the teachings of the Prince of Peace.  His concern for the poor seemed to reflect the thrust of much of the Bible, which emphasizes economic vulnerability over and over again.  Yet I still don't understand where the Bible says anything that remotely endorses increasing military spending, tax cuts and trickle down economics.  I've read and thought about these issues a lot.  I just don't see any Biblical support for these political issues.

Then the use of Jesus for political gain seemed to reach fever pitch in the 2000s.  Based on what I've read, I do believe that George W. Bush had a meaningful conversion experience in mid-life that saved him from a life of drunken debauchery.  But with all due respect, his political life has not shown much evidence of his conversion.  As governor of Texas, he oversaw a racist, error-ridden capital punishment apparatus, which he made no effort to fix.  He apparently lied when he told us that he reviewed each case carefully before determining whether or not to intervene.  It turns out he had no interest in more than cursory reviews; human life was not important enough.  As president, he took us into two disastrous wars that were of questionable legitimacy or utility.  Misinformation and the use of fear enabled him to take us into those wars. Because of his policies, thousands of civilians have been displaced or killed.  He has created power vacuums in which the already vulnerable in society lead an even more perilous existence.  During his reign, we came to use torture--TORTURE--against our supposed enemies.  Instead of being a leader on human rights and setting an example for others to follow, we joined the ranks of rogue nations like Iran and the People's Republic of China.  Finally, to win reelection after all these horrors, Mr. Bush and his political cronies demonized gay people because homophobia apparently entices many to the polls in critical swing states.  In sum, Mr. Bush's political legacy is based on a lack of honesty, fear-mongering and disregard for human life.  I don't believe any of that is grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I grew up inside the Beltway.  I'm not politically naïve.  I know full well that politicians embellish, stretch the truth and outright lie.  Those are sad realities.  But when you go exploiting the Son of Man to achieve earthly political power, that is where I have to draw a line.  I find that deeply offensive, more than I can even put into words.  Blasphemy is the only word to describe it.

But politicians get away with that only because Christians let them.  Shame on us if we fail to study God's word, to really dig deep for ourselves and try to understand it.  Shame on us if instead we let ourselves be duped by politicians who use the name of Jesus Christ to convince us to campaign for issues that have no grounding in Biblical teaching, but have everything to do with exaggerating plutocratic trends that are destroying our nation.  Shame on anyone who uses Jesus's blessed name to justify cutting the rates on capital gains, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy or opposing meaningful efforts to protect God's creation.  If you support those political positions, that is fine by me.  But don't you dare use my Savior to justify those positions.  Jesus said nothing that would support coddling the rich at the expense of the poor.  Nothing in his teachings can justify our callous disregard for the harm we do to the beautiful planet our Lord gave us.

To be clear, I'm in no way saying one cannot be a Christian and also support politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or the policies they've championed.  Both Messrs. Reagan and Bush were Republicans.  I'm certainly not saying you cannot be a Christian and a Republican.  I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party is more in line with the Gospel.  What I am saying, however, is that it is blasphemy to use Christ as the rationale for endorsing politicians or political positions when what they advocate is not supported by the Bible.  The Bible was written at different times several centuries ago, and unfortunately it does not speak to every issue we face in modern America.  We have to do our best in the gray areas.  But call a spade a spade.  Acknowledge the gray areas, don't propagate misinformation by saying the Bible supports things that it does not even address.

In that vein, I've decided that I'm going to get back to what I saw as the original focus of this blog.  Many of the hot button issues that have attracted some modern American Christians to the polls are complex.  I've shied away from them to some extent.  Not because I was afraid of wading into such areas of controversy, but because their complexity merits in-depth study and consideration.  In many areas of life, Christianity does not offer easy, quick answers.  Things are not always as clear cut as some of our brethren assert.  In the past, however, I have not had time to really dig deep to explore some of these issues.  I anticipate I will finally have some time this year, so that is the direction this blog will be going.

Technology and Poor Kids

Another concern I have about the role of technology in our modern communications is quite distinct.  As many have noted, there is a growing technological divide based on socioeconomic status in this country. 

 

The affluent have all kinds of gadgets.  They are deeply enmeshed in electronic communication.  But the less affluent are not.  If technological communication is the new norm in how we interact in our professional and civic lives, then the poor are at a huge disadvantage in terms of professional attainment and participation in civic discourse.

 

I had heard about this problem for well over a decade, but it started to become less abstract to me over the years as I have worked with at-risk teens in various ministries and nonprofits.  In various contexts, I have seen a pattern.  One reason these teens were labeled as “at-risk” to end up in these programs was that they had stolen cell phones or smart phones, or they had appropriated such devices that the owners had lost.  They were considered to have engaged in various forms of theft, a criminal activity.

 

Let me acknowledge that in the base case I don’t tend to have a lot of sympathy for theft of non-essential items.  In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean stole bread to feed hungry children.  Inspector Javert is relentlessly unforgiving, but most readers (or members of the audience) believe Javert’s heartless approach is not deserved or appropriate.  I too appreciate the desperation of a man trying to feed starving children.

 

But when we are taking about non-essentials like electronics, I just don’t understand.  I have been a victim of property crimes at different points in my life.  It is not fun.  It is not fair.  When you don’t have a whole lot, it is particularly tough when what you do have is stolen.  It is easier for me to sympathize with the victim rather than the perpetrator of property crimes.

 

Perhaps I’m hard-hearted, but I have not been inclined to be sympathetic when the teens I’ve met have stolen or misappropriated the cell phones or smart phones of others.  But I’ve worked with so many teens who have engaged in such behavior that I’ve at least become aware that it is not an uncommon phenomenon.  And I’ve tried to understand the mindset and the emotional difficulties of a teen who would engage in such activities.  I have listened to their perspective.  It is not easy for me to understand, but I try. 

 

It has to be acknowledged that the teens with whom I’ve worked have been from economically deprived families.  These are not kids from affluent families taking someone else’s cell phone or smart phone though they have access to one through legitimate means.  Instead, these are kids who live in cramped, ugly apartments.  Their parents have dead-end jobs or are unemployed.  There is not always food in the house.  Health care is available only if the state budget guidelines are inclusive enough.  In these households, luxuries like electronics are non-existent.  On some level, I can conceptualize that it is tough to not have the ability to text or e-mail or get information from the web when it feels like everyone else in our society has that ability.

 

Recently, I caught the tail end of a program Bill Moyers did on this issue of the high price of access to mobile phone and internet.  Mr. Moyers interviewed Susan Crawford who had been a special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation.  She has written a book: Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.  The interview is accessible at the link below

 

http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/

 

In the next few posts, I will discuss some thoughts about Ms. Crawford’s ideas.

 

 

Matthew 7:11

As bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children. How much more, then, will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

 

The Election of Rev. Fred Luter, Jr.

I recently came across an article about the election of Reverend Fred Luter, Jr. to lead the Southern Baptist Convention:

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-president-200546902.html

The headline read: “Southern Baptists elect 1^st black president.”  I had heard several months ago that this was a possibility, so this news did not really surprise me.  But it was interesting nonetheless. 

More so than some other mainline Christian denominations, I actually have a relatively close connection to the Southern Baptists.  I’m from the South, so I’ve certainly had plenty of friends and acquaintances who were Southern Baptists, but my connection is closer than just that.  A lot of my family and many of my closest childhood friends are Southern Baptist.  I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches all my life.  As a teenager, I even worked at the day care center of a Southern Baptist congregation in the neighborhood where I lived. 

Based on these experiences, I can say honestly that the Southern Baptist denomination is not my cup of tea. I never felt led to be baptized in that denomination or even attend one of its churches regularly.  That is ok.  Everyone is different.  I mean no disrespect in saying the Southern Baptist Church is not for me.  I respect that lots of fine folks are Southern Baptists and the Church does a lot of great work. 

One of the reasons I was never real comfortable in the Southern Baptist churches I attended was my sense of its homogeneity.  Pretty much everyone was white and middle class.  They were also very conservative politically; “Reagan” was a name folks liked, “Jane Fonda” was not.  When they went to church, the Southern Baptists I knew wore their Sunday best.  Many of the ladies had the same floral patterned cloth Bible covers.  Everyone was good at rote memorization and could rattle off Bible verses.  I never felt like I fit in with any of that.

I think I was always familiar to some degree with the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  But more than the reason it was formed in the 19^th century, as a kid I always had a sense of the modern, on-going implicit racism. 

My own Southern Baptist grandparents were white Southerners of a generation pretty warped by bigotry and poverty.  The “n word” was certainly a part of their vocabulary, which horrified and confused me even as a little child.  I knew that was a vile word you were not supposed to ever say.  So, it always stunned me when my Southern Baptist grandparents muttered it. 

And it really confused me because that set of grandparents were the most religious ones in my family.  How could my most religious relatives also be the most racist?  That never jived in my little brain.  I didn’t understand how people who seemed to take Jesus so seriously would be so racist.  Even as a kid, the little I knew about Jesus led me to think he would not have been uttering racial epithets or supporting second-class treatment of people of a different race or ethnicity.  I did not understand. 

What’s more, I was particularly confused when we went to my grandparents’ huge church and the only non-white faces were the row of gentleman in the back row in traditional African garb.  Their presence was evidence of the church’s enthusiastic support of foreign missions.  It didn’t make sense to me that my grandparents’ church would seem inhospitable towards people of African descent when they were born on American soil, but would go out of their way to bring people from Africa across an ocean to Texas.  That really seemed like a contradiction my little brain couldn’t comprehend.

But I know the Southern Baptists have made great strides over the years. 

My Dad’s church (which is the same one where my grandparents were members) is much more diverse now.  They have a very vibrant ministry to Laotian immigrants, and the church does extensive work to help the immigrants get settled into homes and find jobs in the community. 

One of my close friends is on the board of the congregation where I worked as a teen in the day care center.  That Southern Baptist church hired a pastor a few years ago who is a woman and African American.  Their congregation also has a strong ministry in the Latino community and has learned to do quinciñeras. 

When I was in law school, my husband used his extra free time by teaching in an ESL ministry of a local Southern Baptist church.  They taught hundreds of Latino immigrants practical language skills regardless of their religious affiliation.

Because I know Southern Baptists have made great strides, I wasn’t surprised by the headline of this article.  It simply seemed like a good thing.  What actually got my attention in reading this article was a point very relevant to the recent posts of this blog.  Per the article, Reverend Luter grew up with “a divorced mother and no father in the house.”  As a result, he prayed that he would be the role model for his own son that he himself never had. 

Apparently, Reverend Luter’s ministry has involved an “intensive outreach to men” in his hometown of New Orleans.  He has also expressed “concern that men in his inner-city neighborhood were not taking responsibility for their children.”  I’m not even sure what his ministry does exactly, but it sounds good to me. 

I think more churches need to minister to men.  It is confusing in this day and age as to what is expected and appropriate of men.  For the past century or more, the role of father in the family has consisted almost exclusively of breadwinner.  Dads left the home to earn money to support the family.  Period.  That model doesn’t really work in the 21^st century when many women outperform men in terms of educational attainment and earn a paycheck. 

Moreover, in many economically depressed and isolated communities, there are few if any legal means to earn a paycheck.  Not being able to provide for one’s family can be such a crippling blow to a man’s self-respect due to society’s expectations.  “Demoralizing” doesn’t begin to describe the impact.  I certainly don’t condone but can perhaps understand to some degree why men in such situations might withdraw from their families when they cannot provide for them financially.  I’ve seen in happen in families I know.  It is heartbreaking on many levels.  The church may not be able to provide jobs to men in such situations, but we can certainly help men cope with that sort of challenge.

Job 29:16

I was a father to the poor and assisted strangers who needed help.

Reflections on Mother’s Day

As an academic, May is a very hectic time for me professionally.  It was a blur, but Mother’s Day was almost two weeks ago.  Around that time, two very different Mother’s Day-themed articles caught my attention.  They seemed apropos to share in light of my recent posts on women’s roles and family separation.

The first article is about the “most powerful” moms: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-s-most-powerful-moms.html?page=1.  It originated from Forbes. 

I wasn’t really sure what they meant by “powerful.”  That is sort of an ambiguous term.  Power derives from a variety of sources, e.g., actual authority in the work place, influence in the home, influence in one’s community or profession, physical strength, the size of one’s bank account or credit limit, etc.  I wasn’t even sure what kind of power Forbes was intending. 

And it just seemed an odd thing to try to rank.  Power is hard to quantify.  I’m not really sure why one would want to quantify it and rank people, but there is interest in that apparently. 

When I came across the article, I also just wondered about societal attitudes towards power.  I guess by virtue of this ranking by a famous business magazine, power is something people admire and maybe even desire. I suppose I know that intellectually, but that does not make a lot of sense to me.  And I don’t know I had any particular admiration for the women who made it into this elite list.

From a Christian world view, power is not something to be envied or necessarily pursued.  Jesus rejected attempts to give him earthly power and instead made himself vulnerable on the cross.  Dr. Tony Campolo wrote a fascinating book about that: Which Jesus?: Choosing Between Love and Power.  I blogged about the book a couple years ago: http://progressivechristianitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/10/which-jesus-choosing-between-love-power.html.  It is a terrific book and I highly recommend it.

The second article I came across was a photo essay about Mother’s Day in Prison:  http://news.yahoo.com/photos/mother-s-day-in-prison-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fmother-s-day-in-prison-slideshow%252Fmother-s-day-in-prison-photo-1336857250.html.  Having just spent a lovely day with my own precious kids, I shed a bunch of tears when I looked at these photos on Mother’s Day evening. 

Being a mom inspires one to want to protect and nurture the vulnerable little human beings who are your children.  That is what being a mom is all about.  It is your job to take care of them, keep them from harm, and help them develop into the people God intended.  You’re supposed to hug them when they have nightmares or get frustrated by long division.  You are supposed to give them a smile and tell them they are beautiful even when they feel ugly due to a new hairstyle or a pimple.  You are supposed to make them a healthy breakfast even if you are exhausted and haven’t consumed your coffee yet.  You do those things not because anyone makes you do them, but because you have such a profound and powerful love for these little people.  You’d do just about anything for them. 

With that mindset, I looked at the photos in this slideshow and tried to imagine the experiences of these children and mothers who live so far apart, who see each other so infrequently.  These children, who have to be bused in to see their moms on Mother’s Day, are essentially growing up without a mom.  Quite a stark contrast to the Forbes article, these incarcerated moms are incredibly powerless.  The most personal, most vital relationships of their lives are completely dictated by the impersonal decisions made by others in the criminal justice system.

I teach Criminal Law.  I understand retributionist and utilitarian arguments for imprisonment.  But the reality is that the vast majority of women in prison have not committed any violent offense.  Most are serving time for drug offenses and/or are caught up in an overly broad net of accomplice liability when their husbands, boyfriends or lovers actually commit the target offense. 


And I won't even get into the issue of wrongful conviction.  Over 90 percent of criminal cases never go to trial.  Hiring a lawyer is expensive and court-appointed attorneys are notoriously over-worked.  So, there are serious issues as to whether people in prison have even committed the crimes for which they are serving time.  But that is a complicated issue for another day.

Even assuming everyone in prison is guilty, in this age of dire government debt and overspending, I don’t understand why we insist on continuing our ill-conceived experiment in mass incarceration.  Others have written at length how we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other nation—even the People’s Republic of China can’t compare.  Criminologists and fiscal conservatives have made cogent arguments that we need to take a smarter, more financially responsible approach to criminal justice.  I tend to agree.

But looking at this photo essay, the more pressing issue to me was what we’re doing to families.  Our experiment in mass incarceration has been going on for several decades.  In a country that purports to embrace family values, how can the ripping apart of families be a good thing?  How can there be no allowance made to support the retention and nurturing of family bonds?  What do we think will happen to the precious little children who grow up without enough hugs and encouragement from their moms (and dads)?

Psalm 116:16
Truly I am your servant, LORD; I serve you just as my mother did; you have freed me from my chains.