Love & War & the Sea In-Between: A Music Review

I’ve been downloading music from NoiseTrade for months now. Fortunately for anyone accessing my Facebook page, the NoiseTrade folks no longer insist that I announce to you every time I download free music. Often I download stuff that I haven’t fully appreciated yet, and I’m not sure I want you to know about it. Some of it is still sitting in a folder waiting for me to give it the time of day.

NoiseTrade is great! You can download a song, a few songs, or a preset sampler of indie music. I’m not sure who owns the place, but there is a good bit of folk, pop, rock, Americana, and singer-songwriter stuff; if you look for it, you can find R&B and hip-hop, as well. A good bit of it has a Christian bent, but I’m not sure why. The quality varies, and your personal taste will determine whether it’s worth your time and trouble. But it’s certainly worth your money, since you aren’t risking any (Feel free to tip, though).

Occasionally an artist will offer a complete album. Such was the case with Josh Garrels’ Love & War & the Sea In-Between: an 18-song collection. This daring songwriter demands that we believe that free music doesn’t have to sound cheap (or come cheaply).

To make his point right out of the barrel, Garrels dares to make the music itself interesting. I didn’t suspect he was a Christian believer when I began the listen, and the opening instrumental notes did nothing to divulge his secret. I know: Christian music is supposed to be defined by the words. But unfortunately too much Christian music resembles the caricature in the “Jesus Fish” episode of Seinfeld years ago. Before you even hear the words, the unimaginative instrumentation signals: You are beginning a Christian song. The opening sounds expose the agenda, as if the music holds no creative substance of its own; it exists only to service the lyrical message. 

Forgive me if you are a Christian musician who proves otherwise. You are in good company with Josh Garrels. Before the lyrics threaten with some slave-driving whip, Garrels serves notice: this is a musical/lyrical collaboration. Then four songs in, he hammers the point with the first of several instrumentals! This one relies on electronica, the next one rests in Celtic acoustics.

But back to the first song. When the vocals do kick in, you know what you’re in for: Garrels is a Ray LaMontagne sound-alike. Or is it Dave Matthews, or David Gray? Not bad voices to sound like. Like them all Josh conveys raw emotion, his comes as raspy and folky expression. Then you realize that he’s no sound alike. But that’s the kind of artist you get with Garrels. Except on the instrumentals. Oh, and on #5, "The Resistance,” which is a rap song (a la Jason Mraz). So he’s a little difficult to pigeonhole.

Once you are taken in by the music and the voice, you get caught up in the poetry, the cinemascapes painted by word. The songcraft, the orchestration, the stylistic diversity, the vocal range, the poetry. All of these arrest the attention.

You catch the beauty, and it’s only later that you might recognize that the beauty is grounded in the Christian story. In fact, the truly remarkable accomplishment of this gallery is that Garrels uses both direct and allusive biblical references, without ever sounding trite. Anyone familiar with the biblical text or with gospel music will recognize the connections. This is no more evident than on “Farther Along,” the entrancing 4^th song, which lifts from Albert Tinley’s timeless gospel song, “We’ll Understand It Better By and By.”  And like the best gospel songs and the biblical text, Garrels recognizes that religious topics cannot legitimately be removed from real life. Witness the various compositions (“For You,” and “Million Miles,” especially) that speak of romantic love better than your average pop song.

I finally went to Garrells’ website, driven largely by my curiosity of why a struggling musician would give away music of this quality. He says that he “felt led of the Lord” to release this album for a year for free. I’m not sure what the Lord had in mind; I mean this is not missionary music like Keith Green’s So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt way back in 1980.  But I’m hoping Garrels’ (and the Lord’s) gamble pays off. I for one have already paid money to hear 15 more songs from Garrrels off of 2008’s Jacaranda. I’m counting on the same caliber of music as I’ve already heard. If you’re not willing to shell out 10 bucks just based on my recommendation, at least hurry over to NoiseTrade or to Josh’s own site to download the new free album. If you like it as much as I did, you’ll probably find yourself letting go of a few dollars to hear more.

I Love God and Country

When I "liked" the "I love God and country" page on Facebook, I kinda suspected that many of my fellow "likers" meant something different from what I meant. I meant that I love God and I love my country. For me they are separate loves, not a joint-love.

Based on comments from the page, I was right in my suspicions: others see things differently. Some  declare that only those who love God can love their country. Some say explicitly that only those who love the United States of America can love God. Some say that loving the USA is the same as loving God. Many suggest that God of the Bible belongs to America, as if we own the God of the Universe.

But God doesn’t belong to any of us in the US. We didn’t invent God. We didn’t in any way originate God. Truly my Bible tells me that God originated this nation. But it also says that God originated all other nations as well.

So when I say I love God and country, I am hoping that people in Germany and Cote d’Ivoire and Brazil and North Korea and Uzbekistan and Libya will chime in with “I love God and Country too!” And I hope they will mean the same thing I mean: As an American (or a German or a Brazilian) I am proud of my country (despite its imperfections). And as a Christian, I believe there is only one God (though numerous gods) and I love that God of All Nations. 

The Word of God Is Alive and Active!

Rena Peterson woke every morning for two years praying the same prayer, “God you woke me up this morning, and I’m still alive, so you better have something for me to do!” Rena, who is my mom, was grieving the loss of my dad, her husband of 46 years, who died after a prolonged illness. Mom had been his caretaker, and when he was gone, she wanted to be gone too. Day after day she prayed her indignant prayer. And week after week she attended church.

Mom and her Breakfast Club friends

Then one Sunday she heard about a ministry of feeding breakfast burritos to homeless people. She decided to join the group one Saturday. Then she returned the next week. Mom returned every week and began asking the displaced folks what else they would like to eat.

Now nine years later she spends her weeks preparing the Saturday morning meal. The menu has expanded from breakfast burritos to beans and rice, fried chicken, and greens. Mom continues to change the menu according to the needs and desires of new friends. She and the other members of “The Breakfast Club” also offer prayer, friendship and spiritual food to their displaced neighbors.

Mom’s story is featured in my first Bible project, which releases today! The Take Action Bible also introduces 14 other stories of ordinary people who have put God’s Word into action (There are even more stories here). The stories are covered in five full color sections inserted throughout the text of the Bible. Each section (Go, Serve, Give, Teach, Heal) includes three stories, a Scriptural passage and questions for reflection. This Bible also includes a list of 52 simple actions most anyone could take, based in Scripture.

I’m thrilled that my first project at my new employer is this Bible that emphasizes mission and action!

And the Idiocy Grows

I am aware that ignorance and blinding suspicion are no respecters of parties. But this one I have to call out. According to Public Policy Polling, 51% of likely Republican voters believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA. Another 21% say they are not sure. I suspect that that latter group doesn’t mean “not sure” in the same way that they are “not sure” of the birthplaces of our other 43 Presidents, whose birth certificates they likely have not seen.

That means that, regardless of what they think of his political philosophy or his stands on the issues, only 28% of likely Republican voters are confident that President Barack Obama is legitimately President of the United States. With that little confidence in his legitimacy, how can you even begin to listen to anything he has to say? If he is illegitimate, if he has perpetrated this fraud on the US public, you might as well assume that every act he makes, every word he says is all part of a plot to destroy America.

When it was just a handful of crazies during the 2008 presidential campaign, this birther nonsense was just silly. When it persisted after the election and against all the evidence, it annoyed me. Now that 51 % of voting Republicans have signed on to the idiocy, I am disgusted.

I am not disgusted by disagreement with the President; this is the United States of America And I know that some of my Republican and conservative friends simply differ with their President on the issues and on political philosophy. To those people, I offer my respect.  I’ll be glad to discuss political philosophy with you, especially from a Christian perspective at another time. And if you get lumped in with your ignorant fellow conservatives, I offer my apology. But for those 51% or your Republican comrades, I have a few more things to say.

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural

I try to read this every year. It may be my favorite speech of all time. In honor of Abraham Lincoln's 202nd birthday:

Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, March 4, 1865

Fellow Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war -- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether." 

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

From Every People and Nation, Intro

Several weeks ago I promised to post excerpts from the provocative, insightful book From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, by Dr. J. Daniel Hays. The book, written by a self-identified conservative, white biblical theologian traces the picture of race issues throughout the Bible. This first installment is from the book’s introduction:

Not long ago, in a conversation with my colleague Dr. Isaac Mwase, a Black professor and pastor of a local Black congregation, I mentioned that the race problem was an important issue for the Church today. Isaac quickly corrected me by stating emphatically that it is the most important issue for the Church today. This conversation illustrates to some degree of phenomenon that I encountered regularly as I read through some of the recent literature dealing with the race problem in the Church today. Black scholars identify the racial division in the Church as one of the most central problems for contemporary Christianity, while many White scholars are saying, “What problem?”

Likewise, even among those who acknowledge the problem, there is a wide difference of opinion concerning just how bad the problem is and whether the situation is improving or deteriorating. On the one hand, in recent years tremendous progress appears to have been achieved. (D.A.) Carson, for example, documents evangelical churches on the east coast and the west coast of North American that are doing a remarkable job of integrating (Love in Hard Places, 2002, 95-96). Particularly among many White Christians, there is the perception that in these regions things have improved; even in the south and the Midwest many feel that although lagging behind the rest of the country, the race problem is not nearly as pronounced as it was a generation ago.

 On the other hand, some have observed that the evidence for this perception is often anecdotal, and actual statistical survey data appear to suggest otherwise. Emerson and Smith in Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (2000) study the problem, through statistical data based on actual nationwide surveys and interviews. They point out that there is tremendous disparity between the way Whit evangelicals view the problem and the way Black evangelicals view the problem. They also note that the phenomenon cuts across regional lines. Their studies indicate that two-thirds of White Christians believe that the situation for Blacks is improving, while two-thirds of Black Christians believe that the situation for Blacks is deteriorating. The survey data have led Emerson and Smith to pessimistic conclusions…. 

Emerson and Smith (p171) also suggest that one of the underlying factors hindering evangelicalism’s ability to address the race issues adequately is that evangelicals have a tendency to define problems in simple terms and to look for simple solutions. The race issue, on the other hand is extremely complex, involving history, tradition, culture, religion, economics, politics, and a host of other factors.…

Although there are some significant exceptions, in general there is silence in White evangelical congregations concerning the biblical teaching on this issue. Within these congregations, the current attitude of many Whites often falls into one of three categories. First, some people are still entrenched in their inherited racism. They are interested in the Bible if it reinforces their prejudiced views; otherwise they do not care what the Bible says about race. Second, many people assume that the Bible simply does not speak to the race issue, and particularly the Black-White issue. Third many others are simply indifferent to the problem, assuming the status quo is acceptable and that the Bible supports their current practices.

These views appear to carry over into academia as well. Indeed evangelical biblical and theological scholarship has continued to remain nearly silent on this issue, even though indications of the scope of the problem are obvious.

 So here's the first installment. What are your thoughts?

Dr. King, Persecution, and the Art of Prayer

The 1960s, the heyday of the civil rights movement, saw a polarized, volatile American public. At the symbolic center of the vitriolic rhetoric stood the figure of Martin Luther King Jr., hailed by some as a messianic hero and demonized by others as an un-American antagonist with evil intent.

Today Dr. King is more symbol than human. And despite the exposed human faults of the actual man, his human virtues are worthy of the symbol. For his endurance in the face of opposition, for his subjection to a campaign of lies, for his refusal to retaliate, for his submission to physical violence, for his suffering unjust incarceration, for his brandishing powerful nonviolent rhetoric, and for his proclamation of clear, if not universally accepted moral truth, Martin Luther King Jr. remains one of our nation’s most revered figures.

The persecution Dr. King endured was not feigned. It was no perceived attack with roots in legitimate criticism. His life, the lives of his compatriots, and the lives of their families were continually threatened, and the threats were punctuated with a series of actual incidents of horrible physical violence. He had little recourse in local government, who threatened and imposed further violence and incarceration. And the federal intervention was obviously too little too late.

Still when it came time for MLK to mount a rhetorical defense, he always chose to defend the cause of the needy, the oppressed, the poor, and the outcast. He never defended himself. He stood up for justice and truth, not himself.

Where did that moral stance come from? How could he endure what he endured and remain focused on truth and justice rather than on charges of persecution, which were real and not imagined? What kept him from crying “Persecution!” even when the threats became everyday realities of actual violence?

Perhaps the difference between Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who claim persecution today is born of King’s prayer life. Vanderbilt University’s Dr. Lewis Baldwin hints at as much in one of two new Baldwin release on Dr. King, Never to Leave Us Alone, published by Fortress Press (the other release is The Voice of Conscience: The Church in the Mind of Martin Luther King, Jr., published by Oxford University Press).

In Never to Leave Us Alone, Baldwin traces King’s prayer life. He begins by capturing the wellsprings of the African American prayer tradition that fed the young King. He follows with Kings’ experiences and writings as a young man at Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary, and Boston University.

In three more chapters Baldwin opens up the period of Dr. King’s civil rights career leading to his violent death. Each of these three chapters captures a different aspect of the same period. First Baldwin looks at prayer and preaching, then at the power of pastoral prayers, and then at prayer as the heart of movement of the civil rights movement. In a final chapter, Baldwin reminds us of what we can learn from King and why he remains a respected figure around the world.

Discussing the book, radio and television host Tavis Smiley asked Baldwin, "What was Martin praying for? It’s one thing to talk about his prayer life, but obviously it’s important to pray for the right things and to pray in the right way. Tell me more about what he was praying for and what his prayer process was. How did he call out to God?"

Generalizing from his years of research, Baldwin answered, “He prayed for strength, his own personal strength, for guidance and direction in the movement. He also prayed for world peace. He prayed for guidance in the struggle for economic justice, in the struggle to overcome racial barriers, segregation in the society. He prayed for discipline and courageous leadership in the movement. He prayed for what he called “the least of these,” those who were in poverty, who had no jobs, who were devoid of medical care, who were ill-housed. His prayer, of course, had this social dimension. He majored in intercessory prayer—that is praying for others. His prayers were always relational.”

Baldwin documents Dr. King’s practice of renting a hotel room for a prayer-centered day, a “day of silence.” During those day-long retreats, King “poured his heart out to God,” he developed his own inner spiritual life, and he gained wisdom and the “attitudinal posture” required to keep moving forward in his God-ordained mission.

Central to Dr. King’s prayer life, according to Dr. Baldwin was the belief that prayers are to be lived as well as uttered. “Living prayer daily was, in King’s case, a cardinal principle, and this persists as part of his legacy for a nation and a world in which hypocrisy is perhaps more glaringly evident than ever before.”

Who can doubt that that living prayer sensibility is sorely needed in an age of commercially-driven bombast disguised as political rhetoric, when legitimate criticism is dismissed as illegitimate persecution. Dr. Baldwin reminds us that for Dr. King the method and the message can conspire to communicate truth. Prayer can keep the message and the method true. But even a true message can be dangerous.

A Biblical Theology of Race

 Just finished a provocative, insightful book, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, by Dr. J. Daniel Hays.

I am aware that some of my Christian brothers and sisters believe the Bible doesn’t address race, except maybe to say “all men are created equal” (which the Bible DOESN”T explicitly say). Some Bible readers know that somewhere (Galatians 3:28) the Bible says something about “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Studious Christians have learned that the Bible was (and still is) used to defend slavery, racism, apartheid, and all the rights of the racially privileged, just as faithful Christians have employed the Bible in fighting against those atrocities.

But Dr. Hays aims for something more ambitious than these tidbits of Bible and race. First, I must say (and this, too will offend some of my white brothers and sisters) that Dr. Hays is a white, conservative (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary; PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), evangelical professor (Pruet School of Christian Studies dean, and professor of Old Testament) at a southern Christian university (Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia Arkansas). I mention his credentials in hopes that his arguments won’t be dismissed as biased, which is too easily done when the speaker is African American or some bleeding heart liberal atheist/agnostic.

This Dr. Hays makes the case that race issues permeate the Bible. While the Bible may be less than direct on these issues, it provides as much to draw from as it does for the proclamation of Four Spiritual Laws or Five propositional Points. Hays traces the biblical record from Genesis to Revelation and uncovers what just might be the heart of God on race. As a starting point he reveals the hidden racial nuances in those passages that we tend to graze over in the “begats,” the names of peoples, and the tables of nations. But his primary point is that race is not a peripheral issue in the Bible. For Hays, race issues are at the heart of the biblical story, at the heart of the mission of God, at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Over the course of the next few days I hope to share Hays work by way of excerpt. I’ll begin with parts of his introduction and proceed with his chapter summaries (altered by adding in Scripture references from the meat of the chapters). I would love to hear responses to his words.

Prayer for National Leaders

A 21st Century Worship Resource for Christ the King/Reign of Christ Sunday, Year CTony Peterson (Inspired by Jeremiah 23:1 & 4) Lord, we believe you when you say you will lead us. But we have suffered at the hands of those who would destroy and scatter your sheep. You promised that you would raise up shepherds who will gather us together so than no one will have to live in fear. So we look for those shepherds, Lord. We pray for those who will do good and do right, for those who will protect the children, who will school the children, who will give the children hope. We pray for those shepherds who will pursue peace, who will walk humbly, who will reconcile nations. We pray for shepherds who will fight injustice, who stand on the side of justice. We pray for shepherds who will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and set at liberty the captives. We pray for shepherds who will spread love, show mercy, and practice hospitality. Lord, we pray for our shepherds; we pray for our people; we pray for our country; we pray for the nations. Amen. Tony Peterson, Associate Acquisitions Editor for Bibles at Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, is a former employee of GBOD and a contributor to volumes A, B, and C of the Africana Worship Book. From the Africana Worship Book for Year C. © Discipleship Resources. Used by permission.

Interested in reprinting this item? Please read Copyrights & Permissions

Stuff I Learned from a 15-Month Unplanned Sabbatical

 Labor Day Thoughts from  a Guy Who is Recently Re-employed:

1. I love job security!

2. It is good and satisfying to work for a living.

3. Contrary to the human nature beliefs of some of my friends, most humans (even most Americans) believe, live by, and are motivated by no. 2.

4. There are hardworking people who can’t find a job and hard-working people who can’t provide for their families (OK, I already knew this one).

5. There are more important things than job security.

6. Looking for work is work. Looking for work during a recession takes patience, persistence and ingenuity. And the Patience and Persistence Award goes to: My wife, Laura.

7. Networking works, even if it takes 15 months (or longer) to work. 

8. Contrary to some rantings from defenders of hard-working, successful people, there is no such thing as independence. No-one gets there purely by their own actions and abilities (See no.7).

9. There is no such thing as job security.

10. blah blahblah GRANDKIDS blah blah blah (See no.5)

For American Christians, Whose Need Matters?

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 has got me ruminating:

If anyone is poor among your people in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your people and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward those of your people who are poor and needy in your land. (TNIV)

If we want to apply this passage to American Christians in the 21^st Century, what adjustments must we make? The “command,” “advice,” “directive,” or whatever it is, is clearly directed toward the Israelites at a particular time in a particular situation. (I am aware that I am unfairly mixing hermeneutical traditions and jumping ahead too quickly for any truly scholarly handling of Scripture.)

Can we assume that we (American Christians in the 21^st Century) are the “new Israel”? If so, who are our brethren, our brothers, the people around us, the members of our community (I’m citing various translations)? To whom are we supposed to be open-handed? Is it other Christians? Christians in my community? People of my race?  People of my faith tradition, of my ideology, with my “blood”? Clearly in the original context it’s a defined people. How do we define who is in and who is out for our situation?

Relatedly, what are the towns of the land? Is it my ‘hood, my parish, my city, my state, my nation?

Or should American Christians just toss aside this scriptural passage because it doesn’t pertain to us. Maybe it pertains just to to “Israel”? If so, does that mean Jews by faith? Semites by blood? Israelis by citizenship? Does it pertain only to the “Holy Land” (whichever boundaries you accept)?

What do you think?

When you happen on someone who's in trouble or needs help among your people with whom you live in this land that God, your God, is giving you, don't look the other way pretending you don't see him. Don't keep a tight grip on your purse. No. Look at him, open your purse, lend whatever and as much as he needs. Don't count the cost. Don't listen to that selfish voice saying, "It's almost the seventh year, the year of All-Debts-Are-Canceled," and turn aside and leave your needy neighbor in the lurch, refusing to help him. He'll call God's attention to you and your blatant sin. Give freely and spontaneously. Don't have a stingy heart. The way you handle matters like this triggers God, your God's, blessing in everything you do, all your work and ventures. There are always going to be poor and needy people among you. So I command you: Always be generous, open purse and hands, give to your neighbors in trouble, your poor and hurting neighbors. (The Message)

Tony’s Annual NDOP Rant 2 (of 3)

A second National Day of Prayer controversy this year opens the window on why all this matters. The dis-invitation of Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon’s observance of the National Day of Prayer is unfortunate, uncomfortable, and unpleasant. This difficult decision could have been avoided earlier, but once the issues were brought to officials, the Pentagon had no other legitimate option.

It is unfortunate because Rev. Graham has much to respect in terms of advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Beyond his iconic name, he has pushed for social and spiritual transformation through his organization, Samaritan’s Purse. Neither his good works nor his faith should be questioned by this rescinding.

Further, his fitness to be the honorary chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force (which I will address in another post) or his appropriateness to pray at non-governmental public events should not be in question. The problem arises when that group with this prominent voice marries itself to a government event.

Rev. Graham is entitled to his opinion and has the right to publicly express his belief that Islam is “evil” and “wicked.” But that view is not consistent with the military’s practice of religious freedom, and after repeatedly expressing that view in public, Rev. Graham should never have been invited to speak at the Pentagon. To say so and to rescind this invitation does nothing to curtail (as a friend of mine suggests) Rev. Graham’s freedom of speech. He is free to express his views, just not these views as the featured speaker at a state-sponsored event.

In a nation that defends religious freedom, at an event that calls on all Americans to exercise that freedom in prayer, at the monument that represents all of our military regardless of religious affiliation, someone who continually maligns a major world religion should not be presiding. This is not about “appeasing Muslims.” It is about demonstrating our American commitment to religious freedom. A Muslim leader who repeatedly described Judaism as evil, citing atrocities done in the name of Judaism, would be just as unfit to speak at such events.

This is not about religious persecution of evangelicals. Any number of other evangelical leaders would be appropriate. They might believe that Islam is misguided, deceived and dead wrong. But if they believe that the religion in and of itself is “evil,” how could they pray on behalf of American Muslims who risk their lives in war for all Americans?

I’m a military brat. In my experience, no-one navigate the intricacies involving religion and government better than military chaplains. They must constantly support the religious practices of all of their service men and women, without maligning any of them. Surely they believed the views of Billy Graham’s son needed no significant vetting before inviting him.

And they might have been justified. To be fair, Franklin Graham has tried to explain his words. While some of his clarification is refreshing and helpful, other points only reveal his ignorance. When he speaks of the inhumane treatment of women, for instance, he is justified in decrying “evil.” Same with suicide bombing. But he is talking about particular evil expressions of Islam, not the religion itself. He seems to confuse Islam with Arab states, Middle Eastern customs, and political actions. There are more Muslims in the democratic nation of Indonesia than in any Arab state. And until recently that Muslim country was run by a woman, something “Christian” America has not managed to accomplish.

So far I’ve been defending the Pentagon’s unfortunate actions. But what grieves me more has to do with the cause of Christ. Ironically, the U.S. Army seems to have a better grasp on Christian charity than does one of our most prominent evangelists. And Christians who wear this incident as a badge of persecution are taking their eye off the evangelistic ball. This is a perfect opportunity to learn the truth about Islam without caricature. Committed Christians can do so without agreeing with or embracing the teachings of Islam.

More importantly Christians can use this incident to perfect their evangelistic strategies. I believe Franklin Graham means well, but in his boldness (and ignorance) he seems to forget his evangelistic mission. Calling another major world religion evil does nothing to win people to Christ. It does not speak the truth in love. It is not preaching the good news of Jesus.

Make no mistake: I want everyone to know and follow Jesus. It is because of that desire that I cringe whenever anyone, particularly a prominent evangelist of the gospel of Jesus says something that stands in the way of the advancement of gospel of Jesus Christ. But the opportunity to tell the truth in love remains.

Tony’s Annual NDOP Rant I

I am a fan of the National Day of Prayer. But the precarious nature of the observance has reached higher heights than it did a year ago, when I expressed my uneasiness about it. This year I opted to offer my National Day of Prayer thoughts after the fact so that I comment on what has happened more than on what people fear might happen.

First of all, President Obama, like all of his presidential predecessors since Harry Truman, once again offered a proclamation of the National Day of Prayer. This year’s proclamation is outstanding in its specificity. Along with his specific prayers he gets specific about his belief in the constitutionality of the act.

Whether it is unConstitutional as a federal court has deemed is beyond my understanding of Constitutional law. The President obviously disagrees with the ruling and will be appealing the decision. What is clear to even my simple mind is that Presidents have issued prayer proclamations since George Washington. And similar proclamations were issued even before we had a Constitution!

No court ruling can take away the people’s right to gather annually (in case they are not praying daily) to pray for their country. No judge can declare a DAY unconstitutional, only certain state observances of a particular day. So the ruling and the ensuing controversy seem mostly silly to me.

And those who try to make this into another manufactured example of President Obama as un-American and unChristian are not paying attention.

And Then It Got Personal

Laura and I had health insurance when I first started supporting health care reform. I had already been laid off from my job of 19 years, but because of my former company's generosity, I still had insurance. I spoke in support of reform measures even though it strained many of my personal relationships and even though the proposed bills were far from ideal. I criticized and supported because I was convinced that something needed to be done soon about the lack of health care options for many and the inadequate, unsustainable options for most Americans.

When my health insurance ran out, my wife and I went without for a while, but we eventually bought temporary insurance while I still had a steady income, again thanks to my former company. Good thing. One day very shortly after we purchased insurance, my wife came home from a cleaning job in extreme pain. I took her to the ER, and we learned that she had blood clots in her lungs brought on by treatments for menopause symptoms. She was in the hospital for five days.

The stay would have been much longer if not for the unrelenting efforts of a hospital community worker who negotiated and manipulated the insurance company and drug company, playing them against each other and finally securing thousands of dollars of treatment that Laura was allowed to receive at home. Had we stayed in the hospital longer, insurance would have cut us off.

That hospital worker's efforts were not lost on us, because in reality, it is the rare patient who gets that kind of treatment. God alone knows why that grace was wasted on us. And we will never forget it. But it is no substitute for comprehensive, reliable, responsible health care. Hope for special attention is not the answer for millions of Americans. I maintain that it should not be the answer for ANY Americans.

In a few weeks Laura felt sharp pain again. She was able to see her doctor who, after some testing, determined that she needed gall bladder surgery. We contacted a surgeon, and as we were awaiting an appointment date, our insurance lapsed. When we can afford it, we can purchase new insurance. But Laura's surgery will not be covered, as it is now a "pre-existing condition."

We've asked our friends and have learned that we do have options: We've been assured by a health care professional that we can

1. Wait for a painful, life-threatening gall bladder attack, then rush Laura to the ER where they MUST treat her (and fight about the payment later)
OR
2. PRETEND that Laura is experiencing a painful, life-threatening gall bladder attack and they MUST treat her (and fight about the payment later)

None of the options available to us offer the peace of mind that we need to care adequately for our health.

One (on again, off again) friend of mine and opponent of the current health care reform measures reminds me that this discussion is truly about health INSURANCE reform. He is right. Unfortunately even for those with insurance the current system steals the peace of mind that a word like "insurance" seems to promise. Premiums continue to go up as benefits go down. This is why I maintain that, while the current House health care bill falls woefully short of what Americans truly need, it deserves support because it  moves us in the right direction. The bill

1. brings down costs for citizens and businesses
2. covers nearly all Americans
3. is deficit-neutral over the long-term
4. bans rejection for pre-existing conditions.

These are the criteria the President set forth at the beginning of this process. Specifically, the current House bill

* expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, guaranteeing that 95% of Americans will be covered.
* makes health insurance affordable for middle class and small businesses -- including the largest middle class tax cuts for health care in history -- reducing premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
* strengthens consumer protections and reins in insurance company abuses.
* gives millions of Americans the same types of private insurance choices that members of Congress will have -- through a new competitive health insurance market that keeps costs down.
* holds insurance companies accountable to keep premiums down and prevent denials of care and coverage, including for pre-existing conditions.
* improves Medicare benefits with lower prescription drug costs for those in the 'donut hole,' better chronic care, free preventive care, and nearly a decade more of solvency for Medicare.
* reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion over next ten years, and by more than one trillion dollars over the following decade; reining waste, fraud and abuse; overpayments to insurance companies and by paying for quality over quantity of care.

What can you do to support this reform? Urge your congressperson's support!

Why We Can’t Wait | The White House

Six Out of 1,914

I recently asked a group of African American educators if they knew a) how many African Americans have served as US Senators. I also asked if they knew b) who was the first African America US Senator. No-one in the group could answer either question. One person accused me of posing a trick question, which is entirely plausible since we don’t always agree on how African a person must be to be considered African American, But I meant it in the commonly accepted definition that has persisted in this nation: if a person has any discernible African blood—either by appearance or admission—they are considered black. The answers are a) six and b) Hiram Rhodes Revels.

Since 1788, 1,914 people have served as US Senators, up to 100 at a time. Thirty-eight of them have been women (There are currently 17 female Senators), five have been Asian, six Latino, three Native American and six have been African American.

Since Carol Moseley Braun is both female and African American, your good math skills will tell you that historically 1,857 US Senators in history have been white males. For the record that is 97% of all of our Senators, even though white males make up only 37% of the US population.

There are lots of ways to go with this discussion. But in honor of African American History Month I just wanted to introduce you to our six African American Senators. The first two served under Reconstruction in the 1870s, when African Americans had first been given the right to vote. By the mid 1870s local and state Jim Crow laws had begun to make it difficult for African Americans to exercise the vote that the federal government guaranteed. Eighty-five years passed before a third African American was elected to the US Senate.

Hiram Rhodes Revels
(1870-1871) Republican from Mississippi

A freedman his entire life, preacher and educator Hiram Revels became the first African American elected to the US Senate. When Mississippi seceded from the Union at the start of the Civil War, Mississippi’s Senators Jefferson Davis and Albert Brown resigned. At the end of the war their seats were left empty. Under the influences of Union Reconstructionists, the Mississippi legislature decided to fill those seats with one white and one black Senator. In 1870, after the 15^th Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote. Mr. Revels was elected by the Mississippi legislature to serve in the US Senate.

Blance Kelso Bruce

(1875-1881) Republican from Mississippi

The second African American to serve in the US Senate, was the first African American to serve a full term. He was also the only ex-slave to serve in that capacity. Like Hiram Revels before him, he was elected to the Senate by the Mississippi legislature during Reconstruction.

Edward William Brooke III

(1967–1979) Republican from Massachusetts

Edward W. Brooke’s election to the US Senate in 1966 ended an 85-year absence of African American Senators. Brooke was the first popularly elected African American Senator, the first African American Senator outside of Mississippi, and first black politician from Massachusetts to serve in Congress. He is the only African American to serve more than one term in the US Senate.

Carol Elizabeth Moseley Braun

(1993–1999) Democrat from Illinois

The first and only African American woman to serve as US Senator, Carol Moseley-Braun was also only the second black Senator since the Reconstruction Era. She was the first Democratic African American Senator and the first of three black Senators from the state of Illinois.

Barack Hussein Obama

(2005–2008) Democrat from Illinois

Barack Obama won a landslide victory, defeating Republican African American Alan Keyes to become a US Senator from Illinois. He became the fifth African American in congressional history to serve in the US Senate, the second from the state of Illinois. On November 4, 2008, he was elected the 44th President of the United States, winning with 53 percent of the vote. As President-Elect, Obama resigned from the Senate on November 16, 2008.

Roland Wallace Burris
(2009-Present) Democrat from Illinois

 Roland Burris is the only African American Senator to be appointed rather than elected either by his state legislature or by the people of his state. The third Senator from Illinois, Burris was appointed December 31, 2008, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Barack Obama. He is currently the only African American in the 100-member US Senate.

Just One Punahou Carnival Pic

 One Punahou Carnival pic from 1976 classmate Steve Case.

Not Backing Down, But Sad about the Friends

It seems I'm dropping friends like flies, but perhaps it's worth it. If I lose friends for trying to determine what we as a nation should do and what we Christians should do to care for the health of our fellow citizens, then I'll stay on my bandwagon and lose the friends.

This is not like choosing your favorite football team or political party. It's not even about deciding who you think would be the best President of the US. And it's certainly not about trying to win an argument. This is about people's health, livelihood, welfare, and their lives. It matters to me as a US citizen and as a Christian.

BTW, if you support government involvement in health care, but honestly disagree with the particular plans that have been publicized, then my questions are not about you, and you don't need to waste your time defending your stance to me. I don't ask these questions to backhandedly support any particular plan. I've spoken clearly about what I think is the best plan. That's not the question I'm asking.

My questions remain (but with some new wordings):

What is the Christian motivation for opposing government involvement in filling our massive current health care gaps? Since the gaps persist, what should be done to fill them?

If it is exclusively Christians' responsibility, how do we justify the continuing foreclosures, bankruptcies, and deaths while we wait for Christians to fill the gap?

If it is not exclusively Christians' responsibility (as I believe), who are the legitimate entities who should fill the gap and why is government not one of them?

Is there any legitimate role for our elected officials in health care while they wait for those legitimate entities to fill the gap?

As an explanation, I'll take scripture, Christian tradition, or anything else reasonably Christian. Help me out, folks.

Against President Obama

My friend Tim asked me weeks (maybe months) ago to write something critical of President Obama. Now that the President has officially endorsed the House healthcare bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I have my chance.

First, to set the stage, Tim said that if I could describe where I differed with the President, it would help those who are not Obama-lovers to trust the judgment of those who are. He said that one thing that keeps them skeptical is the appearance that Obama supporters have no sense of discernment—that they seem to worship the man.

I’m not sure that Tim is right that many Obama-detractors would change their minds, regardless of anything (although I trust that Tim means well). Even if President Obama DID walk on water, many of those detractors would not become believers in his abilities, his character, or his legitimacy, let alone his policies. But then there are people like Tim, who at least want to be fair.

I have a hard time being fair because of my prior relationship with the President. My knowledge of him colors (and should color) my view of him today. But I am also critical by nature, and I was arguing with Mr. Obama long before we knew that one of us would be on the national stage. So in remembrance of those days and in response to Tim, here is an opening shot at criticism towards the President.

While I fully support the President’s criteria for health care reform, I do not agree that HR 3962, which he endorses, is the best bill to meet the real health care needs of all Americans. The bill will likely meet the minimal standards the President has demanded of anything he would sign:

1. bring down costs for citizens and businesses

2. cover nearly all Americans

3. deficit-neutral over the long-term

4. ban rejection for pre-existing conditions.

It matters to me that the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the National Farmers Union, and the Consumers Union all endorse the bill. This plan is better than no plan and is certainly better than that farce of a plan, the ‘‘Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act,’’ the GOP has finally come up with.

But HR 3962 still gives profit-motivated, deny-first, hope-not-to–pay-later insurance companies too much power (No, I am not opposed to putting them out of business). It leaves too many people struggling to pay medical bills whether or not they have insurance (been there, currently doing that).  

Of real concern is that HR 3962 keeps Americans looking like and acting like ethical neophytes when we are supposed to be the greatest, most moral, most “Christian” country in the world. It is not reflective of the spirit of America where “we the people” came together “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” (that's the Constitution, folks). Coming together for the health of one another is a measure of our American character.

HR 3962 begins to reflect that character, but it doesn't go far enough. So I disagree with the President’s endorsement. It is not the best plan for the American people. To find out what is, go here.

Then urge your Representatives to support HR 3962--It is better than the status quo. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. HR 3962 is better than nothing.

Of Gnats, Camels, and Health Care Reform

I think I understand why political conservatives are antsy about health care reform. I understand their fears that this is socialized medicine, that it is federal encroachment into their lives, that it means that the government is taking their hard earned money to support an unproved program in order to protect the health of those who have failed to get reliable affordable health care. They fear that government involvement will only disturb the delicate balance of care and cost that only the free market should be allowed to mess with (and mess with they have). I disagree that their fears are fairly reflected in what is being proposed, but I understand the fears.

I agree that when liberals say health care is a right and not a privilege, that they can't back it up Constitutionally, just as conservatives can't back up the "right to life" (by which they mean, of course, the "right to be born," not the "right to keep living healthily" or the "right to abundant life"). But Constitutional silence should not dismiss decent human compassion and practice.

I have no desire to defend any specific health care bill or its particulars. The President has laid out reasonable principles regarding reform: That the reforms should bring down costs, increase access, promote choice, and be deficit-neutral. I also believe that a plan that gets more people protected will reduce the amount of money hard-working people are paying for the care of those lazy or stupid other people.

I think I understand the politically conservative view. What I don't understand is why Christian organizations are opposing health care reform. I don't understand why, according to the Washington Post, conservative Christians are increasing their support of Christian organizations in order to oppose health care reform. I don't understand what is Christian about opposing health care reform. Where in the Christian Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not provide health care? What in Christian history is a precedent for opposing the assurance that all people can get affordable care when they need it?

I know that some Christians talk about the idea that "the church" should be caring for people, not the government. They are half-right. It is our Christian duty to care for those in need. And if Christian individuals, congregations, and organizations were doing so, we would have no need for any other health care. But in the absence of such Christian action, when the vacuum of need is sucking the health and meager wealth of some (and the general wealth of us all), the least Christians could do is support any other entity that is doing their duty for them. And further, I see nothing in Scripture or in Christian tradition that prohibits Christians from doing their duty THROUGH another entity, such as government.

And then there's abortion: our postmodern example of straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Don't get me wrong I am pro-life. But if done right, health care reform is all about being pro-life, even though it does not prioritize unborn lives over already-born lives. And the President insists that the health care reform he supports does not allow money for abortion. I am in favor of language that would give such assurances.

But suppose those measures are not passed. Will conservative Christians oppose any health care reform that would save us all money, stop the bleeding of the economy, cover (nearly) every American, give citizens greater control over their own health care decisions, and save countless lives--just because the abortion measure doesn't have their preferred language? Are unborn lives the only ones that matter?

If already-born lives matter as much as unborn lives (and according to the Bible, I think they do), just what is the Christian justification for opposing health care reform?