Category Archives: Journal

The Only Story Already Written

The summer I turned nineteen, between my freshman and sophomore years in college, I landed a temporary job as what used to be called a cub reporter. The job was on my hometown newspaper.

The news people who hired me, I now believe, did so out of the goodness of their cynical hearts. They wanted to help a young person stupid enough to plan a journalism career. They, in their crusty way, wanted to pass along what they knew, give me a chance.

I did manage to advance, in my second summer, from writing obituaries to actually covering a minor religious convention and writing other human interest stories.

I also learned, after a public upbraiding by the editor, to check and recheck my reporting for any mistakes in spelling, wrong word usage, or other errors before I turned it in. (We had no computer programs then for checking such things.)

One lesson, however, was especially valuable for a young person, who thinks, like most young people, that they are going to live forever.

In the basement of the newspaper building was the “morgue.” Filed away in endless cabinets were the stories already written. They waited for unearthing when the inevitable happened—the death of a famous person

Thus, when a politician or a business magnate passed on, all the reporter had to do was write a few lead paragraphs dealing with the cause of death and immediate circumstances.

Every time the person did something great or degrading, the happening would be added to their file, but eventually the file ended.

Every person has an ending. Each of us writes chapters, perhaps for a long time, but the story always has an ending.

Try writing your own obituary. Anything you would like to change in your life before somebody else takes on the responsibility?

Leadership: The Battle for Middle-earth

One section of Fleming Rutledge’s book The Battle for Middle-earth is called “The Treason of Isengard.”

The leader of the kingdom of Rohan, Théodan, has allowed a disreputable person to control his kingdom. “This clever but craven personage . . . is a classic example of the person who holds an entire human unit captive to unreality by calling black white, truth lies, and wisdom foolishness.”

Rutledge comments on what leadership is about: It has to do “with defining reality,” she says.

It is interesting to examine how some leaders in today’s world define reality. Rutledge’s book was published in 2004. Yet, eerily, she says, “If the person who is allowed to define reality falsely retains the premier position in the group, the potential for corporate evil is unbounded.”

We now are learning what happens when facts are defined as “fake” merely because they are unfavorable.

A Battle for Our Time

The Battle for Middle-earth, by Fleming Rutledge, was published in 2004. By that time, three years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States had entered two wars. It was evident that the world would never return to the more certain times of pre 9/11.

Rutledge’s book is a commentary on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. She writes: “I believe . . . that this is a tale for our time. Since the seemingly clear-cut triumphs of World War II, the Shadow has been growing, and it is not so easy to tell who is enemy; there are ‘twilights of doubt as to sides.’”

Tolkien lived and wrote with great wars all around him. He had fought in the Battle of the Somme in World War I. He wrote during World War II as his country, Britain, fought for its life. He lived to see its aftermath, the Cold War, and the possibilities for earth’s annihilation by nuclear war. No wonder his writings awe us with a sense of powerful evil, almost certain to win, unless a few lesser folks sacrifice all they have in a desperate attempt to overcome.

His novels spotlight a few small people who seek to do good even when they know the odds are against them.

Madeleine L’Engle: Christian Faith and Writing

As I read Sarah Arthur’s A Light So Lovely; The Spiritual Legacy of Madeleine L’Engle, I sympathized with L’Engle’s struggle to write as both a Christian and a winner of secular literary awards.

Some doubt whether A Wrinkle in Time, L’Engle’s 1963 Newberry Award winner, could win such an award today, with its Christian nudged themes.

According to Arthur’s book, L’Engle enjoyed speaking at the Christian evangelical college, Wheaton, because in that space, she was “able to be openly a Christian among Christians.”

In fiction writing today, it’s hard to straddle the line between writing by those who consider themselves Christians and the bifurcated world we live in. C.S. Lewis and L’Engle did. A few others, like Frederick Buechner and Marilynne Robinson, have managed it. So did Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy.

In writing conferences today for writers who consider themselves “Christian” writers, two designations are often used to denote the kinds of novels many writers at those conferences try to pitch. The two are “inspirational” and “Christian.” Would L’Engle be able to successfully pitch her work at one of these conferences today?

I think much of the blame for this unneeded separation between religious and secular writing may fall to Christians who think every “Christian” novel should be an evangelical tract.

Thoughts on The Great Spiritual Migration by Brian McLaren

The subtitle on Bruce McLaren’s book is: “How the world’s largest religion is seeking a better way to be Christian.”

The reflections here are taken from my review of McLaren’s book on Goodreads.

Brian McLaren joins others with evangelical Christian backgrounds (i.e., Jim Wallis, David Gushee) who remain in the Christian faith but have moved into what some are calling a “progressive” Christian movement.

In McLaren’s case, he calls for Christians to focus on living out Jesus’ love rather than emphasis on correct beliefs. He states: “What I care about is whether they are teaching people to live a life of love, from the heart, for God, for all people (no exceptions), and for all creation.”

However, it is not, he says about “pledging mushy allegiance to an undefined spirituality without religion.”

He sees Christians continuing on a trajectory they have always followed: Many Christians used to defend slavery; now they do not. Some used to believe the conquest of “pagan” lands and forced conversion of natives was God’s will. Few champion that path now.

McLaren strikes a middle path. Conservative Christians have rightly championed family relationships but also supported patriarchal domination. Liberal Christians have disowned patriarchy but failed to teach family skills.

He calls for Christians to migrate to a higher level once again.

I found particularly helpful McLaren’s illustrations of what it means to go beyond conservative and liberal. He calls for movements within our institutions rather than new institutions.

McLaren’s emphasis on migration and growth rather than division is welcome, not only for the new ideas sparked by his book but also for the book’s practicality.

A Different Kind of Struggle

An article in Writer’s Digest suggests that Americans now question long held beliefs: “American verities (e.g., equal opportunity, fairness, decency) have worn thin, revealing the naked aggression, vanity and greed underneath.” (David Corbett, “No More Mr. Nice Guy, September 2018)

Thus, we have novels with no heroes or heroines, like the characters in Gone Girl, or the unreliable narrator, behaving in disgusting ways, as in The Woman on the Train.

Then, in a surprisingly delightful book, A Man Called Ove, we are driven to sympathize with a man who, at first, is presented as someone obsessed with order, who doesn’t like animals or children. He even resents being asked to help a neighbor struggling to care for a husband suffering dementia. Then we are shown his prior griefs, and we sympathize.

Writers today do use more offensive characters. Yet, Corbett advises writers: “When using struggle and desire to create empathy for an otherwise offensive character, don’t neglect to explore just what risks the character faces.”

In other words, we can sympathize with someone pretty badly messed up if we understand their struggles.

For those of us who believe that evil can and should be redeemed, such characters can give us hope in a world turned overnight into Dante’s inferno.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, as he struggled to overcome the evil of apartheid in South Africa, “I am a prisoner of hope.”

Novels like Cry the Beloved Country by Alan Patton, with its imperfect characters, perhaps helped move the country out of apartheid.

For Americans, divided and anger-stricken, fiction and non-fiction can mirror the dysfunction while at least hinting that we still have choices.

Compassion in a Time of War

On Good Friday, in preparation for Easter, a few Christians in the Middle Eastern country of Syria meditated and prayed. They gathered within the walls of an ancient monastery, Deir Mar Musa. During years of conflict and suffering, this monastery has endured, a witness for peace in a war ravaged country.

Suddenly a Muslim young man entered into a quiet corner of the monastery. He also was a searcher for a place to pray. He spread his prayer rug, then began his prayers. A photographer, Cécile Massie, there to observe the monastic community in Good Friday meditations, snapped the picture of the Christians and the young man in their prayers (Stephanie Saldaña, “All Sorts of Little Things: On Compassion in a Time of War,” Plough Quarterly, Summer, 2018).

Writes Saldaña: “Together and separately the Muslim and Christian faithful turn toward God. This shared prayer—and with it a hope—enters into our suffering and becomes known.”

In the midst of unprecedented numbers of refugees and victims of hatred and war, she identifies the meaning of compassion as “to suffer with.” She means to suffer with all, not just those of our religious persuasion.

Why Prayer?

Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote a thoughtful piece recently: “No need for condescension in matters of faith” (The Seattle Times, July 26, 2018).

He mentions a woman who escaped from a deranged gunman in a retail store. She requested prayer.

Pitts criticized another woman’s twitter feed disparaging this call for prayer. One of her tweets said, “It gives people’s egos a huge boost to believe they have the power to influence ‘Almighty god’ . . .”

In contrast, Pitts quoted a preacher: “ . . . prayer is not just a plea to get out of those trials. It’s also a way of getting through.”

Indeed, prayer is not a way of getting God to do what we want. It’s a way of grabbing God’s grace to get us through hard times and live courageously.

The question has been asked: Whose side is God on when competing groups request God’s help in overcoming the other?

The perspective of the question is in error. It’s not: Whose side is God on?

The right question is: Who’s on God’s side?

The purpose of prayer isn’t to get God to do our will. It’s to help us find our way to do his.

Working Smarter

The industrial revolution freed us from backbreaking physical labor. Now the tech revolution is freeing us from repetitive mind labor.

Eventually, after we recognized and lessened the harms of the industrial revolution (child labor, practices injurious to workers, income inequality, etc.), our lives improved. More goods produced in less time translated to better salaries for shorter working hours. More young people finished high school. Many went on to higher education,

Problems of today’s tech revolution mirror those of the industrial revolution. Good jobs are disappearing. Income inequality is rising. Many of our schools are underfunded, unable to prepare students for the newer world.

Yet the benefits of the tech revolution could lead to improved lives like the industrial revolution eventually did, if we use the lessons learned from the older revolution.

The industrial revolution led us, eventually, to old age pensions and medicare and unemployment insurance. Those programs are some of the reasons the recession beginning in 2007, damaging as it was, did not turn into another Great Depression.

Extreme poverty alongside great wealth was a hallmark of the industrial revolution until the Great Depression of the 1930’s finally shocked us into changes. World War II, bringing together the different classes to defeat a recognized threat to our country, also helped.

Our economy took off after World War II. Much of it was the result, finally, of ordinary citizens sharing in the wealth resulting from the industrial revolution.

The tech revolution could lead to similar changes: Shorter work weeks. More time to care for family and friends and communities. More training for the next new job. A health system that serves all. Opportunity to think and pray and read poetry.

And more time to learn about the other cultures and ideas thrust on us by our digital connections. Indeed, the tech revolution could open up an era of constant learning, if we overcome our addiction to its toys.

As in the past, a more equal tax system can provide money to pay for these changes. Our wealthier citizens who have so benefitted by our new revolution could pay it forward.

Is My Child Exempt?

Mavis Bliss wrote an article (“Moral Free-Riders” in Sojourners, May 2015) about the temptation to make exceptions for ourselves from moral choices.

What if you fear dangers from the vaccination of your children against childhood diseases and decide not to do it? When too many people decide not to vaccinate their children, the “herd” immunity given to society from a high vaccination rate lowers.

“In a public without herd immunity, the risks posed by disease far exceed the small risks associated with vaccination. In other words, free-riding does not work when everyone is doing it. Herd immunity does not require universal vaccination, but it does require vaccination of a sufficient majority.”

Bliss suggests that the following people should be exempt from vaccination: babies too young to be vaccinated and those with low or compromised immune systems, such as some elderly and cancer patients.

Deciding not to vaccinate a healthy child, Bliss says is a morally risky choice, imperiling the children of one’s neighbors.

Loving my neighbor as myself implies loving my neighbor’s child as I love my own. We seek what is best for us all, not just my child, my family, my community, my nation.

Fighting Technology with a Stay in the Desert

Catherine Woodiwiss says she went to the desert “to remember that I still have a body.” On her retreat, she pitched her camp “in one of the last places on Earth where wireless data won’t reach.” (Sojourners, “Bodily Prayer,” June 2018)

Woodiwiss uses sleeping outside, listening to rivers, and hiking to turn off tech.

She compares today’s capture by technology with the ancient Gnostics’ rejection of the body. Gnostics worshiped the mind, believing the body to be evil. “Today, this elevation of the mind has returned, in the philosophy of our most popular technologies.”

The wired world was supposed to form communities of sharing. To some degree, it has done that. However, our obsession with it has also threatened our more basic communities of family, neighborhood, and face-to-face sharing.

Going to the desert isn’t the only way to put technology in its place, of course. You can limit the amount of time you spend with it—controlling it instead of it controlling you.

From time to time, you can turn it off, sit down, and lose yourself in the silence. That works, too.

Choices in Hopeless Times

“. . . even the helpless victim of a hopeless situation, facing a fate he cannot change, may rise above himself, may grow beyond himself, and by so doing change himself.” (Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.)

Victor Frankl spoke from heartbreaking experience. A Nazi concentration camp survivor, he used hopeless times to fashion a philosophy to heal the desperate.

Commenting on Frankl’s philosophy, Jason Landsel said, “. . . Frankl affirmed that people are spiritual beings with free will . . . They are thus responsible for shaping their lives by choosing and working toward meaningful goals.” (“Victor Frankl,” Plough, Winter 2018)

We may despair over choices taken by our country and the world. We rightly grieve over horrible wrongs and engage in efforts to change them.

Even so, the times may not favor us. But in another, far greater time of despair, Frankl spoke from lessons learned within the hopelessness of concentration camp inmates: “We had to teach the despairing men that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.”

Instantly Available (What if Jesus Had a Smart Phone?)

Those we admire for spiritual teaching weren’t always instantly available. In the Christian scriptures, for example, Jesus often went off by himself to pray.

On at least one occasion, his disciples had a hard time finding him. At other times, Jesus sent the disciples away so he could be alone.

Contrast these examples with our own practice of being instantly available.

Perhaps it began with the telegraph, sending news or requests for action over wires. Overnight, the recently established Pony Express disappeared, obsolete in the face of this new communication network.

We graduated to the telephone, perhaps at first found only in the nearest general store. Then we decided each office and home needed one.

A few years ago, we discovered electronic mail, leading to the ubiquitous email. Finally, at this writing, we have graduated to portable availability with our smart phones.

We are available for personal messages but also for our boss when we are on vacation. And even perfect strangers assault our privacy with robocalls and spam.

Perhaps I run the risk of missing something important by never looking at email or messages until the middle of the day. Obviously, if I’m awaiting certain messages, perhaps from family, I make exceptions and am grateful for the devices that allow this. And, of course, some people’s work does require them to be instantly available, at least for certain periods.

Most days, however, I figure if even Jesus needed to limit his availability, how much more do I.

If Jesus had owned a smart phone, I bet he would have turned it off a lot. I can’t picture him interrupting the Sermon on the Mount or his acts of compassion to the sick and dying to answer the phone.

A Tale of Two Americans: John McCain and Donald Trump

In a forthcoming book, The Restless Wave, Arizona Senator John McCain is quoted as talking of a contest “between the high moral and the gutter.”

These and other ideas are discussed by Frank Bruni in “John McCain Battles Donald Trump with His Dying Breath.” (New York Times, May 5, 2018).

Says Bruni, “McCain’s final battle came straight to him. . . . not the one against brain cancer . . . the one against Donald Trump.”

McCain, Bruni writes, believes in “sacrifice, honor, and allegiance to something larger than oneself. Trump believes in Trump, and whatever wreckage he causes in deference to that god is of no concern.”

McCain, a Navy pilot, suffered torture after being captured by communist forces in Vietnam. Trump derides McCain for being captured. This absurdity comes from one who avoided any military service because of a “bone spur.”

When McCain and Barrack Obama ran against each other for president in 2008, McCain rejected the racial slurs against Obama. Trump participated in those slurs.

It’s hard to find a clearer example of patriotism versus selfish egotism.

Getting Away Freedom

One of the things I liked about my former job with the U.S. State Department were the trips to and from my assignments in other countries. I would hop on a plane and spend a couple of days away from daily duties.

True, I didn’t enjoy cramped airplane seating, squeezed next to strangers, but I usually lost myself in a book, avoiding chit chat with seat mates. I caught up with books and ideas and enjoyed the random discoveries. In the airports, often in foreign countries, I relaxed in my anonymity, letting my thoughts roam where they would.

I know hotel rooms can be lonely, and I certainly wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in hotel living. Nevertheless, when your work is extremely busy, as mine was overseas, the hotel evening provided an escape from the constant demands of the job, the twenty-four hour availability. I rested and took time to journal.

Today, my husband and I continue to “get away” occasionally. We spend a few days in a hideaway where we hike, read, write, and relax. We leave meetings and routine chores behind.

Getting away is a privilege not open to all. We are exceedingly thankful for the home we can return to. We love our everyday lives, the friends with whom we share, and the relaxed atmosphere of our small town, but as introverts we have always craved getting away times.

I’m also aware of uncounted numbers of refugees for whom travel is a nightmare. Would that all had a home to return to after “getting away.”

Wealth and Jubilee

Wealth in itself seems not to be a sin according to Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Indeed, Abraham and the other patriarchs owned large herds of animals, the wealth of that time, as well as land.

However, those scriptures forbade placing wealth ahead of others’ basic needs. In addition, long term accumulation of wealth was challenged.

Landowners in the Hebrew scriptures were told to avoid reaping to the very borders of their fields during harvest. They were to leave generous portions for the poor to reap for themselves. They were to forgo that extra wealth for the benefit of the less fortunate.

Every fifty years, the Hebrew scriptures called for a Year of Jubilee. Large landowners were to give back land purchased by them that wasn’t part of their original inheritance. They had use of all the land they could buy for up to half a century, but eventually all means to wealth was to be returned to original owners.

Though Jesus indicated the difficulty a rich person experiences in entering the kingdom of heaven (as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle), he also followed this observation by saying nothing is impossible for God. Others of his parables condemned the rich, not for their riches, but for centering their lives on wealth and for ignoring the needs of the poor around them.

What are modern equivalents of not reaping to the very borders and of returning land every so often to original owners?

A just society meets the needs of all citizens for basic food, shelter, and medical care.

For a Jubilee equivalent, consider taxing wealth as well as income (wages). The amounts collected might not only support basic needs of the less-well off, but also provide for job training and education, benefitting all of society—including, of course, the wealthy.

How Do I Fit My Faith Within My Nation?

The separation of religion and state, a bedrock of the U.S. Constitution, dawned in Europe after the devastating religious wars of the early modern age. This separation evolved as new nation-states tried to solve the problem of how to tie together differing faith communities.

Nations with Islamic majorities had their share of religious wars as well. Shadi Hamid (“Post-Liberalism, East and West,” Foreign Affairs; 11 April 2018) writes: “Islam, in its original form, assumed that one’s primary allegiance was to a religious community rather than a nation.” This might also be said of Europeans in times past.

Europe moved toward state churches but with toleration of dissenters. Later, the newly formed United States moved to disestablish religion from government altogether.

Well-established nation-states progressed in many areas: rule of law; public health advances; public education; transportation infrastructures; and hosts of others.

However, even within the centuries old American model of separation of church and state, conflicts have arisen between religious communities and government. Example: Should parents who believe blood transfusions are wrong be required to let their dying child be treated with them?

Protestors against the Vietnamese conflict included religious leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Joshua Heschel. A continuing protest against excessive militarism involves present day religious leaders.

The growth of secularism in both Western and Middle Eastern societies has led to new conflicts between communities within nation states. New areas include abortion and gender issues.

These inevitable differences can be eased if those in conflict pledge civility and respect for those who differ from them. They agree that protests must be non-violent.

They recognize that no perfect society is possible. They accept tension as inevitable.

Searching for the Link Between Racism and White Poverty

Gray Dorrien teaches at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, but he grew up as a lower-class white youth in Michigan.

In his article about Martin Luther King Jr (“Redeeming the Soul of America,” Plough, Spring, 2018), Dorrien discusses King’s sometimes forgotten struggles against both militarism and capitalist excess. King opposed the Vietnam conflict. In addition, he called for a halt to extreme economic inequality.

Some of King’s mentors in his seminary studies believed “black Americans would never be free as long as large numbers of whites were oppressed by poverty.”

Donald Trump’s candidacy for president, Dorrien believes, “would not have been so successful among working-class whites had Democrats been known for caring about their plight. . . . Poor and working-class white Americans believe by overwhelming margins that the federal government is their adversary.”

The growing income gap between working class and the wealthy will haunt race relations unless addressed. Trump’s election was a wake-up call.

Showing Up on Easter

Jesus is crucified, his body taken away.

The religious rulers are satisfied. They’ve won. They’ve handled this challenge to their authority by hinting to the Romans that they could have an insurrection on their hands if they didn’t take care of this peasant leader. Their plan worked well, with the Romans handling matters in their usual efficient way.

The Romans are satisfied, too, with the possible exception of their man, Pilate, who expressed misgivings. He went along, however, understanding that it was in his interest not to upset the ones on whom his job depends, so no problem.

The disciples, all men, have fled, taking refuge in some out-of-the-way bolt hole.

Only a few women stay with Jesus, and they follow to see where his body is taken. They spend the next day, the day of rest, preparing for his burial. He must be taken care of, even if all they can do is carry out a proper burial. They’re only women, and no one pays them much attention.

So they come to the tomb on Sunday morning. They find it empty. They are the first to know and the first to tell. What no one else did, they did. They came. They showed up.

Not Welfare Housing but Worker-Owned Homes?

In this computerized age, labor has become more of an inanimate cost, like computers or office supplies. A business can determine its “core competency”—the main purpose for which it exists—and hire only those full time employees useful for developing that strength.

All other needs, like janitorial services, are contracted out. Unlike the full-time employees, contracted laborers are less likely to have health insurance or vacation time or even regular hours. This new efficiency has resulted in wealth creation for a few but wage loss for many others.

If this model continues, the two-tiered “have and have not” divisions promises to grow.

We could opt for a fairer system in several ways.

One, of course, is raising the minimum wage. Some say raising the minimum wage causes employers to hire fewer workers. Regardless, raising wages isn’t the only option. We could begin by asking what the wages are supposed to pay for.

Housing is a major expense for lower wage workers. A huge chunk of their salaries is spent on housing. We could consider a tax on wealth for a specific function: subsidized housing for the workers who contribute to that wealth.

In the past, public housing was built for “the poor.” The perception that it was for those who didn’t work, true or not, tarnished the image of subsidized housing.

A different kind of housing near job centers could be built or bought for workers to buy back at rates they could afford. Not rent—the workers have salaries, but house prices need to fit their wages.

The idea is to give workers decent housing and allow them to build up investment through ownership like workers did after World War II. The housing would be subsidized, but some of the costs would be recouped as workers bought the housing.

Some special regulations would need to be written into the deeds. Owners might be limited to modest increases in the amount for which they could sell their homes. Thus, this housing would continue to available at prices the working poor could afford.

If our job structure is changing toward high salaries for a few and inadequate salaries for many, we need to insure that even lower wage workers can meet basic needs. They then would have a stake in the system that so rewards the wealthy.