Tag Archives: Ann Gaylia O’Barr

Stubborn Religion

Trends and movements come and go. Within nations and kingdoms as within literature and child rearing, various leaders and thinkers shape different eras.

Yet, religious institutions remain. They wax and wane, seem to disappear for while but then return, more influential than ever.

The Renaissance swept away medieval life, making irrelevant for Europeans much of the daily concern with religion. Yet it was followed by the Reformation, imperfect and harmful in some of its birth pangs, yet refocusing ordinary people on the spiritual journey.

Then the enlightenment flourished, opening up inquiry and scientific exploration. It broke up much of the average person’s literal interpretation of Christian scriptures. It was followed, however, by Christian renewal, in which the Christian message was carried to every non-European corner of the earth.

World wide bloodletting, begun by so-called Christian nations, led to a turning away from organized religion. Now it seems moribund in many developed nations, but it flames anew in non-European settings.

Sojourners published several “Letters to the American church from Christians around the World.” (August 2019) Wrote Ismael Moreno, a Jesuit social activist in Honduras:

“We have faith that we will begin to see small lights shining all over the United States. They will be lights lit from the margins to confront the powerful, and they will illuminate the community that believes and hopes. Not the lights of shopping centers or merchants, but the lights of communities that embrace one another in tenderness.”

Christian Nationalism?

“To be a Christian (aka a Christ follower) means following a leader who never led an army, who never used a weapon, who opened the table to outsiders, and who told us to welcome the stranger (as a way of welcoming Jesus).” (Carlos A. Rodriguez, “It’s Time to Choose,” Sojo.net, Sept/Oct 2024.)

I grew up during the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union threatened to take over Europe. At the time, it was easy to identify Christ with those countries allied against Stalin and other Soviet leaders. I read of children my age in Berlin who waited for American and allied nations to drop supplies and overcome the Soviet blockade of parts of Berlin. They  depended on the airlifts to survive.

With these examples, we easily identified the Soviets with enemies of Christ. Surely Jesus would not want little children to starve.

However, any human grouping, even a Christian one, is subject to the temptation of worshiping the group instead of Christ. Those early Christians, persecuted and often despised, persevered by loving even their enemies. Yet, as their bravery and kindness won that battle, some later fell victim to the temptation to serve earthly kingdoms instead of Christ.

The temptation is with us today, when we make the United States our focus instead of Christ. As Christians, we are surely required take advantage of our citizenship. However, if we identify country with God, we commit a form of idolatry.

Rather, we perform better citizenship if we join to create a government that takes care of widows and orphans and strangers. Just as many of our ancestors came to this country to seek a better way of life, we also will seek just, open, and orderly ways to help those today who wish to come to this country. In the long run, they will bless us. We should know, having been blessed ourselves by our immigrant ancestors.

Print versus Digital

A long time ago, my home town of Nashville, Tennessee, had two print newspapers. The editorial boards were usually on opposite sides of issues—local, national, international. One paper generally favored the Democrats while the other cheered for the Republicans.

Today, Nashvillians are fortunate to still have one print newspaper, though you can read it digitally as well. Of course, a great many people don’t read any newspaper. Their news comes from the internet.

That practice gives freedom to anyone to express political and other opinions. No editorial board or owners oversee what goes into public space.

Of course, one is free to lie, if they wish. “Fact checkers” can’t possibly keep up with all of us spouting opinions, as, indeed, I am doing here.

Giving anyone with a computer access to public space is both freeing and dangerous. All sides of any issue can be debated. Unknowns as well as the powerful can join in.

Newspapers printing lies can be sued and, if found guilty of falsehood, may be required to compensate the one they maligned. While one can still sue someone who spreads falsehoods about them on the internet, individuals tend to lack resources to do so.

Centuries ago, the invention of moveable type gave rise to an explosion of new ideas and eventually to more political freedom for ordinary individuals. Unfortunately, the journey to this freedom included wars and terrible suffering for some.

Today’s internet may be yesterday’s moveable type. Let us hope we respect its power and learn to use it wisely. In fact, returning to that print newspaper (via internet or delivered to our homes as a paper copy) for our first look at the news may be wise: it takes more time but tends to call for deeper reflection.

Digital versus Personal

The Covid virus hit about the same time new computer technology increased our ability to connect digitally to other people from our homes. Ever since then, society has struggled to return to personal communities, including back into our offices but also into our religious and social groups.

Our family structures have been challenged for decades. The computer revolution further challenged other personal interaction. It’s tempting to burrow down further and further into our personal nests.

What are we called to do to grow community? Perhaps the old adage about simply showing up applies. Start attending religious and community meetings again. Go play pickle ball or restart that book group. Knitting? Crossword puzzle groups? Support groups for those attempting to overcome addictions?

Pick your own, but come out of the burrows and into community again.

When Your Political Candidate Loses

Democracy is, as Winston Churchill reportedly said, the worst form of government except for any other.

Those burdened by living in a dictatorship or in a country ruled by a few elites may envy those able to vote relatively freely for their leaders in countries known as democracies. However, as we found out on January 2021, that quaint burden left to the United States by the early patriots and known as the electoral college has risen to haunt us.

The United States is known as one of the youngest countries in the world but one of the oldest democracies. We hear it so often that we need reminding that we don’t really have a pure democracy. In our presidential elections. we vote for electors who are, according to our constitution, supposed to meet in early January following the popular election to cast the ballots that actually elect the president.

It seems that the country’s early founders didn’t actually believe in ALL the people electing their leaders. Instead, they developed a system in which a small group of supposedly wise men (at the time only white men and more often the wealthier ones) would gather in early January and elect the president.

For most of our history, the electoral college became merely a group of unknowns who simply rubber stamped the November popular election.

Alas, we paid for the lack of clarification when Donald Trump’s followers attempted to use that little known practice to take over the government on the day the electors were supposed to meet, when they would overcome any opposition in order to declare Trump as the elected president.

The electoral college still remains, of course. The U.S. Constitution could be changed to reflect our more democratic ideas, but changing the Constitution is a massive undertaking.

At least we know now that we must safeguard our elections from any kind of mob influence, as well as guard the vote counting from outside manipulators.

We can give thanks that those who wished to overturn the 2020 election were defeated. We are rightfully warned, however, to safeguard the voting process in our coming elections.

My Tourism Experiences in Saudi Arabia

The New York Times, Wed, June 5, 2024: “Surprising, Unsettling, Surreal: Roaming Through Saudi Arabia,” by Stephen Hiltner.

In this article for The New York Times, Hiltner recounted his recent travel in Saudi Arabia, alone and without a driver. His journey appeared fascinating, beginning with the historic district in Jeddah. One of the first sites after Jeddah was the UNESCO World Heritage site in Hegra, with its rock-built structures.

Another stop was the Sharaan Nature Reserve, where the author slipped though a narrow canyon into a vast open plain surrounded by cliffs.

The author’s journey reminded me of my own tourist activities when I worked for the State Department in the U.S. Consulate at Jeddah. The atmosphere surrounding us then was quite different from Hiltner’s.

I remember eating in a Jeddah restaurant with fellow women friends, safely away in the “family” section. Afterward, we took refuge in a rug shop to await the end of prayer call, which was strictly observed.

Tourism, then, was not encouraged as it appears to be today. On one day’s outing, exploring the countryside with a group of friends, we of course steered clear of the forbidden city of Mecca, stopping to have our photos taken by the sign forbidding all travelers except Muslims into that city, before we traveled elsewhere.

We stopped and rested close to a spot where some boys were playing games. They closely examined us as we picnicked. No restaurants in the rural areas, of course, at least not open to women. We never saw any girls playing outside, either.

For rest that night we returned to our own homes on the consulate compound in Jeddah.

I recall another trip during that time, this one with my future husband for a jaunt out of town to hike along some dry creek beds. We left the car to hike and returned to find that someone had stolen the lug nuts off our tires. What to do? Wait for friends to note our absence and send out a search party? That was the one time I had neglected to follow the usual practice of letting friends know were we were going. If we didn’t return, no one would know where to send out that search party.

Fortunately, several Aussie families appeared on their own trip and went for help, taking Ben to find the necessary lug nuts in a gas station in a nearby town.

Today, any trip we took to Saudi Arabia would probably be with a tourist group. I’ve become a bit more cautious with experience.

How to End Wars

One way to rid the world of war might be to increase democracy, according to an article by Michael Doyle (“Why They Don’t Fight; the Surprising Endurance of the Democratic Peace,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2024).

Academics and politicians have become interested in “democratic peace theory,” the article states. Are democracies less likely to go to war? Of course, the United States, a democracy, certainly has attacked other nations in its almost 250 year history. So have major democracies in Europe.

However, according to the article, the difference is the general absence of war between democracies.

After all, states ruled by one individual or a few strong individuals do not have to ask their citizens to vote on going to war or much of anything else, as their citizens generally don’t vote, at least in free and fair elections.

The article not only delves into the current differences between strong democracies and more autocratic states but also between states with different degrees of democracy.

At any rate, the evidence of support for peace by citizens of democracies seems intuitive. A democratic form of government, by definition, gives the people the power of going to war or not. Why would I or any other citizen want war? The exception, of course, is after an obvious attack by a hostile power. Even then, our response should be proportionate, targeted at the perpetrators only, a matter of self-protection.

Mandatory Christianity

When I began my education in a typical public school of the time, at least for the southern U.S., Bible reading was often a part of the school day’s beginning. I can’t say I remember much about those readings or whatever comments the reader, usually the teacher, might have made.

My family was actively engaged in a local church. The church became a major part of both my religious and social life as I grew. My Christian faith developed within my family and that local church. Evangelism in the community was carried out by individuals reaching out to friends and neighbors, as were welfare activities as well, such as food pantries open to all.

Personally, I’ve concluded that making the Bible a mandatory part of the school curriculum would result in a watered-down kind of religion, not at all helpful in spreading the good news of Jesus.

I remember several years in Muslim majority countries, where Islam was a part of national life. In some cases, no other religion was allowed. Religious observance appeared to me to be a rote exercise, without much personal meaning.

Those experiences turned me off from supporting any kind of state religion. The U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a state-sponsored church is, in my opinion, one of its wisest sections. I think it’s also one reason Christianity, being chosen voluntarily, has seen seasons of great growth throughout the centuries.

I believe Christians should have the right to worship in any country. I also believe in freedom of worship for all recognized religions in the United States. That means also that no religion is officially favored.

If you want to ensure that Christianity or any religion loses its vibrancy, make it a state religion.

A Call for the Most Unlikely

Judging from the Bible, God can call almost anybody to a task. We understand why he might call an Isaiah. This prophet was educated and perhaps connected to Judah’s royal house.

Of course, God also called Amos to be a prophet. Amos was a laborer, working with fig trees.

Then there was Abraham, too old, one would think. Or Jeremiah, who supposed himself too young.

Jesus called rough fishermen and the scholarly Saul/Paul. He called Deborah and Anna, women in an age which tended to relegate the important work to men.

God called people who didn’t want to be called, like Jonah. He called Hosea, who had married a prostitute.

The important thing is that they obeyed God’s call (even after first running away, in Jonah’s case.)

Redeeming the Past

I grew up in a family who enjoyed the local history of the area where we lived: Nashville, Tennessee. Understandable, since, apart from settlements on the Atlantic seaboard, few areas of the United States have a richer historical past.

Families first settled there as the Revolutionary War was unfolding. Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, lived on a slave plantation, the Hermitage, in the area. My elementary school classes often visited it on field trips.

However, in those days, we never really faced the sins of our ancestors in allowing the slave labor that was a part of that history, whose cabins at the Hermitage stood in stark contrast to the mansion of the president who owned them.

Recently, I’ve enjoyed books by Tamera Alexander featuring Nashville’s history as a background. One of her books, To Wager Her Heart, deals with a young woman beginning to understand what the Civil War freeing of slaves meant to the freed men and women. The setting for much of the novel is historic Fisk University, begun in 1866 to educate recently freed slaves. Included is the story of the university’s Jubilee Singers, still singing for us today.

Reading about those newly freed slaves and how they worked to take advantage of their precious freedom places in stark contrast the refusal of so many white southerners to repent of the evils of slavery and to work to build a redeemed society where all truly have equal opportunity.

We wasted so many years in mourning the mythical Tara of Gone With the Wind that we have need of mourning for how slow it has taken us to work out our repentance for our sin of slavery.

What’s a Public Servant?

Servant: “A person who performs duties for others” is one definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary. A definition of a public servant: “A person who works for the state or for local government.”

Since the dawn of prehistory, conquerors have taken over other people and recruited slaves and servants from the defeated population. As civilizations became more advanced, the elite classes made slaves and servants of the poorer classes. A servant was definitely an inferior. Few chose servanthood as an occupation.

Then a teacher named Jesus knelt before his disciples, took off their sandals, and washed their feet as a common servant. After this act of servitude—slavery even—he said, “You call me Teacher and Lord—and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.”

Jesus, called Lord of the universe by his followers, became a servant and called on us to do the same. Eventually, we understood that all our vocations—king, president, merchant, clerk, car mechanic, doctor—whatever we are called to do—are the means of serving others. A new idea was born, that government does not exist for its leaders but for the sake of the governed, whom their leaders serve.

Jesus stood on its head the usual way of doing things. But then he did this from the very beginning. The king of the universe opting to come as a helpless baby? And not in Rome or Athens, either. Not even venerable towns like Carthage or Alexandria. He came in a backwater Judean stable to a peasant woman. Who would have thought? Surely, it took God to think up that one.

What Is a “Just” War?

The Second World War was horrible as are all wars. People were tortured, fire-bombed, and killed on the battlefield. Surely, though, we might describe our efforts to help Britain and those fighting the Nazis in France, Scandinavia, and other places, as fighting a “just war.”

Nazi evils were blatant: killing even innocent children simply because of the religious heritage they were born with. In the beginning, though, as Hitler conquered European countries and Japan invaded China, some Americans were unconvinced that it really was “our” war. After all, we weren’t being directly victimized.

Then the German ally, Japan, bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. I remember my mother recounting the family’s experiences on December 7, 1941. A neighbor, whose husband was in the U.S. army, called her and told her to turn on the radio. Listening to U.S. President Roosevelt talk of the Pearl Harbor attack as a “day that would live in infamy,” I imagine they thought about how their families would be affected. My father was too old to serve in this war. My father’s younger brother, however, would no doubt be called up to join the army. We had cousins and other relatives and friends who would be drafted. The understanding dawned on my family and other Americans that nations were prepared to fight us until we surrendered to them and they would take over our country and our government.

If any nation had viable reasons for going to war, it surely was the United States in 1941. That outlook has followed us ever since. Yet, this war wasn’t a war between two kingdoms trying to take the land of the other. We were literally fighting to survive as a nation.

Then, as the United States became a world power after the war’s end, we were blessed with leaders who sincerely wanted a world in which no wars threatened innocent people, in which no young people were robbed of adulthood. Obviously, the task has had mixed success. We have certainly fought wars, but, thankfully, as yet, no “world” war.

I wonder if our success at winning what might be called a “just” war—against Hitler and his allies—might have encouraged the idea that wars perhaps may not be such a bad thing. After all, if we hadn’t later fought in Korea, all of the country would be under a North Korean dictator, wouldn’t it? Instead, South Korea knows democratic governance. Perhaps the test is in determining if the war is “just”?

But this thinking may have led us to become horribly involved in Vietnam. We looked at it as freedom versus the tyranny of communism. However, we overlooked the desire of some Vietnamese to be free of colonialism. Communism may not have been a wise choice, but for many Vietnamese it may have been preferable to being forever governed by a colonial power.

Perhaps the phrase “it’s complicated” is particularly apt. Because of the obvious villainy of the Axis powers of World War II, we have tended to suppose that all conflicts have a clear enemy against which we must righteously battle.

Certainly, Russia’s attempts to overcome Ukraine is perhaps as near as any conflict to an evil power trying to destroy a people who want only the freedom to run their own affairs, who don’t wish a foreign dictator to control their country. In this case, they are asking only for material help, not American soldiers.

But what about conflicts in Gaza and the Middle East? Observers point to wrongdoing on both sides.

We should strive for “a just peace,” but with care that our decisions about wars and granting military assistance do not skirt unwise decisions like the ones that led to our involvement in Vietnam.

We should never think of war as a way to solve a problems. At best, it keeps selfish leaders, usually dictators, at bay until wiser answers can be found.

Dealing with the Electoral College

As we prepare for our next presidential election, candidates are announcing their campaigns for various offices. Once again that relic from the past known as the Electoral College overshadows the process.

I grew up, as did many Americans, supposing that every four years, we, the American people elected or re-elected our president, to oversee our government until the next presidential election. After a period of turmoil following that terrifying attack on the capitol the day of the 2021 electoral vote counting, more of us now understand that the election is only the first step in the process. The new presidential term begins only after the Electoral College meets in January and certifies the results of the November election.

Perhaps the problem is that the founders of the United States were not whole heartedly into the idea of the people actually ruling themselves. Better if they elected, not the president, but only supposedly wise men (at the time, only men voted and only for male candidates) who would then decide on the president.

That idea had fallen into a kind of quaint custom of the electoral college meeting in January to calmly put the final stamp on the person we the people thought we had elected in November. Then, of course, the country discovered that the quaint custom opened up the idea of a few people pushing the electors to elect who they wanted, regardless of the election numbers. Turmoil ensued, the aftermath of which we are still living through.

Many of us would like to change the Constitution to reflect the more democratic way of electing the president by the voters. Changing the Constitution was made too difficult for that to be done easily.

Perhaps we are stuck for the time being with our antiquated system of the electoral college. Nevertheless, we are certainly free to give serious thought to changing our constitution to reflect the ability of the people to actually elect the president. Perhaps it is time to grow up and go all the way toward a democracy.

 

From McCarthyism to 2024 Civil Disagreements

In the early 1950’s, Americans became concerned, even fearful, about the advances made by the Soviet Union in Europe. Fear is sometimes an instigator of disagreements and vastly conflicting views.

During this time, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy made unproven charges that U.S. government agencies, the entertainment industry, and other American groups had been infiltrated with Soviet sympathizers. He was unable to prove his claims and was finally censured by his Senate colleagues for his conduct. The term “McCarthyism” became a name for unproven allegations against a person or group.

Americans continued to strongly disagree over various issues, such as American participation in Vietnam. Disagreements sometimes led to conflicts. Sometimes riots and even deaths resulted when a few groups yielded to the temptation to physically overcome an opposite viewpoint.

Strong beliefs can be a product of a government gaining power from a nation’s people rather than a dictator or a small group of the powerful. Most of us consider political differences a worthwhile price we pay to escape rule by a dictator or a powerful small group.

Nevertheless, we might consider showing more respect for those with whom we disagree. Those on opposite sides of happenings in Israel/Palestine or immigration across our southern border, for example, could set up groups to respectfully discuss differences rather than calling for riots or physical occupation of academic or political spaces. Before taking part in the discussions, individuals would pledge to follow time limits, refrain from insults, and listen respectfully.

The idea is to forge consensus after sincere and thoughtful discussion.

My College Protest Days

A long time ago, I took part in a college protest. I’m not proud of it. It wasn’t about civil rights or government policies or anything important.

We walked out of the college cafeteria in protest of the meals we considered less than they should be. Think of that. Across the land, students were protesting Vietnam and segregation and foreign policy. We were concerned that the food didn’t taste that great.

Our political processes should always be under our scrutiny. Protests are a right of Americans, but I think they should be far down on the list of civic responses. I am against activities which shut down schools and civic institutions. I accept that I may be wrong. After all, some may point to times when protests led to changes. However, other ways also have led to changes.

I joined the walkout of my college years, quite frankly, because they were fun. If nothing else, they did bring us together. We were part of a group, and the actions gave us a sense of belonging. Of course, street gangs may give their participants such a sense of belonging.

I suggest that college students seriously concerned about Palestinians, or literary freedom, or other issues favor something I might call “teach-ins” or “learning days.” The idea is to set up safe places where students and others who are interested can share ideas. The rules would forbid harassment or destruction of property.

You could name it respectful learning, including a large dose of respectful listening.

Listening Versus Demonstrating

I have never been a fan of physical protests. When one side protests, people who believe the other way are apt to counter protest. We lose ourselves in a loud commotion in which all words are lost.

Perhaps a better way would be listening to each other. Perhaps groups could set up “listening areas.” People could gather to talk, not protest. They would agree to respect the other’s words, even if they disagreed with them. The main activity would be talking to each other. A time limit would be set on the amount of time for each talker.

Some might begin to write down the ideas that develop. The words could be examined.
Some might feel called to find common points among the differing ideas and develop those common ideas.

Protests are an American way of life, but talking/listening seem to me a better practice.

Unfortunately, He Became Successful

Many a good person, movement, or religion has been ruined by success.

Success can be a worthy reward for hard work and creativity. Success can grant influence and even power to a person (or a movement or a civic group). Without careful shepherding of that power, however, it may become destructive pride.

A fancy name for this transformation is “hubris,” too much self confidence. The Jews knew the proverb that says “pride goeth before destruction.”

In one of his talks, Christ said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”

Meek? That’s a word we associate with a low-life, modeled by Uriah Heep in Charles Dickens’ novel, David Copperfield.

However, a French translation of meek uses the word debonair, more likely to mean courteous or cheerful. Successful people who are meek know their success doesn’t mean they are superior to others. It means they are blessed. Further they understand their calling to use their blessings to bless others, not use them as things.

Americans are tempted to hubris. The United States has done exceptional things over the years, like giving opportunities to refugees and allowing space for small entrepreneurs to create. Yet some things in our history should not have happened, like slavery and serious inequality between the wages of workers and owners.

Too much hubris and nations decline. Religions go through a cleansing, like Christ cleansing the temple.

People who assume they should be at the head of the table, may be called out to sit at the foot.

A Child of the Library

When I was growing up, my mother and I would go “downtown” to shop. That is, my mother would shop in stores, and I would head for the public library to shop for books to check out. That began my close and never-ending relationship with libraries.

Later when I worked for a few years in that same downtown, I tended to spend many of my lunch hours reading books in the library I had visited as a child. Then, as I visited libraries in other cities where I lived, the library remained an important part of my life. That included the closest one to my home.

Today, the divisions between Americans have found their way into our libraries. We quarrel as to which books should be in our libraries, especially in the children’s sections. The strong divisions between adults now include divisions as to what children should be allowed to read about the topics that so divide older Americans.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that public libraries, free to all, rich and poor alike, are one of the western world’s great inventions. May they always be a free resource for the community. May everyone know the pleasure and worth of being able to read and have resources from which to read and learn.

Perhaps a better way to handle controversial issues is for parents and children to begin early to discuss books. A visit to the library can mean helping young children find books that interest them as well as setting up discussions about different books the child chooses and why they like them. The parent should keep in mind that eventually, of course, a child will grow to an age where they will be able to read whatever they choose. If parents spend time with their children when their children are growing, the children will most likely carry what they have learned and practiced into their teenage and adult years. At some point, they must be trusted to make their own choices.

The ability for parents and their children to freely discuss any topic and search for information about it can become a wonderful contribution to raising those children. It also can allow libraries to become places of enjoyment and learning, as it was when I was growing up.

New Journey Fear

Sometimes when things I’ve prayed for actually happen, I’ve found joy, of course, but I’m also surprised by the fear that lurks as well. This was the case when I finally realized my dream of starting a journey to a new job allowing me to work and live in a foreign country, something I’d wanted to do since I had read books in my childhood about other countries.
A diary I kept of my first overseas travel shows my ambivalence:
“Picture, if you will: I’m checking in at JFK Airport for the first international flight of my life. They are asking me things like:
‘Who packed your luggage?’ ‘Who does your luggage belong to?’ ‘Has your luggage ever been out of your sight?’ ‘Has anyone given you anything to take with you?’ I decide the encouraging letter my Christian friends gave me before the journey is not the sort of thing they are talking about and refrain from mentioning it.
“The questions do not allay the nervousness I’m beginning to experience—my stomach feels funny . . .We board the plane. The pilot announces that we are going to be delayed by ‘slight’ maintenance problems. I wish he would be more specific. Then again, maybe I don’t.
“Finally, we take off. . .. I cannot see anything except a tiny bit of the wing . . .I remember being told that the tail section is the safest place to be.
“When we are safely airborne, the pilot comes on to announce that we are going to be in Frankfort one-half hour sooner than planned because of a hyperactive jet stream. That, he says, is the good news. The bad news is that we will experience some turbulence.” Both predictions prove true.
Looking back over my diary now, I think about what lay ahead. Fortunately, it included a safe trip all the way to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, my first Foreign Service post. I did manage to pick up the wrong luggage at one of the stops on the way. We corrected this, not only to my relief, but no doubt to the relief of the woman whose luggage I had mistakenly grabbed (it was the same color as mine.) She was coming to visit her husband in the military, preparing for the Desert Storm invasion of Iraq.
This happened to be right before the beginning of that first war with Iraq in 1990. Needless to say, it proved to be an interesting time to be in Saudi Arabia. Thankfully, I made close friends and grew in my Christian faith during this time. Believe me, I did grow.
Looking over that time now, I think about the saying attributed to Otto von Bismark: “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.” Providence certainly protected the child that was me and my need to learn and grow, despite my childish ignorance.
I think I can say that for me following what I believed to be God’s will has ranged from enabling to terrifying to, ultimately, a newer understanding of grace and care.
Because I really needed that grace and care.

Testimony by Jon Ward

Testimony: Inside the Evangelical Movement That Failed a Generation by Jon Ward is a heart- felt indictment of certain aspects of conservative American churches during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Growing up in that period, Ward was raised by his family in a conservative evangelical church culture. During that period, many sincere Christians, like the Jesus Movement people of the time, believed God would lead America to a time of justice for “the poor, the weak, the unborn, the neglected, and the downtrodden.” Unfortunately, churches like the one Ward was raised in did not pay enough attention to the ever present temptation to power by a few leaders, as happens when any movement gains strength.

Submission to God, Ward states, is a noble intention. However, a traditional anti-intellectual stance meant that some Christians of this time rejected the place of the mind in their religion. “The call to surrender to God was used to strong arm me and my peers into accepting, without question, what we were told by adults.”

While fighting against abortion, some did not pay enough attention to “fighting for the welfare of the born, for those who made it out of the womb, and into a world of poverty, suffering, and systemic injustice.”

The sincere desire for authentic religious experience is a noble pursuit. However, Ward points out, in his own life, too much emphasis on an emotional experience can encourage a faith that becomes a “self-centered, consumeristic, emotion-focused pursuit.”

In his conclusion, Ward states: “seeking truth alone is not enough. Truth must be accompanied by love.”