A Twitter Hashstorm: The Alt-Right Controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention

from: http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc17/photo/271/
"Southern Baptists overwhelmingly pass a resolution June 14 condemning
the racism of the alt-right movement. Photo by Adam Covington"

The Southern Baptist Convention first rejected then resurrected a resolution against the alt-right and white supremacy. This occurred at their annual meeting held in Phoenix, AZ, a couple weeks ago in June, 2017. Click here for a sequence of events. There are many different ways to understand this process, and it stirred quite a controversy.

An Outsiders Perspective

It was a roller coaster ride of emotions for me. I stand not as a member of the SBC but as a very interested observer from the Catholic Church who cares deeply about race. My colleague (a Roman Catholic priest) and I attended the Convention as representatives of the US Catholic Bishops in Christian friendship.

I spent much of the Convention glued to my Twitter feed, and I'm not typically an avid Twitter user.

News of the proposed resolution against the alt-right and white supremacy broke before the Convention. Twitter was chock full of some of the nastiest, most vile messages against it. Yet, I sensed something was awry. SBC pastors and leaders, as well as most church folks, are some of the most polite people I have ever met. They have a very Southern way of being indirect about grievances and disagreement. While they are also not shy about engaging in debate, what I saw on Twitter did not match the tone or timbre of what I have come to know as the SBC.

I suspect the #sbc17 hashtag was being rigorously trolled by alt-right activists. The vile, pornographic language and level of aggressiveness in the tweets signaled the work of outsiders. The language was so consistent in these tweets, actually, that it could have been the work of just a few (or even a single individual) using continuously new, anonymous accounts making it seems like the outcry was bigger than it really was. 

However, there were also few voices competing with these, before the Convention started. The glaring silence of others in the SBC worried me. Were there no contrary opinions? Were feelings against racism too weak or afraid of the alt-right to speak out? Was the SBC so weary from backlash against repudiating the Confederate Flag last year that it no longer had will to stand up to white supremacy this year? I wondered.

A lot has happened in one year. The campaign of Donald Trump has been associated with a significant increase in violent actions and rhetoric along racial lines. Trump received 81% of the white Evangelical Christian vote--which would soundly describe most SBC members. In the wake of Trump, many in our culture--like myself--were left wondering where do white Evangelicals--like many in the SBC--really stand on racism? Were all the apologies in the past just lip service? Most Americans understand that voters had only a couple choices for president and complex political issues had to be boiled down to a single vote. We get that. But what has been noticeably absent is  white Evangelicals holding Trump accountable since the election. They could be saying to Trump: "Yes, we voted for you, but that was in spite of--and not because of--the racist rhetoric, and we condemn that rhetoric." That outcry has been pretty minimal from the white Evangelical community, which comes across as an endorsement.

When the alt-right resolution failed to be brought to the floor on Day one of the two-day Convention, and when the messengers failed to keep any semblance of it alive after that, Twitter just blew up. It blew up in a way that raised my spirits.

I was so wound up I could barely sleep that night as tweets poured in.

I was so encouraged by the groundswell of support. SBC members simply did not want to leave Phoenix with the world unsure about where their denomination stands on the alt-right and white supremacy. It wasn’t just one Twitter account leading the charge, although there were key leaders in this effort. It was dozens and dozens of formerly silent Twitter accounts erupting all at once. At least one group organized a meeting to draft a new resolution with the resolution's original author, Texas pastor Rev. Dwight McKissic. The Resolutions Committee itself sought to find a way to remedy this. Russell Moore, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, had a hand in drafting the revised version.

I was grateful to witness this.  It was a pure blessing to see both the Twitter messages appearing one after the other in rapid succession and being part of conversations in the convention center hallways. Dozens and dozens of pastors and SBC members entered the fray.

It will be hard to walk away from SBC 2017 without at least a shadow of a doubt as to where the membership stands. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, remarked that the SBC has indeed gotten a "black eye."  

Yes, the SBC stumbled and fell here. It may be hard to wash all the dirt off.  But the stumble created a moment that allowed the SBC to mobilize to make it right.  That movement was pure blessing to watch. I am not a voting member, but as a fellow Christian who cares deeply about what happens here, my heart was with the SBC every step of the way. I am optimistic about the health of the SBC after this.

My assessment: Those who want to put racism behind them are sincere and passionate. There is also a gap between SBC leadership and the membership as well as a generational gap among pastors. When the SBC messengers voted last year to repudiate the Confederate Flag, once person spoke on the Convention floor that it was a fine resolution for pastors but it may be difficult to explain to churchgoers back home. A lot of people want to believe that the SBC has put its racist past behind it, but its rank-and-file membership seems divided as to the necessity of these resolutions and the relevance of symbols like the Confederate Flag.

Some members of the SBC were upset with the headlines coming out the Convention. Those headlines may--or may not--have been unfair. Still, I would urge the SBC not to spend a lot of energy feeling like victims of sensationalistic journalists trying to exploit a controversy for juicy headlines. The hesitation of the SBC over this issue opens real wounds and makes real people wonder where the SBC really stands.  I saw African-American pastors and families shed tears on the Convention floor in shock over what they thought would be a routine denouncement of racism that was instead killed in committee--at a time when our nation cannot afford to be neutral on race.  These are sincere questions that deserve answers.

While I believe SBC senior leaders are sincere in wanting to put racism behind them, they may be guilty of tone deafness here. They underestimated what message it would send by avoiding this topic. Case in point: Alt-right groups were initially declaring this a victory for white supremacy. Perhaps SBC leaders simply wanted to avoid a difficult topic, but sometimes the best way to attract controversy is by attempting to avoid it. Still, those fighting passionately for racial equality and reconciliation are an impressive bunch, and they give the SBC a bright future.

Is Healthcare a Right or Privilege? Wrong Question.

The question comes up all the time: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Pope Francis has even weighed in.

I don't think this is the right question.

When people ask whether healthcare is a right or privilege, they are basically asking whether healthcare is either an act of charity or a luxury. And then if it is an act of charity, they ask whether others are entitled to that charity or not. Furthermore, this question implies that the benefits of healthcare go directly to individuals and not to society as a whole.

Sometimes the questions we ask have more power than the answers. A question can frame the debate and imply assumptions about the topic. Without realizing it, most of us answer the question only within the categories that the question gives. The way questions are asked can exert a powerful control over us if we are not aware.

Once asked, the discussion quickly gets derailed in debating the nature of charity itself and whether anyone is entitled to it. These are hot-button issues in US culture that usually promise nothing but gridlock.

I'll use an event from my life to illustrate another way to look at this issue.

My Story

Several years ago, I helped establish the Columbus Catholic Worker (CCW), a center for charity and justice efforts. It was a wonderful experience feeding the hungry, providing clothing to the less fortunate, teaching ESL and offering hospitality to immigrants. Ministry was blossoming in a part of town that was thirsty for Christian love in action. The organization was growing and putting down roots. While it took a village to birth these efforts, the CCW eventually fell under my care and direction. I loved it and felt God's grace pulsing through it.

Today, the doors to this organization are closed. A multitude of reasons converged to bring it to that point, but an often unnamed reason lurking in the background was healthcare. Because of a cancer diagnosis, I needed a "regular" job that came with health coverage. It might have taken several years before the CCW could have grown large enough to offer a salary with health benefits, if ever. I was okay with that. I could live lean for a while. I could wade through and wait out other problems. But I could not wait for health coverage. This organization could have served all of Columbus for many years. It was already having a positive impact on many people. It could have been my life's work. It took a lot of effort from a lot of people to start it, and it's not something that can be re-started so easily. It was hard to walk away from it. 

While I have no regrets about where my life is today, this story illustrates an important point:

I am a citizen who had ideas and energy. I was willing to try out new ideas and take risks. The same could be said of my friends and partners who worked beside me in this ministry. The CCW benefited not just me but dozens of individuals and (dare I say) the whole city. But this work is no longer being done. 

Just imagine how many other people have to scale back--people with ideas, new inventions, innovations and business ideas. They have to limit how much they share these gifts because they are squandering their time and energy securing health coverage. 

We all suffer when we make it difficult for our neighbors to share their gifts.

Americans often live in a Hollywood fantasy that celebrates--and even expects--that others overcome every bit of adversity and still come out on top. After all, it happens in the movies and sometimes in the history books. It does work for some people, and those people deserve to be celebrated. The problem with those stories is that they don't reflect a fair expectation. In real life, real obstacles take a real toll on real people. It's not because people don't have the character, skills or faith to overcome them. Rather, it's just simple math: Someone who runs with a 50 lb weight strapped to his back is not going to run as far or as fast as if he did not have that weight. Yes, the weight may build extra strength and character and force innovation, but it may also come with significant delays, setbacks and failures in the meantime. If someone has a great business idea, I would rather she begin when  she is 25 years old rather than 45. She will bring more wisdom at age 45, but she will also lose 20 years of experience during which she could have been refining her craft rather than working side jobs in an unrelated field.

Everyone loves a good story where people pull themselves up by the bootstraps, fight all the monsters and win.  But it is pure insanity to make the lives of our neighbors as difficult as possible as a game to see who is able to turn that into a heroic quest and win. We are all too quick to assume that if a business venture fails, that it "wasn't meant to be" or that the people just did not work hard enough or have a good enough idea. It could simply be that an environment that is unfriendly to new ideas and ventures is going to result in, well . . . fewer ideas and ventures.

In this country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. People get angry because a dime of their tax money might benefit someone else. What they don't realize is that when their neighbors are better off, so are they. It's a safer, healthier, smarter, more advanced country we are building. It is a more competitive nation in the world market. Consider my story and multiply it by a thousand. Think of all the businesses, church ministry efforts, nonprofit organizations and other new ventures that are not happening because people either need to either get health coverage or are crippled under medical debt.

If I want to start a business, I don't have to go out and cut trees down to build a road to transport my goods and services. I don't have to build water or sewer lines. I don't have to train employees in basic math, reading or problem solving skills, because we have public education. The only thing missing is that I can't expect the people I hire are healthy enough to work. It is one glaring piece that is missing.

Universal health care means that our country can be more competitive as people take less time off work due to illness, that communicable diseases are treated before they can spread, and that a major obstacle is removed for my fellow citizens who want the space to innovate. 

To me, it's not a "right" or a "privilege" that I can leave my house and take my car on any road I want. I don't think you are mooching off the government because you drive on the freeway or public city roads. It's just common sense that roads are open and available to all, including businesses. I don't spend any time at all upset that my tax dollars might pay for a road to a remote town in Montana or California that I myself will probably never use. For the same reason, I would not be upset at all that my tax dollars would pay for my neighbors to get the healthcare they need to stay alive, healthy and productive (in that order).

It would be so complicated if roads were only for certain people. Imagine if you bought a "road plan' where you could only use certain roads and had to drive extra miles across the city to use the roads in your "plan." Yet we do that with our complicated medical plans that exclude us from so much.

Charity is great. I wish we could make the decision on healthcare based solely on humanitarian reasons and not take into account whether it makes our neighbor more productive. But this is not going to melt the ice in this discussion in this country. Whether healthcare is a right or privilege is not the only question when we go to the voting booth. Providing universal healthcare is simply what a smart country does that wants to stay competitive and advance as a civilization. Like public roads and public education, it provides a basic infrastructure so that we can all share our God-given gifts more broadly and without reservation. It's the next logical step in the growth of a healthy society.

The Love Affair Doesn’t End With a Few Apologies: The SBC and Racism

Imagine the worst of the worst happens: You cheat on your spouse.

Thankfully, you are fully willing to end the extramarital affair and repair the damage. Both you and your spouse want to put it completely behind you.

You confess your transgressions and give an extremely sincere and tearful apology.

This apology is wonderful, important and absolutely necessary—but there is no way you could possibly pretend that it is going to fix everything. One apology is crucial, but it is only the first step on a long journey of reconciliation.

From this point on, it’s not enough to simply be faithful—you will have to go out of your way to demonstrate that you are faithful beyond any reasonable doubt. Trust is hard to build, but it is even harder to rebuild. Wounds take time to heal. They need love, tenderness and patience. You have to prove to your spouse that you are sincere and that your heart is in the marriage.  

For example, you generally wouldn’t spend time alone with another single person and certainly not your former love affair. You may have absolutely no intention of anything beyond friendship, but why would you put your spouse in that position? Old wounds can be triggered. Your spouse could be at home anxious experiencing PTSD, going through a series of mental exercises trying to relax with the situation. You are the one who transgressed; therefore you are the one who should go out of your way to reassure your spouse. Don't put your spouse in that position.

You are going to have to prove yourself over and over—perhaps daily. But that’s okay because you love your spouse. People screw up. Repair and reconciliation are both possible. You may even grow stronger in your marriage. Trust may always be at least a little bit fragile, but major healing is possible. However, healing is going to be impeded if you drag your feet over having to "apologize too much" and complain that your spouse "just can't get over it already."

This analogy fits the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s longtime love affair with racism.

The SBC and racism have a long history. The denomination formed in 1845 when it split from other Baptists over its pro-slavery stance. Later, many of its members were deeply embedded in Jim Crow segregation and were often on the side resisting the Civil Rights struggles of the 20th century. 

The SBC has done much in recent years to leave racism in the past. Public apologies and resolutions have been forthcoming denouncing racism and all its trappings. Milestones include the 1995 apology for its complicity in slavery, the enthusiastic election of an African-American president, Fred Luter, in 2012, and the 2016 repudiation of the Confederate Flag. So this year, when a resolution was proposed to denounce the recent resurgence of white supremacy and the alt-right movement in US culture, it seemed like the stage was set for a routine—but deepening—commitment by the SBC to distance itself from racism in all its forms.

However, that is not how it played out at the Convention this week. The mostly white Resolutions Committee first rejected it from even being brought to a vote. The reasons given were technicalities over topical redundancy and awkward verbiage, but it was all too easy to wonder if there was not another backstory to consider. Voices from the floor tried to resurrect the resolution, but these attempts failed to achieve the needed 2/3 majority. Alt-right groups on Twitter celebrated this as a victory for white supremacy.

Let's consider what this would look like going back to the extramarital affair analogy:

Your spouse admits to some friends that there had been an affair, but tells them it is over and you are healing the marriage. Your spouse asks: “Honey, tell the people that you don’t spend any time with your former mistress anymore.”

A simple "of course not" is all that would be expected to pass through your lips, but to everyone’s amazement, your response is “well . . . it’s complicated . . .”

The trust that had been slowing getting repaired is suddenly put into jeopardy.  What do you mean, ‘it’s complicated?!’

For a denomination whose very origins are steeped in pro-slavery ideology, who members include those who lived and breathed Jim Crow, even two or three apologies will not be sufficient. 

The issue is timely. The campaign and election of Donald Trump has been associated with a surge of racist rhetoric and violence in the USA. 81% of white Evangelical Christians—such as those in the SBC—voted for Trump. This would have been an ideal time for the SBC to make it clear that whatever support its members may have for Trump is in spite of—and not because of—the association with racism. 

The official story may very well be true. This resolution may simply have gotten tangled up in parliamentary procedure and rules of order. But to play games with technicalities with such a sensitive issues, especially given your past history, only lends credence to what so many may have already been suspecting—that perhaps this rodeo with racism is not quite over.

African-Americans have been lured by the promise of racial reconciliation many times and places only to find the door slammed in their faces yet again. It’s hard to open up and attempt to trust again.

Some people ask:  Why yet another resolution?  Why can’t we just let this go? We repudiated the Confederate Flag last year, why go through that again?

Those aren't the questions of people bending over backwards to make sure there is no doubt about where they stand on this crucial issue. 

It’s going to take time and sincerity. White people are going to have to prove themselves on this issue over and over again. 

If all you want to do is spit out a quick apology and then go back to doing whatever you have always been doing, perhaps you weren’t as sincere about reconciliation as you’d like to believe. Reconciliation means that things are going to be different going forward. It means not just your words but your actions will to be different, and this needs to be demonstrated consistently over time.

***

As a Roman Catholic attending the SBC as an outside observer, I was personally moved by how members resolved this issue.  A groundswell of support arose to make certain that the convention did not close without righting this wrong. A resolution against white supremacy and the alt-right movement did ultimately pass a day later, and it was nearly unanimous. I will be writing more about this in the future. I was immeasurably blessed to witness the movement of the Holy Spirit in the SBC in this.

This post is meant to address those—both inside and outside the SBC—who are still not convinced about what all the fuss was about. I hope the analogy of an extramarital affair helps to put it in perspective.

As Southern Baptist Jared C. Wilson writes on Twitter:  How long do we keep repenting for the same ol’ sins? Until they’re all gone.

And that’s it, brothers and sisters. It is ultimately not the job of the white community to decide when enough has been done to treat this wound.

Why Do Americans Keep Saying "We Can't"?

Why do we keep telling ourselves that we can't do things?

I keep hearing it over and over again: We can't have . . . Universal health care. Public education that includes college. Higher minimum wage. Sustainable energy. Humane immigration reform. Safe harboring of refugees.

We can't. We can't. We can't.

Every doomsday scenario is predicted by these naysayers:  The economy will be ruined, taxes will go through the roof, terrorists will destroy this country and the poor will be worse off than ever before! It echoes like a chorus of lions, tigers and bears, oh my! If you believe all the hype, death panels will decide who gets to live and zombies will eat our brains out.

There are a lot of things that are difficult. There is much we haven't yet figured out how to do. But if we value something--and if we want to do it--we should set it as our goal and work towards it. We should at least try our best before coming to the conclusion that it can't be done. 

In his May 25, 1961, address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy said:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

President Kennedy gives us an example that we should model today. It is empowering to name a goal and make a commitment to it. On July 16, 1969, the first human being stepped foot onto the moon. Had JFK not made a public commitment to this goal AND then put resources behind it, it is unlikely that it ever would have been achieved. This is what leadership looks like. 

We can apply Kennedy's words to our current national debate on health care, poverty, immigration reform, environmental sustainability and any number of other issues: We should say what we want to do, set a timeline, then focus our attention and resources to achieve that goal. I'm sure many people said Kennedy was ridiculous and that travel to the moon was impossible. Those are the same kinds of folk who today say that universal health care is impossible and that environmental sustainability can never be achieved.

Some of these challenges may be difficult, but most Americans like to believe they are good at doing difficult things. We went from horse & buggies to cars, airplanes and a-man-on-the-moon in a few decades while also fighting two world wars and pulling out of a great economic depression. In light of all that history, it's more than a little embarrassing when our first response today is "we can't."

The problem standing in the way is not a lack of technology. The real crisis is a lack of vision. We can figure out the nuts & bolts of a problem. What we need first is to have the courage to name our goal and make a commitment to it with specific numbers and dates.

When I'm faced with a problem, I don't waste my time whining and moping around saying "it can't be done" without even attempting to put a plan together. Yet, that is exactly what Americans are doing. We should be embarrassed that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking we can't do so many things that are, in fact, very do-able.

We know they are very achievable because most of these have, in fact, been done before. Other nations around the world are far head of us in transitioning to renewable energy and have long ago settled the universal health care debate. We know it is possible to significantly reduce, if not downright eliminate, poverty: Over a century ago, the vast majority of our citizens wallowed in industrial revolution-era sweatshops, but their descendants enjoyed a middle class lifestyle. Dramatic change in a short span of time is very possible, even though many people said it could never be done.

There will always be naysayers. People who have power and money tend to be conservative by the simple fact that they like things the way they are now. They are hesitant--if not downright hostile-- towards change, simply because they are doing well now. Their power and money gives them a big soapbox with a huge megaphone to project their message. They want us to believe that change is impossible. It's our job not to fall for it.

Let's save "we can't" for things like time travel, light sabers and crisscrossing galaxies at the speed of light. But who knows, maybe some day in the future those will be possible, too. These other challenges are, in fact, very much achievable.

Is Pope Francis Against a Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ?

Pope Francis has come under fire for his comments which seem to suggest that he is against a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

His phrase, from his May 25, 2014, Weekly General Audience, can sound very antagonistic to Evangelical Christians at first:

Pope Francis described as "dangerous" the temptation to believe that one can have "a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church."

I was alerted to this by a comment on the Facebook page John 17:21 Evangelicals and Catholics, which I moderate. More than any other pope, Francis has earned a strong reputation for working together and praying with Evangelical Christians. I was naturally surprised to hear that he said something so potentially off-putting to that segment of the Christian community.

While I am no expert on what the Pope is thinking or feeling, I feel the need to address this. "Personal relationship with Jesus" is an extremely important phrase to many Evangelical Christians.  In addition, telling Christians that their relationship with Christ must be mediated through the Church no doubt inflames a lot of old wounds from the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers reassured us that we can go to Christ directly and that no human or institution can get in the way.

The pope actually clarified what he meant, but like so many things on the internet, one line gets taken out of context and the explanation gets forgotten. It is good to discuss what he means, though, as there is some great food for thought into how Catholics and Evangelicals think about their faith. I also recommend clicking the pope's address above and hearing in his own words what he's describing.

Like some many things that get lost, a key concept here is "only." The Pope is not suggesting that we cannot or should not have a direct, personal, intimate relationship with Jesus. In fact, his writings tell us how important it is to have that relationship. He urges all people to accept the invitation of Christ into that very relationship. But he is saying that this shouldn't be our only approach to Christian discipleship.

He is saying that we cannot do this alone. Other human beings, their writings and the church have all helped to midwife this relationship for us. Even if you have that direct relationship with Jesus, it is probably another human being who told you that this was possible. You may have read about others having that relationship. Perhaps a preacher invited you in a sermon. It is likely that your parents or a neighbor modeled what this relationship looks like. And then once you have that relationship, it is your duty to witness to this to others. Every believer is part of a community as both receiver and giver of blessings.

The Reformers are right that no human being or institution can get in the way of our own direct contact with God through Jesus Christ. But Francis is reminding us that every single one of us has also benefited from the witness, the words and the actions of fellow believers who helped us in that relationship with Christ. And then we must help others. Bottom line: It does us no good to pretend that individuals are in isolation from others.

We pray "Our Father," not "My Father," as one website pointed out. The Christian life is lived out in community, and it would be wrong to believe we are isolated human beings completely divorced from our relationships with our fellow human beings. A personal relationship is not dangerous or harmful by itself--what is dangerous is believing that our fellow human beings have no role to play in our Christian journey. It's no different than a person claiming they are a "self-made millionaire." That is a slap in the face to everyone who mentored, taught and assisted that person in making those millions.

Here are some of my own favorite words of Pope Francis.  These are from the first major doucment that he wrote after becoming pope, the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium--The Joy of the Gospel:

I invite all Christians, everywhere, at this very moment, to a renewed personal encounter with Jesus Christ, or at least an openness to letting him encounter them; I ask all of you to do this unfailingly each day. No one should think that this invitation is not meant for him or her, since “no one is excluded from the joy brought by the Lord”. The Lord does not disappoint those who take this risk; whenever we take a step towards Jesus, we come to realize that he is already there, waiting for us with open arms. Now is the time to say to Jesus: “Lord, I have let myself be deceived; in a thousand ways I have shunned your love, yet here I am once more, to renew my covenant with you. I need you. Save me once again, Lord, take me once more into your redeeming embrace”. How good it feels to come back to him whenever we are lost! Let me say this once more: God never tires of forgiving us; we are the ones who tire of seeking his mercy. Christ, who told us to forgive one another “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) has given us his example: he has forgiven us seventy times seven. Time and time again he bears us on his shoulders. No one can strip us of the dignity bestowed upon us by this boundless and unfailing love. With a tenderness which never disappoints, but is always capable of restoring our joy, he makes it possible for us to lift up our heads and to start anew. Let us not flee from the resurrection of Jesus, let us never give up, come what will. May nothing inspire more than his life, which impels us onwards!

It's Time to Quit Blaming Smartphones

To be human is to be social -- Aristotle

Hardly a day goes by when I do not encounter at least one article bemoaning the "tragedy" brought upon us by smart phones and social media. If you believe the hype, today's youth are going to hell in a hand basket, lured by the incessant clicking and swiping of their ever-evolving digital devices. We are losing our very ability to interact with the people around us, these doomsday prophets warn.

And I get it--we are subjecting ourselves (especially our youth) to a profound social experiment. It's hard to say definitively what impact growing up immersed in digital device use is going to have, but preliminary studies seem to indicate that they do affect our socialization and even our very brain chemistry. Social media contributes to a polarized society where it's all too easy to interact only with those with whom we already agree.

But we can also be led to the implied conclusion that somehow everything was just fine before the digital age. We can be led to the faulty conclusion that kids were living in a robust, vibrant social utopia where they played outside with other kids and where everyone sat on front porches singing, playing games and listening to grandma's tales of yesteryear--and then along came smartphones and social media and all that was gone.

Except... that's not how I experienced history at all.

I grew up Gen X. I grew up in a world of shocking, mind-numbing social isolation. You can't blame digital devices, because they only existed in science fiction movies at the time. The World War II generation and baby boomers may have grown up in small country towns and tight-knit city neighborhoods, but virtually none of that made it to my generation. I grew up longing for it, and so did many of my peers. Many people of my generation have labored intensely to discover and rediscover community through travel, intentional living situations and all sorts of other social experiments. The need is huge. In fact, community was one of the reasons I initially got involved in Christian ministry--it seemed to promise stronger community connections than anything else in the secular world.

The World War II folks and baby boomers gave us the radio and television. They gave us air conditioning and climate control, which afforded us the ability to live locked in our own homes and automobiles, sealed off from the rest of the world. They gave us suburban sprawl, where kids could only interact with other kids if their parents drove them in a car to meet them at pre-appointed times. They gave us neighborhoods that entirely depended on cars and where kids rarely played together outside on pesticide-laden lawns. Older folks ran to the suburbs, away from the nosy drama of those tight-knit families and neighborhoods, thankful for the closeness they had growing up but anxious for some privacy. But my generation did not benefit from the closeness they ran from.

THIS is the world that existed when smartphones and social media arrived. It was a world hungry--dare I say, desperate--for community. Most kids from most countries around the world would be absolutely shocked to realize the level of social isolation that most American children experience. To compound matters, if a kid has any kind of shyness or social awkwardness, you have a recipe for a walking solitary confinement. Many American kids live in a quiet misery of profound isolation.

It is hard for most Americans to realize how socially isolated we are. Most Americans have gotten used to it, and many have found ways to cope, but there is nothing even remotely normal or healthy about it. In another country, a walk to the town market might involve lots of conversations and interactions along the way. In America, we are locked in the isolation chambers known as automobiles with the windows rolled up. After work and school, Americans lock themselves in their homes, often without even cracking a window, glued to their televisions but divorced from human contact. It's bad enough to live like this as an adult, but it's horrific to grow up this way.

Suddenly, the digital age happens. Into a world starving for social interaction, digital devices opened a door. Suddenly, that kid locked in his suburban bedroom all alone could now chat it up with his schools friends or anyone else in the world. You can play games, share information, find a date, have long conversations and discover the world. Family members displaced around the country and globe due to a heavily globalized job market can now stay in touch and be part of each other's daily lives. Instead of just passively watching a TV, smart phones and social media allow us a chance to at least interact with others. These devices may not be perfect, but they are better than the radio and television by the sheer fact that they are interactive rather than passive.

Smartphones and social media did not create the problem. They are a response to a problem that existed long before them. If you don't like it that your kid has his nose buried in his smart phone, instead of taking away the phone, you might want to make sure there are other options in his life for social interaction.

The irony is bitter:  Older generations glued to their television sets complaining about the younger generations interacting with others on their smartphones. If I had to pick, I'd say the younger folks are improving upon what was handed down to them. Let's cut them some slack!

***

This is art of an ongoing series on the use of social media in ministry and it's impact on culture.

Other installments can be found by clicking the tag of "Social Media"

The Pope Who Prioritizes

(CNS photo/Alessandro Bianchi, Reuters) From ncronline:
"Pope Francis opens the Holy Door to inaugurate the Jubilee Year
of Mercy in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican Dec 8."

There has been a lot of debate as to whether Pope Francis is changing Catholic doctrine or not. Early in his papacy, his approach was categorized as a "change in tone," and that phrase has stuck remarkably well. It's an often unquestioned subtitle to Francis' papacy.

“Change of tone” is a politically shrewd phrase. It has the word “change,” which excites liberals. But it also suggests that the change might be more along the lines of style and not substance, which is an attempt to reassure conservatives. Francis dances in the space between.

That phrase is helpful, but I have never found it wholly satisfactory.

I believe the papacy of Pope Francis has been, among many things, an attempt to put first things first and second things second: Francis is the pope who prioritizes.

Pope Francis affirms the centrality of a joyful, living relationship with Jesus Christ in Evangelii Gaudium. He holds up the primacy of conscience in navigating grey areas in Amoris Laetitia. Francis raises up care for creation to its rightful place in Laudato Si. He not only erases all doubt that environmental issues are merely a secondary matter but actually holds up an integral human ecology as an overarching paradigm encompassing other life issues. Throughout his papacy, Francis has asserted Catholic values of life and family while avoiding getting entrenched in the culture wars quagmire.

In a likewise fashion, I believe Francis instituted the Year of Mercy in part to search for the appropriate balance between the necessary rules of the institution and the role of love. This is to put the practices of the Church more in line with a Gospel vision. We Catholics know how to focus on rules. We don’t do as well of a job navigating in the territory of mercy. That should alarm us, given the centrality that Jesus himself gives it.

Matthew 22:40 reminds us that how the doctrines are arranged and prioritized matters immensely. When introducing the Greatest Commandment to love God and one another, Jesus adds that, "all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40). This often glossed over line provides a stunning vision if we pause to consider it. This requires more than just a change in tone or even of emphasis.

Imagine that our religious laws, customs and moral codes are like Christmas

 ornaments.  Mercy is the tree on which they all hang.  The tree not only displays them, but it helps them rise to the dignity they are meant for. The tree helps them all make sense.  Some ornaments may look good sitting by themselves on a mantle, but most of them do not function well without the tree. Without the tree they could all just as easily sit in some dusty box in an attic somewhere.

The ornaments themselves do not really make sense, nor do they serve much of a purpose, without the tree on which to hang.  This is, I believe, what the Jesus is saying in the Gospel of Matthew.  Love and mercy is the structure on which the rules and regulations of the Church hang.  Without it, they don’t make much sense. 

We may get all the rules right but if we put them in the wrong order of emphasis, or without a corresponding love, we can get it wrong.

Anyone who has spent any time immersed in the struggles of what it means to be “church” knows that there is a place for rules. Love them or hate them, they aren’t going away entirely. But how they are applied and administered can be where the error lies. Mercy has to be held in balance with the rules of the institution.

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI may have had a knack for speaking to the letter of the law, Pope Francis has the calling to speak to the infrastructure of that law, especially as it relates to mercy. As Francis puts the house in order, he has called us into a whole Church conversation about the parts of our faith and tradition that have not seen the light of day in accordance with their due and the signs of the times. These include the role of conscience, the care for our common home and mercy. 

It’s not just a kinder, gentler application of the same thing. 

It’s a vastly reordered, radically restructured system that puts Jesus first, that takes the words of Jesus seriously, that takes the Gospel seriously, and which reorders all our rules, regulations and codes in light of those fundamental truths.  It also raise mercy to its rightful place as the overarching theme, as it is the structure on which all law and prophets hang.

The Need for a Long-Overdue Racial Reconstruction

Maybe my soul caught wind of an upcoming controversy, because for a while now I've been carrying around Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave in my work bag. I suspected his testimony was relevant for today. I never predicted Douglass would also be trending.

The recent remarks of Donald Trump on Black History Month have sparked quite a controversy, but they also brought Frederick Douglass back into the national conversation. Despite the circumstances, it is always good to hear what Frederick Douglass has to say to us today.

I have been completely engrossed in his story. It's extremely helpful in understanding what slavery looked like in day-to-day life and imagining the lingering impacts that history would have today. Some of the incidents in his book may never leave me.

Douglass goes into great detail about the evils of Slavery. Families were torn apart. People were prevented from knowing their own relatives or even the date of their own birth. Slaves had virtually no say in their life circumstances and could be permanently separated from loved ones at any moment. Mothers could be stripped of their children for the slightest offenses and sometimes for no discernible reason whatsoever. Slaves were not just whipped--let's call it what it was--torture was a way of life for many. Mind games and abuse of alcohol were all used to cripple and manipulate black folk into accepting the lifestyle of slavery. One of the most serious offences was educating a black person. Black people were kept as poorly educated as possible.

Those evils did not suddenly vanish when slavery formally ended 150 years ago. Imagine being torn apart from your own parents at a young age. That will be a pain you may have to wrestle with the rest of your life. It may also impact how you parent your own children. It could take generations for that pain to be healed, even if someone works very hard to heal it. Before that can happen, lives may be destroyed as people use better and worse ways to cope with that pain. That's just one example in a long line of atrocities which black Americans have endured.

All of these evils can persist for generations even with strong efforts to undo them. In the case of slavery, most of American society (in particular: white American society) did not even make minimal efforts to correct these evils.

The need for a New Reconstruction

After the Civil War, the bloodiest of all American wars, much was done to promote reconciliation and reconstruction--but that was almost exclusively among white people. That Reconstruction was in so many ways a huge success. While there is still lingering resentment to this day along Civil War battle lines, overall the healing of the nation has been largely successful. In other countries, there could be decades of skirmishes, in-fighting, battles and other acts of violence that could occasionally pop up. There could be a series of wars. Virtually none of that happened in America. When the Civil War ended, it was basically over--for white America. In other countries, after a civil war, the winning side could have spent a lot of effort hurting down the leaders of the opposition and settling old scores and grudges. We didn't do that. A lot of effort was made to start fresh and move forward in as much of a positive way as possible.

But this was primarily only between white Americans. America society in general never attempted the same kind of reconstruction with black people.

Imagine taking a people from their homeland in Africa. They were subjugated to the evils of slavery for hundreds of years. They were systematically stripped of their cultural, linguistic and family identities. Slaves were prevented from knowing much about their families and from even knowing their own birthdays. Decisions could be made to separate them from loved ones at any moment. They were manipulated with alcohol and alcoholism. They were kept purposefully uneducated and then mocked for being uneducated.


Then suddenly, the gates of the plantations were open and slaves were free to go. White America could wash its hands of the evils of slavery and move on, right? 

Not so fast. No only did American society in general do very little to reconcile with the former slaves, but it also gave them additional obstacles that the rest of American society did not have. Jim Crow laws were in effect for a hundred years after slavery. Black people were technically “free” but constantly harassed, marginalized, segregated and discriminated against in everything from the housing and job markets to the voting booth and criminal justice system. To add insult to injury, they were then blamed if they didn’t enthusiastically support the system. They were blamed if they did not have the same success as whites. They were blamed if they resorted to crime to make ends meet.

While Jim Crow laws are now off the books, many have seen similar patterns of systemic oppression along racial lines still in American society, especially in the criminal justice system.

Here is What Should Have Happened

A wound needs to be healed. It cannot be ignored.  You can try to sweep it under the rug only to discover that many years later it's all still there waiting to be addressed. 

All America had to do was attempt a similar kind of reconciliation that it did between white Americans and apply that also to black Americans. We already recognized the value of reconstruction. We knew it would save us many years of struggle and anguish. We just didn't apply it across the board.

Once America realized the evils of slavery and decided to end it, it should have gone to great lengths to incorporate black folks into mainstream society. Ending the sin of slavery was only the first step--a big step, but also the bare minimum. The next step is doing the penance to correct the injustices that were done. It means public and sincere apologies. It means humility. It means that American society should have bent over backwards to reconcile with black Americans. It means a robust program of education, housing, job training and mentoring in citizenship, personal finance and anything else that any other citizen would have gotten by being raised in American society. It means being welcomed with a hearty handshake. It also means retribution and restitution. It means kindness and patience. America still needs to do that. No wound can be ignored forever--even a time span of 150 years does not erase the harm that was done or the need for real reconciliation. 

The Church can lead the way in this by calling us all to good, old fashioned repentance.

Every effort should have been made to apologize over and over and welcome black folk into mainstream society with great care and patience. The doors to our churches, civic organization, jobs and schools should have been swung wide open. Furthermore, not only should black people have been welcomed, but every effort should have been made to actively reach out to them. While we can all point to some great places where this did in face occur, this never did happen in a widespread, systematic way in American society.

What has happened instead is that American society largely has done the absolute minimum to correct the wrongs it has done, and then it gets pretty darn angry when anyone complains that it should do more. As a result, many in the black community continue to feel like second-class citizens, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support this.

Some will say that what I'm suggesting amounts to coddling. People should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right? Black Americans largely have done that, but that isn't the point. This isn't about judging the achievements of the black community. This is about calling American society in general to task, and by that I mean mostly white America. It's simple: If you have wronged someone, you have to attempt to correct the wrongs you have done. That's basic morality. We learn it in Kindergarten and in Sunday School. No one can ever correct several hundred years of enslaving an entire people, but every effort must be done to do what can be done. Instead, we see many white Americans resisting and fighting any attempt to address this. White American has dragged its feet long enough on this. It's time for a real reconciliation and a real reconstruction.

The literal and proverbial gates to the plantation swung open. Black people walked out into a void with very little preparation, incredible wounds and very little support from mainstream society. That is not how it should have happened. Even worse, new forms of control and oppression replaced the former plantation gates of slavery, many of which continue to this day. What a terrible way to treat a group of people who had been so openly and systematically wronged. Even 150 years later, full reconciliation, full restitution and full reconstruction still hang out of reach while America wallows in the filth of a sin it refuses to confess and a wrong it refuses to right.

The False Promise of Personal Charity

Some people say that the best way to address poverty is through personal charity. They say we should not involve the government when trying to help struggling neighbors.

They say it's because the government is inefficient and impersonal. They argue that government programs "force" people (through taxation) who do not want to help, thereby creating resentment and undermining the development of their conscience. You shouldn't force someone to do charity any more than you should force someone to go to church, they would argue. The desire has to come from within. Their point is that the poor are best served by individuals who are personally moved by compassion to assist them directly.

I've heard this line of reasoning over and over. It fails on many counts. First, there's a common sense question that rarely gets asked:

If individual charity were able to solve the problems of poverty, then why hasn't it done so already?

Seriously, show me one place in the world where individuals doing private charity have ever been able to solve the systemic problems of poverty. You can pick any place you want over the course of global history.

If personal charity ever solved the problems of poverty, we wouldn't even need to talk about it. There is nothing stopping people from doing this right now. Neighbors can help neighbors, churches can help neighborhoods, and if the theory held up, we should have eliminated poverty ages ago.

There have been some great individual efforts over the years. People have bonded together through churches and other groups to do marvelous charitable deeds, such as the hospital networks of Catholic religious sisters or ecumenical disaster relief efforts, to name only a couple in a long line of impressive efforts. Of course, a key phrase here is "bonded together." When you come face to face with poverty and attempt to do something about it, the first thing you may realize is that you just can't do much by yourself. You've got to join your efforts with those of others. First, you may try to involve your family. Then you may solicit the involvement of your church. Eventually, you probably realize that the problem needs all of society pulling together, and you work hard to convince people to utilize the government to achieve this goal.

The history of Christians addressing poverty is stunning indeed. Still, many faith-based groups whose mission it is to alleviate poverty openly support the critical role of the government in helping meet this goal. See Bread for the World, for example. Christians who are working hard to alleviate poverty typically support a strong partnership with the government in this work.

The reason is this: The state is the most effective instrument to provide this kind of service. The government is neither good nor bad, it is simply the best tool for the job. No other organization is big enough or as well-connected. The faith community can compel and convince voters to provide this care, but when we do so, the tool we need to use is the government. Why? Because quite simply: It works.

It is like trying to tunnel through a mountain with toothpicks. You can bring an army of extremely dedicated people, but it would take millions and millions of people and probably just as many years to dig that tunnel using toothpicks. Another option is that somebody could bring in a carton of dynamite, a bulldozer and a team of engineers to blow that tunnel wide open. The government is like the second option--dynamite, bulldozers and experts. There are some things a large body like a government can do that no team of individuals could ever do, no matter how noble or well-intentioned. A large body is often greater than merely the sum of its parts.

It is easy to understand why people are wary of the government. Some of the worst actions in human history have been done of, by and for governments. But on the flip side, any society that has been able to reduce, minimize or come close to eliminating poverty has been a society that has learned to effectively involve the government in this process.

There is another reason why government matters so much: The future of the human race will be based on our ability to cooperate with each other. Community is extremely difficult. It's extremely messy. But it's also essential. God gave us a big planet, but it is not so big that any of us can live in isolation from our neighbors. No matter how hard we try, no matter how strongly we detest it, the fact remains that we are stuck with each other. We share this planet. In light of this, we have a choice: We can either learn to work together or we can fight with each other, but we can't pretend to ignore each other. The government is not the only way that people come together, but it is the one institution that includes ALL members of a society. Eliminating the government from charity efforts eliminates an essential way that people can work together.

This is an especially difficult concept for us in the United States. Many of the people who helped form this country tried to solve their problems by simply moving away from people they had difficulties with. This method of dealing with problems is deeply embedded in the American psyche. When people get on your nerves, you can simply "go west" to get a little peace and quiet, a little piece of your own ground, and live with minimal interactions with neighbors. You don't have to learn to live with difficult people, rather you can just pick the people you want to be with. People first left the problems of Europe behind. When life here got too tense, many continued pioneering westward to get away from everyone. Part of the American Dream is the illusion that you can create and control the bubble you live in. Perhaps this method worked for a couple hundred years until the empty spaces ran out and we were stuck staring eyeball to eyeball with our neighbors, again. Still, the fantasy remains that the individual acting alone is the most advanced and enlightened form of human activity. Yet Christianity has always held that life is about "we" not about "me."

There have been many societies across human history that have provided very little government support to struggling citizens. The result? People lived in desperate poverty. The personal charity efforts of their neighbors did not change that. There is no historical example where a society has removed government sponsored social services and then ended up with individuals taking on the burden doing a better job of helping their fellow neighbors in need. People do help each other out, but rarely to the point of eliminating poverty or making up for what a whole-government effort could do. The only exception I can think of would be very small societies, like the Amish or traditional hunter-gatherer societies. Small societies like that rarely have the wealthy living next to the desperately poor, but that juxtaposition is common in any larger societies.

I suspect that the real reason why some folks are against the government getting involved is because they know that it might actually effect some real changes in power.

So what about forcing people to do charity? I don't get why this is a big deal. If I'm sick and need to go to the hospital, I'm sure glad there's a road I can take to get there. It doesn't matter to me in the least if workers built that road out of charitable love or whether they built that road just because it was what they had to do to get a paycheck, I'm just glad there's a road when I need one. I don't need to know the motivations of each of the highway workers. But I can trust that the decision to build that road in the first place and allocate tax dollars to pay for it was certainly wise and probably charitable, and I'm glad that enough of my neighbors were smart enough and generous enough to make sure that road exists. People had a vision for making society better and part of the vision included building a road so that people could get to the hospital.

The same analogy holds true when it comes to giving a hand-up to people in poverty. If folks need assistance with food, heating bills or medical care, I think we should provide it. What helps my neighbor helps me.

Besides, why are we making a game out of poverty? I would hate for the poor to suffer just as a test to see if other people develop the "right attitude" out of which to help them.

Whenever people are able to make huge gains eliminating poverty, the government is almost always a huge part of that effort. And that is because the future of the human race will be determined on how well we cooperate with each other, and that includes, among other things, the oftentimes messy but always necessary aspect of the government. Individual charity is still important. It is still an extremely high calling. But it is through individual charity that we learn how important it is to involve others in this task.

Ancient Hospitality: A Lost Religious Practice

Ulysses [Odysseus] Conversing With Emaeus
by John Flaxman (1755-1826)

Hospitality to strangers was a very big deal throughout the ancient world. I am not sure if any of us in the modern era have any appreciation for just how important it was. There were no hotels, no GPS systems, few restaurants. Being in a tough spot away from home was a life or death situation!

Hospitality was not only a cultural practice, but it also had serious religious significance.

I just finished listening to an audio book of The Odyssey, the Ancient Greek poem attributed to Homer. It was an appropriate companion on some recent long road trips (this blog is called "The Traveling Ecumenist" for a reason!) It is generally thought to have been written in the 8th century BCE, and it is the second-oldest surviving work in western literature.

The Odyssey is called an "epic" for a good reason--it is a sweeping saga of wartime battles, magical meanderings, courtly drama and intense personal struggles. It is the quintessential tale of a young man who goes off to build his identity by confronting challenges and then faces the equally difficult-struggle to come home again as a wiser, more mature adult. Yet in the midst of so many complex themes, the subject of hospitality makes it mark on nearly every scene.

I'm not even exaggerating: Hospitality is just everywhere in this story. As Odysseus, his son Telemachus and others travel through the ancient world, they are continually treated to lavish feasts, incredible gifts and a warm welcome nearly everywhere they go. In fact, one time Telemachus had to actually sneak away from an exuberant King Nestor just to keep up with a rigorous travel schedule. No good host would have allowed him to leave so quickly without being received properly.

Hospitality wasn't just for royalty. How the poor were treated was also of special importance. The Goddess Athena once turned Odysseus into a beggar so he could case his palace in disguise and test the loyalty of his subjects. While there, an elaborate debate ensued among the crowd. Many taunted the beggar. Others attacked him, urging him to get lost. Many accused the beggar of being lazy or an opportunist, living off of the work of others. Still others begrudgingly gave charity but withheld respect. Those with contrary views asserted that they should treat the beggar kindly, as no one knows what circumstances brought the beggar to this place in life. Still others postulated that the beggar could be a test from the gods.

You can hear the same comments today about the poor that were in full voice 2,800 years ago. Almost daily I hear the same debates rage in regards to homeless beggars and immigrants knocking on the door asking for safe refuge. The one thing that's so different from our modern society was the underlying code of ethics about how to treat the stranger who comes to the door begging. We seem to have lost this.

I was amazed when listening to this story just how similar the views of hospitality were to those found in the Bible. Even though the Ancient Greeks had a very different religious tradition from the Ancient Israelites, they came to similar conclusions. The Greeks were worried that the gods themselves would disguise themselves as beggars just to test their charity. Mistreating beggars--perhaps the most vulnerable members of society--was believed to warrant the gravest consequences from the gods. Stories from the Bible have very similar notions. Consider these passages:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. Hebrews 13:2

This is a reference to Abraham and Sarah's experiences in Genesis 18-1-15. Abraham wasn't just kind to three unexpected guests--he went out of his way to dote on them. These men turned out to be angels. Tradition even suggests that these were the three persons of the Holy Trinity. As a reward for treating strangers kindly, God granted Abraham and Sarah a child. You just never know who the person who knocks on your door may be! And while helping others, you just never know what blessings may come back to you.

It is actually Jesus himself who confirms everyone's suspicions on the matter. In the famous passage Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus as God incarnate comes right out and tells us:  

"‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’

Jesus actually admits directly what everyone has already known in their hearts.

In so many cultures, people have an intuition that beggars, strangers and the homeless are special representatives from God.

We refer to this as the preferential option for the poor in the Catholic tradition. What this means is:  Yes, Jesus is incarnate into all of humanity, and God loves every one of us. But the "least" should get our preferential attention and treatment, because God is there with them and in them in a special way. A preferential way.

The Ancient Greeks did not know Jesus by name, but they still knew that there was something special about a guest who comes to the door--especially a guest in need who is desperate enough to beg for help. Yes, despite the religious overtones, the Ancient Greeks still struggled, like we do today, over whether or not to assist the stranger. But at least their religious tradition gave strong support to the side of hospitality.

When we see a beggar on the streets, we can choose to see him in glass half-empty or half-full terms. It is within the realm of possibility that the beggar has either the best or worst intentions or something in between. Anything is possible. But what is going to be our assumption? We can choose to either assume that he is attempting to swindle us or whether he is just trying to cope with difficult circumstances. We can also choose to see the presence of God in this person and offer warm hospitality.