Made Sense To Me

I had driven all the way from Boston just to see him.  I explained that I was a seminary student in Massachusetts and I was interested in transferring to his school, to study with him.  He asked why.  I mumbled something about being tired of going to school with students who were passionately engaged in the pro-life movement but also believed that the New Testament supported the United States’ right to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against an enemy nation (It was the early 1980s when that sort of policy debate was prevalent).  I told him I was tired of trying to understand the illogic of this inconsistency.  How could someone protect the life of an unborn child only to ignore the consequences for other children during a nuclear strike?  So, I wanted to finish my seminary education with people who were logical and agreed with me.  Made sense to me.

I think he smiled before he told me to stay where I was.  I remember feeling peeved.  But he explained that it was important for my school to have people like me there, to represent an alternative view.  If only I had the guts, which I didn’t.

If Only I Had The Guts

For three decades I have struggled to articulate my frustration.   From my view, it seems morally disingenuous to protect the sanctity of only unborn human life?  For three decades I buried my confusion, simmering quietly about the selective moralizing of the traditional pro-life movement.  If I am pro-life about unborn children, I figured, I should be pro-life about infants, children, teenagers, and adults of all ages.  And if I am pro-life about our children, I should be pro-life about the children of other cultures and religions and continents.  Makes sense to me.  Let’s be consistent.  Let’s be authentic. 

Apparently it made sense to Ron Sider who had the guts to write a book in 1987 called, Completely Pro-Life: Building A Consistent Stance On Abortion, The Family, Nuclear Weapons, The Poor² .  Reading this book was one of those “ah-ha” moments for me.  At least I wasn’t alone.  I am not going crazy, even if my ideas seem crazy.  In fact, it turns out there are a huge and growing number of evangelical folks who agree with Ron:  Let’s be consistent!  Let’s be authentic.  Let’s be completely pro-life.

If only I had the guts to talk about it.  At the time, Ron’s book encouraged me, but not enough that I spoke openly about my views.  Frankly, I was turned-off by the pro-life movement.  I didn’t like their narrow, selective moralism.  For many years I was a closet pro-lifer because I didn’t want to be associated with that brand of Christianity.  Well, I’ve come out of the closet (not to be confused with Ron’s third floor office).

I am pro-life. 

Don’t rush to judgment.  What does ”pro-life” mean to me?  Unfortunately the label carries lots of uncomfortable, distasteful baggage for me (and for others).  I don’t want to be lumped in with all those other pro-lifers.  My brand of “pro-life” is this: I am completely pro-life, about unborn children and everyone else, everywhere else.  I believe in the sanctity of human life everywhere, for everyone’s children, born and unborn.  I also believe in the sanctity of the pregnant woman struggling to make a painful choice about her life because she faces rejection by her family, or destitution if she gives birth to her baby.  

Am I straddling the fence?  Sure.  Clearly — since we still argue about it so much — this is a complicated issue.  We’re in the murky middle.  I refuse, though, to be boxed in by what I see as the traditional “pro-life” stance that seeks to preserve the sanctity of only unborn life while disregarding the sanctity and dignity of other life — even when that “other life” is making a choice with which I disagree.  Furthermore, I do think a consistent, completely pro-life stance ought to be reflected in the kind of public policies I support.  We can talk more later about my views on “completely pro-life” public policies.  That should be fun³          

I acknowledge that my comments here are a bit simplistic.  We can drill down and debate the inconsistencies of my own logic another time.  I will welcome the challenge.  But, for now, I’m out, completely.  Phew, I feel better.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. Ron is now professor of theology of Palmer Theological Seminary affiliated with Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania.  Ron is the founder of Evangelicals For Social Action, http://esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=Home .
2. See the full citation at my Cool Books page.  A decade earlier Dr. Sider wrote the groundbreaking 1977 book Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger.
3. For example, I am less supportive of efforts to make abortion illegal, which serves to score political points but is a less effective method for accomplishing the real goal.  I prefer to focus on our goal, which is to reduce abortions.  So, let’s look at a variety of public policies to help women and families with this difficult choice so the outcome is more often to not have an abortion, or to prevent the need for one.  For instance, in Massachussetts, where  statewide universal health care is now available, the number of abortions is decreasing.  I find this interesting.

Crazy me. I think the answer should have something to do with Jesus, which means we ought to look in the Gospels to figure this out.

Where did I get this idea? 

I was sifting through the stack of books and papers piled on the floor behind my computer.  I found a copy of Tony Campolo’s 2008 book, Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide To Faith And Politics. ¹

Phew.  What a relief!  I’m not going nuts! (…at least not yet).  I get some of my crazy ideas from guys like Tony.²

This short article serves as a plug for Tony’s book.  The title tells it all.  Tony thinks we ought to be “red letter” Christians, a tag suggested by his friend Jim Wallis (from a suggestion by a Jewish DJ in Nashville…go figure).  A “red letter” Christian is one who pays attention to the red letters printed for Jesus’ words in some publications of the New Testament.  In short, the Church ought to pay attention to what Jesus said.

Hm.  Crazy idea. 

Find your own copy of the book.  Tony Campolo, along with Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, and a handful of dedicated veterans of the progressive evangelical movement³ have long been advocating this simple, crazy idea.  If we say we want to be the Church, then a good place to start is with Jesus.  What did he say?  What did he do?  Who did he love, and how?

What we find might surprise us.  In the forward, Jim Wallis puts it this way:

“It is almost as if the real message of Jesus has been kept a secret, utterly disguised by prosperity pastors, television evangelists, and radio talk show hosts who preach a conservative American religion across the world, giving a very different impression of Christianity than Jesus taught.” (p.10)

Campolo makes it clear early in the book that he is not presenting a partisan political view, as if “red letter” Christians should be Republicans or Democrats. 

“…Jesus refuses to fit into any of our political ideologies.  Transcending partisan politics, Jesus calls us to make judgements about social issues as best we can when we vote, and do so in accord with our best understanding of God’s will.  In doing so, we are to avoid partisan politics that lead to unnecessary, unproductive and even dangerous divisions.  At election time when you are asked, “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” your answer should be, “Name the issue!” (p. 17)

Read for yourself. Tony is a good writer. He addresses several important political issues from the “red letter” perspective, including the environment, Palestine, gun control, crime, the federal budget, government waste, campaign finance, and more.

You might agree or disagree with his conclusions, but at least you’ll know I’m not goin’ nuts.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. See the full citation on my Cool Books page.
2. Actually, I have been haunted by these questions for decades. What does it mean to be the Church, and who gets to decide? How is it possible, I have wondered, that so many well-intentioned Christians are so poorly informed about what Jesus actually said and did? Be assured, it’s not that I have it all figured out. Hardly. But I am distressed by a Church that claims to follow Jesus but behaves, so often, in a manner diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught. I suppose this is not a new revelation to many of you.  I realize as well that it is a bit unfair to lump “Church” into one description or category.  There are many, many fresh and exciting examples of healthy, biblical Church behavior everywhere.  Perhaps my distress comes from the sense that I hear about only the poor examples.  Is this all we have to say?
3. In fact, this group is not comfortable with being called “progressive evangelical” because it suggests a value judgment against those who do not share their views.  This is why they searched for a new label.

Here’s my perspective.  Lately I have been talking about Jesus.  I have suggested that following Jesus has something to do with how much we cling to our possessions.  I have suggested that following Jesus has something to do with generosity.  I have suggested that following Jesus has something to do with welcoming the strangers in our midst. 

I’ve also suggested that if we want to learn how to follow Jesus we ought to read Luke’s Gospel more, and listen to talk radio less.  Ouch.  That’s meddlin’.

Following the Lectionary readings for this month, we have been studying the Gospel lessons in Luke.  So, if I’m meddlin’, blame Luke, not me.  If I’m meddlin’, blame Jesus, not me.  Easy to say.

Hinting, Meddlin’, Or More…?

I have been hinting (OK, a bit more than hinting…) that perhaps we — the Church — ought to say what Jesus said, do what Jesus did, and love the people Jesus loved.

I expect Bible-believing folks everywhere agree that we ought to follow Jesus.  Sounds good enough.  The meddling part comes when we talk about what Jesus actually said, and who Jesus actually loved.  The truly meddlin’ meddlin’ comes when, after a few moments of reflection, the average listener realizes the cultural and political implications of what Jesus said and who Jesus loved.

To put it plainly, I wonder often about these questions:  What does it mean to be the Church..and who gets to decide?¹   

Who Gets To Decide?

Lately, lots of folks have been offering their answer to this important first question.  Talk radio pundits seem to have their answer.  Some church-folk (and others around the world) are listening.  That preacher in Florida who wants to stage a Quran-burning rally has his answer.  Some church-folk (and others around the world) are listening.

But, what does Luke have to say?  And how might that message from Luke affect how we behave as a Church (crazy question)?  Here’s what I think:  Any message about what Luke has to say about Jesus — in the context of today’s cultural and political debates — must, by default, have cultural and political implications.  So, I guess I’ve been meddling.  Whether or not I explicitly apply Luke’s Jesus to today’s policy debates, the average listener on a Sunday morning probably makes the connection….especially when I suggest that the Church ought to listen to Luke before listening to talk radio entertainers or Florida preacher wing-nuts.

Generosity And Love

The meddlin’ problem with Luke’s version of Jesus is this:  Luke portrays a Jesus who prefers generosity and love² .  What do we do with that Jesus?

I know, there is an ongoing debate among some Christian ethicists about whether the Gospel of Luke (or any other Gospel) should be applied to our personal lives only, or to our public policies as well.  Let’s agree — for now — that Jesus cared only about our personal lives and our personal relationships.  Let’s agree — for now — that Jesus never intended that we apply his teaching to public policies.  Fine with me, for now.  This leaves us with the remaining, legitimate question: What does it mean to be the Church?  Forget public policy.  Forget the rest of society.  Forget politics.  Vote for any wing-nut you prefer.  But what about the Church?

So, here again are the basic questions:  What does it mean to be the Church, and who gets to decide?³

No Offense Intended, Honest

I suppose this article will cause a stir from some of you.  My intent is not to cause offense by somehow calling into question anyone’s devotion to God.   And be assured, I am not jumping to any conclusion about your political views (unless you are a talk radio host or that wing-nut preacher!).  I don’t know you.  I’m not sure what you read or who you follow (listen to).  I am, though, concerned about all of us, together, being an authentic Church in today’s world.  What does that mean…and who gets to decide? 

So, try this.  Consider this simple challenge:  Go back to Luke’s Gospel and read it again.  Forget public policy for now.  Forget November’s elections for now.  Ask only this:  What would happen if I followed that Jesus?  What would happen if the Church followed that Jesus?

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. I understand that some of you don’t even care about this question because you have no desire to follow Jesus or be the Church.  That’s totally cool.  I’m glad you’re still reading!  I welcome all types of readers — whatever your faith or non-faith.  This article, however, is intended for readers who claim to follow Jesus and want to be the Church.  For the rest of you, I trust you have some personal decision-making framework (faith-based or not) for choosing how you live and how you engage in the public policy debate.
2. Check it out for yourself.  I am purposely not going to explain everything Luke has written in his Gospel.  I think its plain enough for the average reader.  So, here’s the challenge:  If you are curious about Luke’s Jesus, turn off your radio and read Luke’s Gospel, front to back.  Don’t skip anything.  Decide for yourself.  But do not assume you know what Luke has written.
3. Watch out!  I’m sneaking up on you.  I happen to believe that if we do return to being the Church by following Luke’s Jesus, then the nature and extent of our engagement in public policy debates would change.  But, first things first.

Why Are We Angry?

So, perhaps, here is a better question:  What is the root of our anger?

Anger is a difficult topic to discuss, but it is a shared experience.  Everyone feels anger.  Some of us feel anger often, others feel it less often – for whatever reason.  Anger, like belching, is a necessary and common human dilemma.  Anger is not always bad.  Of course, I hope we can agree that when anger motivates us to treat others unfairly or violently, then we’ve got a problem. 

I admit that I have assumed – perhaps without justification — that our anger about the mosque issue is rooted in fear.  As a pastor and academic who has for decades studied the connection between human behavior and social policy¹ , I tend to dig below the surface to try to ferret out the root of anger in our communities. 

Sometimes Its About Fear

Fear is a common – though not often acknowledged — root of anger.  I have assumed that our angry response to the NY mosque proposal is rooted — in part and for some – in our fear of Muslims and Islam.  After all, it has been our pattern as humans to react in fear to outsider groups who approach us and attempt to live among us and share our resources.  In my view, even a casual reading of the history of our nation’s response to immigrants (religious or ethnic) reveals our frightened underbelly.  We learn a lot from the patterns of our behavior over many years.    

But, I admit it’s not always about fear.  Some have suggested that we have a right to be angry about the proposed mosque because of what was done to us nine years ago by a minority group within Islam.  The attack nine years ago was a horrific murder of close to 3,000 innocent people.  The attack deserved an angry response directed at those who attacked us. 

But this much is true.  Not every Muslim attacked us…we were attacked by an extremist and violent group who claim the name Muslim.  Regarding the extremist group that attacked us, I agree that our anger is righteous.  So, I wonder, why are we so angry now, today, about this?

When Are We Righteous?

Sometimes our anger is righteous.  Sometimes not.  When our anger is not rooted in a righteous response to injustice, where does it come from? 

If our anger toward the NY mosque proposal is truly righteous, does it not follow that we can expect those expressing “righteous” anger about this issue should be similarly angry about other injustices? 

Here I am simple and dull-witted.  I tend to learn from consistencies and inconsistencies in our behavior.  If we claim righteousness in our anger about one thing and not another, what is the basis for this selection?  Is it possible that selective anger is rooted somewhere other than our righteousness?  Perhaps, our selectively “righteous” anger is not so righteous after all.

Selectively Righteous Anger?

Is our “righteous” anger selective?  If so, I think it is fair to ask: Why does one issue make me so angry, while another issue² does not seem to bother me?  Careful.  This penetrating question might expose my underbelly… and when my belly is exposed, I become afraid….and angry.

What is the pattern of my “righteous” anger?  For example (and this is just one example), if I am one who angrily agrees we should reject the mosque in NY, and I also angrily agree we should prevent immigrant children from equal protection under the law, while not feeling much anger at all about other social atrocities, is it possible the selective nature of my “righteous” anger is not so righteous after all, but rooted somewhere else…in fear?

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. I confess I am a nerd about this…an applied theologian and policy analyst.  My graduate degrees are in theology and social policy.  The latter degree was completed over seven years at a school of social work where we regularly linked the quirks of our human behavior to the policy decisions we make for our community.  Much of my professional life has reflected this mix of interests.  I am wired to think this way…sorry!
2. Pick one.  Tens of thousands of hungry children who die every day, for example.

Here is what I think:  Build the mosque¹ .  I believe we must build the mosque exactly where it is proposed  near the site of the 9/11 destruction.  Anything less would mean we are yet again victims.  To not build the mosque would signal that we are victims to our fear.   

Rule Of Law Only When Convenient

Apparently, there is no legal reason to prevent the construction of the mosque.  Local authorities have approved the plan to build the mosque.  In addition, there is substantial constitutional support to encourage the building of the mosque.  Religious freedom is a big deal. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  — First Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

Constitutionally — and morally, in my view – we are encouraged to do the right thing — build the mosque.  So, why the fuss?  Fear.

Too Many Voices Of Fear

We are a frightened people.  We are led — too often — by voices that breed fear.  Only a casual reading of history points to a fear-based psycho-social pattern in our behavior:  Fear breeds violence which breeds fear which breeds violence which…  We find this cycle of destructive and primitive behavior in our geopolitical relationships and in our personal relationships.  To stop the cycle of fear, we must insert an alternative perspective and response.  Might we consider that a generous, welcoming reaction to the proposed mosque would set a good (legal) example and counter the cycle of fear and violence?

I suppose — as is our tendency lately — we could mount an effort to change the  U.S. Constitution.  After all (tongue in cheek), religious freedom frightens me.  We do silly things when we are afraid.  For example, as some have suggested, we are afraid of immigrants, and we don’t like the idea that their children born in our country enjoy equal protection under the law….well then, let’s change the Constitution.  We are afraid of Muslims, and we don’t like the idea of Muslims enjoying religious freedom in our country…well then, let’s change (or ignore) the Constitution. 

We Are Not Hamsters

Go ahead, let’s rip out the very heart of our Constitution to appease our fear.  Of course — in the long run it would not work.  We might accomplish the alignment of our laws with our fears, but we would still be a frightened people, subject to the fear cycle like a hamster…fear breeds violence which breeds fear which breeds legal violence which breeds fear which … on and on as if this desperate, primitive cycle is the only alternative.

I guess I am naive (as some have suggested) to expect our nation to be better than those who attacked us.

United Methodists Are Scary…?

I am a professing Christian, and I happen to be a United Methodist.  So, I wonder what would happen if I tried to build a United Methodist Church on the site that is proposed for the mosque in New York City.  Do we want a United Methodist Church there?  After all, it has been suggested by at least one frightened voice that Americans should be afraid of United Methodists because we believe in a Gospel that compels us to do social justice in the name of Jesus.  So, if not a mosque (because we are afraid), and if not a United Methodist Church (because we are afraid), then what?  And who gets to decide?

Really, what are we afraid of?

[Author's Note: I confess that I am embarrassed to be sucked into what I consider an intellectually primitive debate about one of our fundamental Constitutional principles.  OK, I was weak.  Sorry.  So, in the coming weeks, I think I will focus on something more important...like, how is it possible that every day, close to 16,000 children around the world die of hunger-related causes?  In one month that's about about 480,000.  Since 9/11, over 5 million children have died of hunger.  That's a lot more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11² .  We mourn all deaths, the 9/11 victims, and the hungry children alike.  But we are frightened by only some of them.]      

[Addendum (8/18/2010):  Since posting this article a day ago, a feisty debate has been stirred on my FaceBook page.  One reader answered my question: "What are we afraid of (if we build the mosque)?"  She responded with this: "Jeff asked what are we afraid of, well I will tell you another 9-11 attack, because that is what will happen!!!"  Perhaps, if I was more pastoral (forgive me) I would have addressed her genuine fear.  Instead, offering up my own fear, I reacted with this: "I am more afraid of the US selling its constitutional soul, and I am more afraid of the thousands of hungry children in our world who die every day without a reaction from us. I am more afraid of a so-called Church that mimicks talk radio banter more than the Gospel."]   

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. For the record, I am aware the the proposed mosque is not really a mosque at all in the traditional sense but a community center.  Also, the location of the proposed site is not at Ground Zero as some have assumed, but over two city blocks away.  In Manhattan, two city blocks is a huge distance culturally and demographically.
2. And more than the over 900,000 civilian and military persons who have died so far because of our response in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

I woke up, and booted up, to find this morning’s New York Times (get over it, its just one source) posted in my inbox.  Most of the time I scan the titles on the opinion page to see what’s buzzing.

Putting Our Brains On Hold?

Instead, this morning I noticed Bob Herbert’s Op-Ed : Putting Our Brains On Hold.   See the entire article at the link here:  (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/opinion/07herbert.html) .  Reach your own conclusions.  I offer mine here.

In the article Herbert reports news from the College Board¹  For the full press release, go to http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/releases_main.html .  They announced that the United States now ranks 12th in the world in the proportion of adults ages 25 to 34 with post secondary credentials.  Yikes!  

The report continues, “In that key group, 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the U.S. ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia.”  Hey, at least we have the largest military.

What Happened To Us?

I am the son of an engineer from New Hampshire, so I think I have a shred of practical sense — at least buried deeply within my DNA.  So, the College Board report makes me wonder.  Why are we number 12?  What happened to us?   

Here is the practical side.  I think it’s about the money, and comparing categories helps me understand better.  Consider this comparison, for example:  We have built up the most fierce and effective military presence the world has ever known.  We have developed the most sophisticated methods for destruction.  Yet, we cannot provide a college education for enough of our young people.  Or, at least, eleven other countries in the world are producing more college educated young people than we are.

Why?  One approach is to compare how we spend ² . 

We get what we pay for.  I know, there is a growing popular voice in America that says our government is becoming too large and we pay too much of our hard-earned income in taxes.  Perhaps this is true ³  . 

Let take a quick (admittedly superficial) look.   How does the federal government distribute our hard-earned dollars?  Roughly, in fiscal year 2009 about 23 percent of our money was spent on homeland security and military, 20 percent on Social Security, 19 percent on Medicare and Medicaid, and — get this — 3 percent on Education.  I know, this ignores local and state spending; the quality of our nation’s educational system depends greatly on local spending.  We can agree that our local schools are funded primarily by local tax dollars, which explains the huge disparity in the quality of education at the local level. 

But here I am interested in higher education — which tends to rely more heavily on state and federal support, either directly or indirectly (through tuition grants and loans for students).

What I Am Not Saying, What I Am Saying.

I am not trying to say that if we spend more on education we will get more from our educational system.  I know the solutions are much more complicated than to simply spend more. 

I am trying to say that the way we spend — or not spend — at the federal level seems (to me) to reveal what we value most as a nation.  And so I ask questions like: If spending percentages are a clue, I wonder why we seem to care less about providing college education for more of our young people?  Or, have we changed?  Do we now care about other things more as a nation (about 20 years ago we were ranked number 1)?  Is it possible that the way we spend reveals what we really want today?  Is it OK that we are number 12 in the world?

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. The College Board is a not-for-profit membership association whose mission is to connect students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the College Board is composed of more than 5,700 schools, colleges, universities and other educational organizations.
2. I realize I am opening a chaotic can of worms here.  How our nation’s educational system is funded is a very complicated issue.  Of course, we need to analyze local spending next to state spending next to federal spending.  But this discussion is about higher education, so I think a bit more pressure can be applied to the federal side of the analysis.
3. I find it interesting, though, that those who cry out for lower taxes and smaller government tend to support a stronger and more expensive military.  Can we be authentic and suggest that its not how much we spend, but on what?  Michael Lerner, in his book Left Hand Of God. See the citation in Cool Books. Lerner suggests the real question is not how much we should spend but why, i.e., whether or not we are a people of generosity or fear.  Hmm.

Joining many other United Methodist Conferences and many other faith groups across the United States, the Virginia UMC Conference Working Group On Immigration has issued a statement affirming our call as people of faith to welcome the strangers among us.   

Embrace The Stranger In Our Midst

The text of the entire statement can be found here: http://www.vaumc.org/Page.aspx?pid=1659 .  In the statement, an excerpt from our Bishop Kammerer’s April 2010 letter to the Virginia Conference publication, Advocate is included:

     “We know that there are over 12 million immigrants living inside the United States. If we have not encountered immigrants as neighbors, church members, and work acquaintances, then our lives have been very isolated. The pace of immigration will only continue. The face of the United States will continue to change in the next decades as more people of color and different cultural backgrounds come to live in Virginia …

     “How are we preparing to receive what the Bible names as ‘strangers and sojourners’ in the Christian faith? How is our Bible study, worship and small group experience introducing us to the needs of the ‘stranger’ in our midst? Xenophobia is a word that means ‘fear of the stranger’. We must make sure our churches do not exhibit xenophobia, but rather radical hospitality as people come to our congregations to find Jesus, and to learn  how Jesus treated the Stranger …

     “Regardless of our political beliefs about immigration, the consistent message of Old and New Testament Scripture invites us to embrace the sojourner and stranger in our midst. This is the time when we in the Church of Jesus Christ must live out our faith by welcoming and advocating for immigrants in our society – and in our congregations. We only have to look as far as Jesus for our model.”

It Might Not Be Popular, But It Is The Right Thing To Do

I hear the news.  I know there are some folks in Virginia who believe we should follow Arizona’s lead on this issue.  The judge’s ruling against Arizona’s SB1070 notwithstanding, some Virginians are calling us to live by the “rule of law”¹  The statement issued by Virginia UMC’s Working Group On Immigration reminds us that we — as people of faith — live by the “rule of love”. 

I am encouraged to be a part of a faith community that is doing the right thing.  The Virginia UMC’s Working Group On Immigration statement is doing the right thing.  We now stand (proudly, in my view) as the biblical Church and in in connection with our wider faith community.  In 2008 the UMC General Conference passed a resolution calling for comprehensive immigration reform² , and in May 2009 our Council of Bishops issued a statement affirming this call³ .  You can read more on my particular views about this by clicking Immigration Reform to the right.

Let’s At Least Agree We Should Do Something To Fix A Broken System

As people of faith we may not agree on how to address the problem.  We can debate the details.  I think, though, we can agree that the current immigration system in the U.S. is broken, and has become inhumane.  So, let’s fix it .  Even if it might not be popular, even if it might not be comfortable, it is the right thing to do.  Let’s be the Church.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. I find it fascinating that “rule of law” is somehow a subjective matter for the Phoenix, Arizona sheriff who apparently is refusing to obey the judge’s injunction regarding SB1070…hmm.  Perhaps “rule of law” really means “rule of my law”.
2. http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4951419&ct=6480715&notoc=1.  From The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church — 2008. Copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House
3.  http://archives.umc.org/interior.aspptid=21&mid=13506

For decades I have been perplexed by a discomforting contradiction in the Church.  My unsophisticated question has been:  How does a Church which claims a biblical faith endorse public policies that are mean-spirited or intolerant?  It seems to me (my personal opinion) that the Church has too often preferred public policies that encourage us to control the choices of others, protect rather than share our resources, and fear those who are different from us.  Is this the only voice for a biblical people? 

Is that all there is to the Church?  Are there other views?  Another way to ask it is this:  When it comes to public policy, why have other voices in the Church — for example, spiritually moderate or progressive voices – been relatively silent?  It seems to me that either the religious right or left extremists have dominated the public debate. 

One might presume that a preference for the extremes is the fault of our media who – in order to increase ratings – tend to report extreme views.  Extremism is more interesting, more fun, more flashy.  The middle is boring.  Moderation is gray and unsexy.  Perhaps this is all true, but there is no need to blame the media for chasing the dollar in order to survive.  Besides, we might ask, has the media been offered an alternative message to report?

I Have Been Silent

Truth is, I am part of the problem.  I have been silent.  For decades I have wondered only quietly – where is the voice of the biblical Church (not to be confused with the religious right)?  I confess I saw the gap, the contradiction, long ago. 

As far back as my seminary days in the early 80s I encountered the Gospel of Luke, for example, and began to ask this naive question: Why is there a grotesque gap between what I read about Jesus in Luke and the Church’s behavior in the public policy sphere?¹   

Stop Calling It “Christian”

I tried.  At least at first.  I weakly tossed out a challenge to my friends:  If we choose public policies based on intolerance and selfishness (or, more kindly, protectionism and control), let’s at least stop calling it Christian.  Or, we could choose public policies that indeed reflect the biblical mandate to forgive, share, and welcome. 

Soon I gave up talking, but I remained convinced (quietly).  Perhaps the most frequently expressed theme in the Bible is that God invites us to share our resources with the widow, care for the orphan, and welcome the stranger among us. 

My simple conclusion as a Christian was this:  The policies that our Church endorses publicly ought to look a bit like the Jesus we read about in the Gospel of Luke (or Matthew, or Mark, or John).  The policies we endorse as people of faith ought to protect our widows, care for our orphans, and welcome strangers in our land.       

Spiritually moderate or progressive leaders have been relatively silent in the public sphere.  Sadly, this silence has resulted in a growing perception around the world that religion in American (especially Christianity) is defined only by right-wing, extremist fundamentalists who endorse policies that are intolerant, selfish, and mean.  This narrow perception of our faith has made us easy targets for mocking by radical left voices (see my article, Back To The Murky Middle: Inviting our atheist friends). 

If the only Christian voice heard in the public sphere is the religious right’s voice, then it is no surprise that people of other faith traditions or no faith tradition have formed the impression that all of us are intolerant, protectionist, controlling, selfish, and afraid.  It’s our own fault for not speaking up and out.  We were silent….well, I was.

There Are New Spiritual Voices In The Public Sphere

Today is a new day.  There is a new wind blowing.  There are new spiritual voices in the public sphere.  For example, I am delighted by the National Association Of Evangelicals (www.nae.net) — an otherwise conservative voice previously associated only with the religious right.  The NAE has come out publicly in favor of two traditionally more progressive positions: comprehensive immigration reform and creation care.  This confirms for me what I have often hoped — that there are a few progressive voices within what appears on the surface to be a monolithic evangelical camp.

Another progressive voice from the evangelical world is The New Evangelical Partnership For The Common Good (http://www.newevangelicalpartnership.org/).  This progressive spiritual policy organization was founded by Richard Cizik, formerly a VP with the NAE² .  The New Evangelical Partnership has endorsed comprehensive immigration reform, creation care, nuclear disarmament, and a Muslim-Christian dialogue as expressed by the open letter from Muslim clerics, A Common Word Between Us And You (http://www.acommonword.com/ , signed by hundreds of Muslim clerics worldwide and endorsed by many Jewish and Christian leaders). 

A Few Veteran Spiritual Progressive Voices

These organizations are joined by three veteran organizations of the spiritually progressive evangelical movement, Jim Wallis’ Sojourners (http://www.sojo.net), Ron Sider’s Evangelicals For Social Action (http://www.esa-online.org), and Tony Campolo’s Evangelical Association For The Promotion Of Education (EAPE, http://www.eape.org/).  For decades these three organizations have remained steadfast in their support for a holistic approach to biblical Christianity — one that is necessarily expressed in our public policy choices.   

In addition to these progressive evangelical voices, there are several new and not-so-new movements among those who are more comfortable with an openly ecumenical context.  The 100 year old National Council Of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/), for example, remains a resilient voice for progressive spiritual public policy. 

In addition, while receiving criticism over the past ten years for shrinking memberships, several of our “mainline” Christian denominations have been steady voices for progressive spiritual policies.  These include The United Church Of Christ (http://www.ucc.org/), The Presbyterian Church, USA (http://www.pcusa.org/),  The Evangelical Lutheran Church (http://www.elca.org/), The Episcopal Church (http://www.ecusa.anglican.org) , many of the expressions of The Roman Catholic Church (http://www.nccbuscc.org/), and my own United Methodist Church (http://www.umc.org/), among many other strong Christian denominations.

Help With Political Strategy

Spiritual progressives now have a little help in the political strategy arena.  Formed in 2006, Faith In Public Life (FPL, http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/) describes itself as an ecumenical strategy center for the faith community which helps organize a moderate faith message in public political discourse.   This young organization was formed in response to the rather dismal performance by spiritual progressives in the 2004 national election.  FPL is dedicated to helping spiritual progressives have a more active and coordinated, and therefore more effective, voice in the national political debate. 

Network Of Spiritual Progressives

There is ecumenical and there is ecumenical.  During my vacation at the lake earlier this summer I read Rabbi Michael Lerner’s 2006 book The Left Hand Of God: Healing America’s Political And Spiritual Crisis (San Francisco: Harper Collins).  Lerner is forming a truly ecumenical Network Of Spiritual Progressives (NSP, http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/) that is dedicated to three basic platforms:

1. Changing the “bottom line” — what matters most — in America³ ,
2. Challenging the misuse of religion, God, and Spirit by the religious right, and
3. Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture.

I Am More Confident

A new wind is blowing…a new voice…the voice of the Spirit is blowing across the land.  This is not a new voice, actually, but one that has been neglected or remained too soft.  I am have been part of the problem before, but now, with a bit of support emerging to help me raise my voice, I find myself more confident.  OK, I am a spiritual progressive.  There, I said it.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. I confess that part of my problem in the 80s was that I had restricted my reading and listening to sources with a narrow, relatively conservative, religious world view.  Had I listened and read more broadly then, I might have discovered that a healthy and active (though small) public voice from spiritual progressives already existed.
2. Yep.  This is the same fellow who was ousted by the NAE for what appeared to be his public endorsement of civil unions for gays and lesbians, among other grumblings.
3. The new bottom line according to NSP (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/) means our institutions and policies ”should be judged rational, efficient and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity and behavior, kindness and generosity, non-violence and peace, and to the extent that they enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings in a way that honors them as embodiments of the sacred, and enhances our capacities to respond to the earth and the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.”

“What matters today is not the difference between those who believe and those who do not believe, but the difference between those who care and those who don’t.”   – Georges Pires, Nobel Laureate, Peace, 1958 ¹

Years ago in the early nineties I served on the staff of Habitat For Humanity, International (http://www.habitat.org) .  I worked out of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  We were responsible for the local Habitat affiliates in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.  Teaching local affiliates how to recruit and manage volunteers was a big deal.  Habitat affiliates depend on volunteers to accomplish their mission.  So, I conducted many training events, especially about volunteer recruiting and volunteer managing² .

When We Volunteer, It’s OK To Be Selfish…But…

Many times I said, “When it comes to the reasons we volunteer, it is OK to be selfish.”  What I meant is that it’s OK to volunteer for a community service project because it “makes me feel good.”  Let’s face it.  If we’re honest, it feels good when we do something good for others.  No need to feel guilty about that.  So, let’s come clean about why we volunteer for community service organizations.  One reason we volunteer is that it makes us feel good.  When we volunteer for an effective organization that is accomplishing good, we feel satisfied, fulfilled.  That’s a good thing.

But is it the only thing?  Do we volunteer for other reasons?

I returned yesterday from a week-long mission trip with Appalachia Service Project (www.asphome.org)³ .  Our church group joined two larger church groups in Summers County, West Virginia.  All week we repaired houses for families who are unable to do the repairs on their own.  We dug holes and poured footers, we built porches, installed HVAC duct work, painted, sawed, nailed, laughed, sweat, and … slept very well — even on the floor of a hot gymnasium.

There’s More To Mission Work Than Feeling Good About Myself

Why?  Why did we go?  Sure, we went because it satisfies us.  It feels good.  But there is more.  Feeling satisfied is not enough.  There’s more to mission work than feeling good about myself.  I want to be effective.  I want to make a real difference.  I want my effort to have meaning. 

What a waste to have spent an entire week crawling under a house in that smelly, muddy mess if it did not result in real change for the homeowner, Margie.  Sure I want to feel satisfied that I served her.  But I also need to know that what I accomplished for her will make a difference in her life.  Will my work be effective for her?

I suppose we all have a tendency to be a bit self-absorbed, even when we are serving others.  Too often we settle into a comfortable “service” role that is more self-serving than other-serving.  So, because we are human, perhaps we can accept (and enjoy) that sometimes, when we serve others, we do serve ourselves.  But to serve others must mean more.  Serving others must be effective.  Serving others should also result in real, meaningful change for the other person. 

So, we seek both — to make a meaningful difference in some one’s life, and to feel good about it. ⁴  I think there is enough of God’s grace for both of us, for all of us…for those being served, and those who are serving.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. Both quotations come from David Pratt, Editor, 2007. The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said By Nobel Prize Laureates. New York: Walker & Company
2. Much of my training material on volunteer management — still in use today – I developed during my tenure with Habitat For Humanity, later refined as part of my doctoral dissertation research.  I have since revised the material for application also in local congregations.  See the categories on Transformational Leadership and Church Leadership to the right, and the Workshops/Consultations page above.
3. See my last article, More Than A House .
4. This sounds like a conversation in The Murky Middle!

Sure, this is a plug…for a good organization.  More, this is a plug for a good idea — the flesh of God’s love.  On Sunday I will join a team of eager workers in West Virginia.  We are working for Appalachia Service Project (www.asphome.org), a faith-based organization that provides structured mission opportunities in the Appalachia region of our country (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee).  Teams from all over the U.S. volunteer for this important work every summer.  

Hundreds Of Families This Summer!

This year our team consists of 8 adults and 7 youth (representing two United Methodist churches from our community).  We are heading to Summers County, West Virginia to join teams from churches in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania and Pleasantville, New York.  Personally, I’ll be glad to hang around a bunch of yankees for the week!  

This summer, a total of twenty-one teams will be working over eight consecutive weeks in Summers County.  All over Appalachia, in 26 other communities, ASP is hosting similar projects for hundreds of families!

The details of our work in Summers County will vary, but all of us – whether digging, nailing, painting, cutting, measuring, sweeping, or hauling — will be helping 18 families live in safer, warmer homes. 

Appalachia Service Project has served thousands of families for over 40 years, in places where the economy has made it especially tough to pay the bills, and even tougher to pay for house repairs.  The families we serve are not able to purchase the materials or hire the contractors to fix their homes. 

More Than Repairing A House

This is more than repairing houses.  One of our projects this week is to finish a room addition so a young family can be allowed to have their daughter live with them again.  Sure, maybe it’s just one tiny bedroom, but its an entirely new home for this young family.

Our teams include teenagers every year.  Two of my daughters are joining me this year!  Appalachia Service Project is dedicated to providing mission opportunities for youth.  Our small team will include 7 teenagers.  Very cool.  If your organization or congregation is looking for a very practical, hands-on, effective mission opportunity designed for youth, check out Appalachia Service Project (www.asphome.org).  ASP helps our church teach our youth that faith means action, that love is more than words.  ASP is one way we experience — and share — the flesh of God’s love.   

News From Summers County, WV

I hope to send you updates from the site all week long.  Maybe you recall that we were able to send news from Russia just about every day when Chris was in Ivanovo with the orphans.  Check out Ivanovo Daily Log 2010 if you haven’t read about that exciting orphan care mission trip.  If I can find an internet connection, I’ll send you the news as often as possible.

Pray for us — all of us throughout Appalachia.  Pray especially for the families who will receive (we hope) tangible evidence of God’s love.  More, please consider getting involved next summer.  We need your hands, too.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

“A friend of mine is going blind, but through the dimness, he sees so much better than me…He can’t read books       and he can’t paint pretty pictures,  but he understands so much clearer than I.  For he knows that all he’s missing with his eyes is more vivid in the mind of the man who’s going blind.  And that’s why he doesn’t mind.”

Who is the song about?  His name is Tommy Davidson, and he was going blind.  Despite John’s lyrics, I figure Tommy minded. 

That 1976 winter must have been a strange time in my life.  Why did this penetrating and sad song from an obscure  British songwriter get so much air time on a small town radio station in Pennsylvania in 1976?

The Song Was Too Sad To Play Again 

Here is the better question.  Why did I want to hear it so often?   I called the station over and over requesting the song.  One night I called so often they told me to stop calling.  The song was too sad to play again, they said.  Hmm.    

The melody is beautiful and clear.  Truth be known, the lyrics are not sad as much as they are wise.  Could it be I was drawn to the elusive wisdom of the song?  The songwriter tells the story of his close friend, Tommy, who is losing his physical sight yet continues to “see” better and more, and more clearly than others.  If you haven’t heard the song yet, listen by going to John’s site (above) to click on the link.

Do I See Or Understand?

There is a difference between seeing and understanding.  The power of this singular piece of wisdom must have overwhelmed me in 1976.  Still does. 

I did not have much of a theological mindset in 1976 but now I am able to wonder about the connection between John’s lyrics and a similar piece of wisdom from Jesus.  In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says to his disciples, ”To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but to others I speak in parables, so that looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand” (NRSV).  Apparently Jesus wanted more than a superficial reaction to his teaching.  So, he sometimes shared his wisdom in a veiled way, to make us dig a bit, think a bit, wonder a bit…and perhaps then understand.  

There is a difference between seeing and understanding.  Most of us see with our eyes, but few of us understand.

Of course I thought I understood everything in 1976.  I was nineteen.  C’mon, I knew everything, right?  I understood everything, right?  Truth is, that winter in 1976 I saw lots of  things but understood very little.  I can catalogue a long list of poor decisions I made in those days because I “saw” and only thought I understood the world and people around me.  

Looking Back Is A Good Thing

I’ve been thinking about my high school reunion scheduled for this summer.  I suppose it has revived these penetrating questions within me…looking back …wondering…asking tough questions about whether I only saw or truly understood the world around me. 

I’m going to miss the reunion, but I say “thanks” to the reunion organizers for reviving within me the memories – and the questions — about my life in the months following graduation. 

What did I see in 1976?  Not sure.  What did I understand?  A lot less.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

The tenacious, skillful effort by well-equipped, well-trained workers means nothing if they are heading in the wrong direction¹ .  In fact, if we don’t know where we are going, or if we are unwilling to commit to where we are going, any plan will work.  Or, no plan works well too!  The Cheshire Cat in Alice In Wonderland reminds us, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” ²

Conversely, knowing where we want to end up truly motivates a team — even for an ill-prepared bunch of novices.  Tonight my family will pack up our stuff, for tomorrow morning’s departure when, before the finches clamor onto the thistle socks, we will stuff our stuff into a minivan, along with two dogs, for our 15 hour drive to our vacation destination.  That’s right, 15 hours, two dogs, one minivan.  Sounds delightful….not!

We Know Where We Are Going.

Why would we endure such a grueling drive?  We know where we are going.  We know where we will end up.  Its worth it.  Perhaps along the way we will run into barriers (not literally!), diversions, delays, fatigue…but we will always have before us the image of our destination at the end of the long day.  We are assured the comfortable, peaceful cabin on the lake in New Hampshire awaits us.  We might need to be reminded along the way.  In the midst of the traffic or fatigue on Interstate 84 we might need to shout out, “We’re heading for the lake!”  The end point makes the long drive worth it.

When we embrace the good end — even from a distance — the best advice might be, “Do not give up!”  I am reminded of the daffy fish friend Dory, in the Disney movie Finding Nemo³.  Dory encouraged Marlin in their long journey to find Marlin’s son, Nemo, who had been snatched by a sport diver and taken to a far away place.  When Marlin thought of giving up his search, Dory swam alongside (parakaleo for you Greek nerds) and sang, “just keep swimming, just keep swimming, just keep swimming….”  They knew where they were going, they embraced a clear vision of what awaits them — finding Marlin’s son Nemo!  So…the best leadership advice was “just keep swimming, just keep swimming.”

We Dare Not Settle For Short-Term Visioners

When something good awaits us, the long  journey to get there is worth it.  And yet, the long journey sometimes becomes very long, and discouraging.  Along the way we might lose sight of why we are going where we’re going. 

We can apply this simple truth to a few social policy ”journeys” .  Our economic recession requires that we boldly make a long, scary journey through troubled waters, but we know (hope?) in the end we will be better, stronger.  In the midst of this long journey toward recovery we dare not settle for short-term visioners (e.g., those who want us to focus on quarterly indicators as if 3 months is the extent of the journey).  Or worse, we dare not settle for short-term visioners who offer up sound bites designed to win in November rather than lead us in the long journey through the troubled waters.

Transformational Leadership Requires Tenacious Long Term Vision

We can apply this simple truth to organizational change.  Do not give up on the long term good just because the short term challenges and sacrifices seem too difficult.  In short, transformational leadership, whether we are talking about national policy or change for my local congregation or nonprofit, requires tenacious long term vision.  Leaders who ask us to scuttle our long term common good in order to relieve our short term discomfort are not leading us anywhere.  And we know what the Cheshire Cat said.

Tomorrow’s Long Drive Will Be Worth It

Tomorrow’s drive will be long, tough, and tiring, but we know where we are going and the drive is worth it.  The journey toward a better day for our nation, our Conference, our local congregation will be long, tough, and tiring.  If we know where we are going — if we embrace the common good that awaits us — the long drive will be worth it.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010)

1. Thanks to Kathy Merry, Marc Brown, and John Briggs for reminding me of this valuable truth during our recent Virginia UMC Annual Conference.  They have written a delightful, accessible book on transformational leadership for the Church, Does Your Church Have A Prayer?  In Mission Toward The Promised Land.  Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources, 2009.
2. Carroll, Lewis. (1865).  Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland.   Plenty of management and leadership experts since then have used the Cat’s wisdom in a variety of ways! 
3. Written by Andrew Stanton, 2003

Weddings, Conferences, Reunions

A month ago Mom, Dad, and my four siblings converged in Birmingham, Alabama for a wedding.  My sister’s son got married.  The wedding was cool, but the gathering with my family — even for a short weekend — was very cool.  We re-connected through stories, celebration, and lots of food.

A few weeks ago my family and I attended a couple of weddings in the community where we once lived.  We also attended a worship service where we began our Methodist journey.  It was a healthy experience re-connecting with old friends. The same week I attended the annual conference for Virginia United Methodists.  Sounds like a boring annual meeting, but in Methodism we take this very seriously.  It’s in our Wesleyan DNA to gather with members of our conference every year - lay and clergy alike – for a few days of worship, business, and yes, re-connecting our lives.  I talked with old friends and made new friends, and we made some progress ordering the ministries of the Virginia Conference. I was reminded that I’m a part of something larger than me, larger than my local congregation.  I feel better now.  While I never look forward to going to these conferences, I always return home re-energized and hopeful.  Why?

Next month is my 35th-year high school reunion for the Beaver Area Senior High class of 1975.  Go BASH Class of 1975!  We were always the best.  We might be getting old…some of you are lookin’ kind of ragged on FaceBook…but we have not given up.  I’m sorry to say I will miss the event because of another commitment (…c’mon, I have a pretty good excuse…), but I have been privy to the e-mails from the reunion coordinator – thanks, Polly! - who has diligently invited us to register.  She has shared details about the weekend events and sent out special requests for current mailing information for classmates we can’t find….like that guy in Trigonometry, the quiet one with curly red hair who sat in the back.  Does anyone know where he is now?

Why Do I Want To Go?

The reunion e-mail chatter has encouraged me.  I don’t talk often enough with my former classmates, but it doesn’t seem to matter, at least not this summer, because that’s my class.  Those are my people.  And even though the rest of the class of 1975 probably still considers me an annoying dweeb, I belong, I am one of them.  So, I will surely miss the opportunity to re-connect with them.

I wonder, though, why do I want to go?

Good question.  If I’m honest, I’d have to say I’m a loner.  It’s not that I am anti-social (usually), but unless I’m playing Monopoly with my daughters or watching a movie with Linda, I prefer sitting alone reading or writing.  So, I am surprised by my fascination with the ”connection events” I’ve described.  Of all people, I’m the last one to be drawn into connecting with old friends and colleagues.  OK, I understand the wedding in Alabama…most of the food was free, and my siblings have long accepted that I will always be annoying (I’m not a dweeb any more, really).

But the Methodist annual conference and my high school reunion are a stretch for me.  An important stretch.  Why did the conferenc re-energize me?  Why am I interested in seeing old friends from high school?  Maybe this need to connect is a part of my nature.  I wonder if I am wired (created) to be with people, not apart from them.  Duh.  Of course.  In my mind, this point is obvious and needs no further unpacking.  We are created to live in community – whether this is comfortable for us or not.  To put a theological imprint it, I think God’s image in us means we need to connect with other humans because its healthier and safer to live in community.

Blame My Myers-Briggs Classification

How, then, did I come to be such a loner?  I can blame my Myers-Briggs classification.  Every INTJ will understand.  Leave me alone.  

Or, I can blame my North American Protestant culture.  We are raised to thrive on and prefer the frontier where we embrace good ol’ American rugged individualism.  I’ll take care of my bootstraps, you take care of yours.  We are trained to be suspicious of any effort that smacks of “common good” replacing individual rights.  

Or, I can blame my New Hampshire DNA.  “Live free or die” is on their license plates.  Maybe that’s why its so easy to curl up with a book on the porch at the lake in New Hampshire.  It’s the license plate.

I like freedom.  I like my personal rights.  Yay me.  Leave me alone.

Who Gets To Win, And Who Decides?

Consider this as well: If I connect with you, it will be harder to stay alone.  (Another duh.)  Take it a bit further.  If I connect with you, maybe it will become harder for me to hang on to my individual rights.  Or, too bad for you, hanging on to my individual rights could mean you will lose yours….because we are connected.  If we connect, your rights might result in me losing mine.  This tension-filled cycle gets personal.  So, who gets to win, and who decides?

Maybe if I disconnect, I can pretend there is no problem.

The organic tension between my individual rights and our common good has been debated for centuries.  The tension exists within me, and between you and me¹ .  The cycle tuckers me out.  I want to let it go.  I am tempted to disconnect.  I admit, reading a book on the front porch at the lake in New Hampshire sounds very appealing to this loner.

I Won’t Give Up

Take heart.  Encouraged by the BASH ’75 reunion, I might be old and worn out but I won’t give up.  Perhaps this year, for kicks, for the connection-cause, I might dust off an old copy of Amitai Etzioni’s, The Spirit Of Community: The Reinvention Of American Society² .  Etzioni tries to find a balance between the pursuit of common good and the pursuit of personal rights.  He asserts, “strong rights presume strong responsibilities.”  Hmm.  This sounds like middle ground, a very murky, tension-filled, middle way.

Etzioni and others like him (more and more of us, fortunately) have long been convinced there is hearty middle ground where we can obtain a balance between a commitment to community and the pursuit of self-interest.  They believe (me too..) that there is hopeful middle ground where you and I can retain our precious personal rights while also remaining diligent in our pursuit of common good.  We must try.  The alternative extremes will destroy us.  We need the murky middle.

I have hope, if not the energy (for now).  This tired loner has a long way to go to get to that hearty middle ground.  I wonder if a good book in New Hampshire will help.

[Read an article about this topic, Leadership From The Middle.  Find it in the Special Articles category.  This was a lecture I delivered several years ago to a suspicious audience!]

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, PhD (2010).

1. From a systems view it is easy to make the leap from the 1) tension between my individual rights and society’s common good to 2) the tension between my individual rights and the common good of our local congregation, and even to 3) the tension between my individual congregation’s rights and the common good of our Conference.
2. New York: Simon & Schuster (1993).

So, this is an anniversary of sorts – 15 months of self-indulgent writing.  I remain diligent in my confession that this has been a truly self-indulgent exercise, fraught with poor grammar and sometimes poor logic, but filled with rich questions, wonderment and lots of fun. 

I offer a summary of the articles.  I did not plan it this way but during the year the following categories of articles have emerged, roughly.  They are, in alphabetical order, as follows (To read the articles, click the link below or in the categories list to the right.)  

• Carpe Diem Guy — this is about seizing the day in the Church (and my life!)
• Church Leadership — this is about leadership in and for the Church
• Conversation — this is about healthy conversation, which requires a dose of doubt 
• Creation Care — this is my newest category, focusing on the Church’s role in creation stewardship
• Immigration Reform — this is plain and simple talk about doing the right thing for the “strangers” among us
• It’s A Dog’s Life — this is about my dogs and other simple pleasures found in my backyard
• Nobel Laureates — this is about them, those special leaders in our world who have been recognized as extraordinary 
• Organizational Effectiveness — here is my personal niche about what works and how to measure it in organizations
• Orphan Care — this is about a passion of my life, based on my experiences in Russia
• Seventies Nostalgia — this is nostalgic reflection, flash-back to Jack Bogut and those good ol’ days
• The Murky Middle — another niche for me — the political, theological, and behavioral middle — even when murky… gray is good
• Transformational Leadership — loosely defined…this is a sub-part to organizational effectiveness dealing with leadership — from my perspective, and in an organizational context
• Vulnerable Children — this is related to orphan care, of course, but a lot more
• Worm Theology — yes, its true, I have worms, and they teach me good things

In addition to the regular articles, there are a few cool pages, like Cool Books, Tormenting My Congregation, and Special Articles where you can find special topics or items for you to enjoy.  The Cool Books page is especially helpful (in my mind) because it links all the books I have cited to the article(s) in which I mention the book.  Tormenting My Congregation includes a smattering of sermons I have preached over the years.  To my knowledge, no one lost their salvation.  In Special Articles you will find something about leadership in the murky middle, something about a Wesleyan understanding of God’s image, and something about our human drive for community. 

Thanks for reading, whether you agree with me or not.  Thanks especially for your patient reflection in the context of my self-indulgence.  I hope you continue to visit and enjoy.

Not-So-Goofy Today

My drives across the bridge every day were a gift from God – to start the day and end the day over the water with its beautiful images…and to enjoy the spectacle of goofy pelicans.  I love these birds, even though they are not the most graceful, elegant birds.  I loved to watch them fly and feed.  Typically three or four would fly together along the edge of the bridge where the fish tended to gather.  Without warning, one of the birds would drop out of the sky and tumble into the water.  

When I first saw this spectacle (there were no pelicans in western Pennsylvania where I was raised!) I was shocked!  It looked as if someone had shot the bird out of the sky or it had suffered a heart attack.  But in a brief moment, the goofy pelican bobbed around on the water’s surface and awkwardly flapped its long wings to rise above the water with a fish in its long beak.  Success!  But very strange.  Very awkward.  No grace.  Goofy, but effective. 

Since then every time I see these silly birds flop to the water for a fish I giggle.  They make me laugh. 

They are not so goofy today.  The picture below is one image among many showing the plight of pelicans in the Gulf because of the oil spill there.  I’m sure you have seen others.  

I am not laughing any more.

An easy search on the web will produce plenty of photos like this one — of pelicans, dolphins, marshland, adult birds, baby birds, turtles, you name it.  And not just the animals.  There are plenty of photos of frustrated workers and boat captains and hotel owners and others who will suffer loss of income to support their families.  It is not news to say that we ache about every dimension of this tragedy.

Not-So-Righteous Indignation

I am curious, though, about my indignation.  Why do I feel bad now?  To be honest, the oil spill will not affect me directly.  The thought crossed my mind that I might have to pay more for shrimp.  Wow.  

Here’s the kicker.  Not only will this not affect me directly, the prospect of such a disaster hardly bothered me before now. 

For how many years — while I was driving back and forth across the bay (enjoying the goofy pelicans), consuming much more than my share of gasoline every day — for how many years did I ignore the possiblity of such a disaster, the odds of which were being fueled by my over-consumption?  My indignation toward BP and other “drill,baby, drill” fanatics today should be tempered by my lack of indignation then — when I did not care, when I did not notice, when I was part of the problem.

I liken this guilt about my oil over-consumption to our concern regarding drug trafficking across the Mexico-US border. We blame our insecure or dangerous border, or those Mexican immigrants hired to carry the stuff when all the while such traffic is fueled by our own (mostly middle class) drug consumption here.  So, when it comes to the oil spill disaster, and my gasoline over-consumption, how righteous is my indignation today?

Let’s face it.  We got what we deserve.  Sure we can point fingers at our relatively unregulated industry, or at our blind pursuit of individual profits over common good — these are old accusations.  But we got what we deserve because all the while we (I) continue to consume energy resources in this country at a pace and proportion far exceeding what we really need in order to care for ourselves and support a growing economy.  Far exceeding.

When I am honest about this oil spill, my indignation no longer feels righteous.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

“The whole universe in its wholeness more perfectly shares in and represents the divine goodness than any one creature by itself” – Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), in Summa Theologica.  (Thanks to my friend Lee for sharing this quote!) 

A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but one man is still trying to find the answers to life’s persistent questions……..Guy Noir, Private Eye¹.

I was Guy Noir that evening, sort of…trying to find the answers to life’s persistent questions.  The seminary cafeteria was dark that night.  The only sound was the hum of the ice cream cooler next to the cash register.  Most of the students were gone…deposited religiously in their dormitory room or apartment earnestly reading Calvin’s Institutes Of The Christian Religion or translating a passage from Nestle Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece text.  I was not one of them.  At least not on this night.  On this night I was on a mission to find the answers to life’s persistent questions.

Such as, what is compassion?  Or, more to the point, is there a compassionate way to relate to creation? 

My instructions were clear.  The mysterious caller — my informant and supplier — said only this:  “Go to the cafeteria when it is dark, when the only sound you hear is the hum of the ice cream cooler next to the cash register.  Wait for me there. ”  

OK.  I’m here.  Waiting.  I hear a slight cough (not the ice cream cooler).  A figure emerges from the shadows.  In a smooth, silent motion he (I think it was a he) glides next to me extending his gloved hand outward.  He is holding the book.  Without a word or glance from under the fedora — for a moment I was sure it was Humphrey Bogart, but wrong decade, wrong movie – the book seems to appear in my hands with the same smooth motion that the fedora dude disappears. 

Really, I wanted to ask Sam to play it again.  Sam wasn’t there.

In only a few pages I was back in my rusty VW bug clutching the book.  I was nervous.  Had I been caught with this paperback bit of contraband surely I would receive a severe glare or two, possibly even a direct question.  “Why are you reading Matthew Fox?”  The shame might have been too much for me to bear.²    

Not Just Any Book, A Book By Matthew Fox

A few of my closest friends had recommended this book because the author said things boldly, regardless of the political correctness of the day (that day, that place)³

So, what’s the big deal?  Its a book written by Matthew Fox. 

Not just any book.  Then or now.  Granted, Matthew Fox has tended over the years to annoy his colleagues and supervisors with his controversial and unconventional view of things.  He wrote of compassion as a spirituality not a religion.  He wrote of basic things, ideas that I had come to believe were the ideas Jesus spoke about.  He wrote as if we should assume that as created beings, we are connected to the rest of creation.  Sound good to me.  So, what’s the big deal?  I wondered.

Well, in those days and these days it is sometimes difficult to convince others of a compelling theological argument for the Church to show compassion toward creation.  We own it, after all.  We dominate it, after all.  Compassion, for creation?  Huh?  Creation is ours to control and use, for our consumption, for our need and enjoyment. 

Compassion, one would think, does not fit into a worldview that says we humans are dominant, owners of the natural world around us.  Creation is ours to use as needed.  And so, compassion is not a word we need when talking about creation.  …Really?

Those were the days.  For me, at least.  I was learning and growing too slowly.  I had not yet begun to integrate my thoughts.  I graduated with a B.S. in environmental resource management, and then I changed careers to pursue a masters in theology.  Only now do I understand the connection.  There was not to be a change, only a reconnection for me between the natural environment and theology.

Cooperation, Rather Than Competition, May Be The More Basic Rule Of The Universe

Matthew Fox began to teach me.  Only later did I understand and learn.  We are connected.  As a Methodist I understand ”connection” as the interdependent relationship between me and all other Christians, between my congregation and all other congregations. 

As a human, Fox explains, we are connected to other humans for sure, but also to creation.  “The awareness in biology,” Fox writes, “is the awareness of interdependence…we are not just made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts.  We are shared, rented, occupied…our interdependence is exactly that — a dependence among one another.”

I am connected to the natural processes and forces of God’s natural, created world.  Light, soil, air, warmth, sunshine, food, nutrients.  I depend upon creation.  Creation also depends upon me.  The recent and ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is sadly becoming more evidence of our dependence upon creation, and creation’s dependence upon humans. 

A recognized interdependence between humanity and creation leads naturally to an awareness that another “dimension to biology and compassion is the movement away from the ruggedness implied in the term ‘rugged individualism.’  The presumption that life is at war and that therefore competition is a necessary and indeed compulsive dimension to living simply does not obtain as we once thought it did under a simplistic interpretation of Darwin’s survival of the fittest formula.  Cooperation, rather than competition, may be the more basic rule of the universe.” (Fox, p.154)

OK.  Thanks to the fedora dude.  Perhaps I am discovering one of the answers to life’s persistent questions: Does compassion matter when we consider creation?  Yes.  Because we are interdependent — with one another, and with creation.  We are intimately bound to the life forces and rhythms of our natural environment.  And so, when we care for creation, creation cares for us.  …When we cooperate.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

1. This is the opening line of most Guy Noir scripts on Garrison Keillor’s Prairie Home Companion radio show.  Find it at http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/ 
2. This depiction of events is only partly true.  OK, only a little bit true.  Well, not at all true….but the emotional intensity is close to true, sort of, at least for me.
3. The book is called A Spirituality Named Compassion And The Healing Of The Global Village, Humpty Dumpty And Us by Matthew Fox (1979).  Minneapolis: Winston Press.

We love big.  Not just in Texas, everywhere.  Even if it starts small, we want it to grow big.  We tend to super-size everything. ¹   We like  big meals, big houses, big yards, big economies, big churches.  If its small, we wonder, “What’s wrong with it?”

Not so in Guthrie, Oklahoma.  I was delighted to read Joey Butler’s article about the youth group at West Guthrie United Methodist Church.² .  Three members.

Three?  Not to worry.  This youth group is small, but effective.  They don’t seem to realize they are too small to make a huge difference.  Someone forgot to tell them they can’t do what they do.  They are only a small youth group…barely enough of them to call it a group!  But this ambitious team has raised money for several charities, helped elderly members with cleaning and errands, hosted church suppers and children’s ministries, purchased hundreds of malaria nets for Africa, raised over $500 to send care boxes for soldiers, participated in VBS, and helped narrate the children’s Christmas program.  And more.

How does such a small group do so much?  Their adult sponsor believes its their “extraordinary commitment to help others.”  In these days when we are sadly seduced to assume bigger is better, and our attraction to “mega”  overshadows our pursuit of effectiveness, we sometimes miss the little examples of extraordinary goodness happening all around us. 

In fact, we ought to be concerned about our attraction to “mega”.  There is a growing body of data suggesting that as a church increases in membership, the proportion of members actively engaged in ministry decreases.  Have we forgotten about making disciples?  The youth group in Guthrie Oklahoma remembers.   This three member group has a 100 percent participation rate.  They have heart.  They are small…but effective.

Bravo to the West Guthrie, Oklahoma youth group for reminding us that small is beautiful³ and effective!

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

1. I suppose there is now one exception.  After a generation or longer of experimenting, we’ve decided big cars aren’t so cool.
2. Butler, Joey. Small youth group makes a huge difference. Virginia United Methodist Advocate, May 2010, p.23, courtesy United Methodist Communications
3. I couldn’t resist the link to economist E.F. Schumacher’s 1973 book, Small Is Beautiful (New York: Harper & Row Publishers)

We’ve been thinking about mission a lot around here.  Our friend Chris is in Russia to re-connect with the orphan graduates.  We are in the midst of a Mission Celebration (www.missioncelebration.com) this weekend.  Every United Methodist church in our District will enjoy a special presentation by a mission interpreter — a fancy name for someone – regular folk or clergy folk – who has gone somewhere for mission and is willing to talk about it.  My own congregation is also gearing up for Vacation Bible School for the children in our community in June.  In July, we’ll be sending a team to Summers County, West Virginia to work with Appalachia Service Project (www.asphome.org) to do house repairs for families who can’t afford to do it themselves.  All cool stuff.

Yes, we’ve been thinking about mission a lot around here — locally, regionally, and globally.  But I wonder, why do we go?  Why do we do all this stuff?  Maybe I am asking too many questions.  Just go.  Don’t think about it, just go.  Well, that’s OK if we have unlimited resources…but we don’t.  So we should wonder, we should ask: Why do we go?

Guilt?

Do we go because we would feel guilty if we didn’t go?  I suppose there could be worse motivations for helping someone.  I hope, though, that our mission motivation is a bit more constructive.

Arrogance?

I wonder — now I’m meddling – do we go because we think we are bringing Jesus to the ones we help, and if we don’t go Jesus won’t be there?  Let’s be honest – sometimes, for some of us, we assume that if we don’t go, if we are not there, then those we seek to help will not see Jesus?  As if Jesus needs me to carry him there (…in a box, in my back pocket)?  …I’m not sure we would ever admit such a claim aloud. 

I think this is closer to the truth:  God is huge (too big for my little box), and God does not need to be carried anywhere.

There is a secular version of this motivation.  We might call it altruistic arrogance: If we don’t give the money or supplies or time, then the recipients will surely suffer — as if we are the only ones who have anything to give.  Or, my contribution is the only one that will be effective.  This is arrogance, whether we are talking about faith-based mission or secular  philanthropy.

I Want To Be Wherever God Is Doing Amazing Things     

Consider a different motivation.  When I was a little kid I hated to go to bed early because I was sure I’d miss out on something exciting.  I hated to miss out on the exciting things that might happen when I was asleep.  I gave my mother fits because I never wanted to go to bed! 

I wonder if I could have the same motivation today when I consider a mission opportunity.  I want to be wherever God is doing amazing things.  I don’t want to miss anything! 

Frankly, I need to be reminded that God will do amazing things in this world with or without me.  God’s love is there whether I am or not!  God is present long before I get there with my meager gifts and inflated self-perception.

I like this motivation for mission.  I want to be where the action is!  I want to be wherever God is doing amazing things around the neighborhood, across the state, or across the globe.  I don’t want to miss out.  And if I am lucky, if I am willing to go and be present, God might even use me to accomplish something amazing.

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

This is huge for us because Chris will be able to re-connect with our Petrovsky graduates, like an ambassador.  He can carry gifts and money – that’s the easy part — but he can also carry love, and his presence.  Being there is enormous.  The mission is incarnational.  Chris’ physical presence will be evidence of our continued love for the young adult orphans.  His presence will be proof that we have not forgotten them, proof that we want to stay connected with them, that they will not be alone….ever.  He will be evidence of incarnational love.  Chris will be there. 

This is tough for me, though.  Incarnational ministry is a fabulous and biblical idea…but this time, this year, I am trusting in Chris’ incarnational presence for me.  Instead of me.   We have loved them for so long.  And now, I must trust that they will trust the one we send.  Chris is a safe bet.  Chris knows them.  This is Chris’ third visit.  The orphan graduates will recognize him and welcome him. 

Our Journey Together, Regardless Of Who Goes

This is our journey.  It is most important that someone, anyone goes.  Anyone can help show the orphan graduates that we have not forgotten.  While the mission team is small this year, they come from a large faith community.  Chris, and the three members from Centreville UMC, represent an entire faith community the extends from Centreville UMC in northern Virginia to Brosville UMC in southern Virginia, and even to Franktown UMC on the Eastern Shore and the other churches there who have traveled often to see the Petrovsky orphans and the graduates in Ivanovo.

Starting on Thursday (we hope), we will post daily updates on the Ivanovo Daily Log 2010 page.  We will hear from Chris and the other team members about their daily activities, and especially about our young orphan graduate friends.  We ask for your prayers and encouragement, and your continued interest in these precious young adults who are not forgotten.

[To learn more about the ministries of Centreville United Methodist Church see http://www.centreville-umc.org/.  To learn more about the ministries of Franktown United Methodist Church see http://www.franktownumc.org/ .  To learn more about the ministries of Brosville united Methodist Church see http://brosvillemethodistchurch.webs.com/ .  Thanks! ]

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

In my last article on Creation Care I reported that Costa Rica scored the highest on the New Economics Foundation’s most recent Happy Planet Index.¹  

Nobody asked the obvious next questions.  Is anyone curious which country scored the second highest, or where on the list the United States was ranked?  (Perhaps I am avoiding the more painful point that nobody read the article.  Am I in denial?)

You recall that the Happy Planet Index is a quality of life measure developed by the New Economics Foundation (not at all like the familiar Gross Domestic Product or GDP) that accounts for a nation’s 1) average life expectancy, 2) average life satisfaction, and 3) ecological footprint.  A nation’s ecological footprint is a measure of the amount of resources used per person in the country.  For details about these measures, read the report found at http://www.happyplanetindex.org/ .  It is quite interesting and very well-written.²  

A Measure Of A Nation’s Ecological Efficiency

The Happy Planet Index is a fresh approach to measuring quality of life because it does not overemphasize wealth or production (a weakness, I think, in our over-used GDP measure), plus it includes the extent to which a nation consumes more than its per capita share of the earth’s resources.  In short, the Happy Planet Index is a measure of nation’s ecological efficiency:  Units of well-being delivered for the population per unit of environmental impact by the population.  I like it.

Perhaps you are not surprised to hear that wealthier nations scored fairly high on life expectancy and life satisfaction.³  There are exceptions, of course.  Four of the 35 countries with life expectancies over 77 years also reported a GDP per capita of less than $20,000.  Three of these four nations are in Latin America….hm. 

Costa Rica, for example, with a relatively high life expectancy of 78.5 years and GDP per capita of only $10,180 (one-fourth the US GDP per capita) scored the highest of all nations by a wide margin on the life satisfaction scale.  What’s in their water?  …I think it’s because they take afternoon naps. 

This much is clear.  Wealthier nations (with higher GDPs) tend to score lower on the ecological footprint scale (meaning their environmental impact is greater).  This is no surprise since wealthier nations tend to consume on a per capita basis more than their fair share of the earth’s resources.  With our money we buy and consume more stuff. 

This is a good time to remind ourselves how the Happy Planet index is calculated.  The Happy Planet Index is a measure of efficiency, asking this question:  On average, how many units of well-being are delivered for the population per unit of environmental impact caused by the population?

The highest scores on the overall Happy Planet Index are found among Latin American nations, followed closely by South American and Southeast Asian nations.  The top three highest scoring nations overall are Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica.  The United States ranked 114 out of the 143 nations on the Happy Planet Index.

I Think An Afternoon Nap Is A Means Of Grace 

Consider the top three.  What’s up with this tiny country in Central America and the two Caribbean island nations?  What makes them different?  I have a theory.  Naps.  Originating in Spain (we think), the traditional siesta is an early afternoon nap designed to lower one’s exposure the sun’s heat at its most intense time of the day.  The practice of an afternoon siesta is more common, therefore, in hotter climates, like in Latin American and the Caribbean.

I am particularly fond of afternoon naps, so I’m a bit biased as we consider the source of Latin America’s level of life satisfaction.  But life satisfaction is only one part of the Happy Planet equation.  So, experts are still trying to sift through the data to understand why Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica are the three highest scoring nations on the Happy Planet Index, which is based on a formula including three measures: life expectancy, life satisfaction, and ecological footprint.  

A Less Materialistic Culture?

Our top three are not the wealthiest nations as measured by the traditional GDP.  They are not the largest nations.  Is the answer found in their ecological footprint score?  Some experts, including the New Economics  Foundation,  are suggesting that some nations seem to have a culture that is naturally and historically less materialistic. 

If it’s true that our top three nations are less materialistic culturally, it would explain their better scores on the ecological footprint scale.  But it begs the next question. Why does one nation have a less materialistic culture compared to another nation? It’s a complicated issue, of course.

The Not-So-Fancy Way To Be A Happy Planet:  Take More Naps

I think afternoon naps are still the answer.  Think about this.  When I am taking an afternoon I am not eating.  During a nap I am consuming very little…a bit of air, some electricity perhaps….so my ecological footprint is fairly low during a nap.  When I take an afternoon nap I am less stressed, and probably healthier.  Maybe afternoon naps will help me live longer. 

This isn’t very scientific sounding, is it?  This isn’t very technical.  But I like it.  Here’s my theory — afternoon naps will improve our score on the Happy Planet Index.  Of course, I’m biased.  I love my afternoon naps.  For me, naps are like a bit of God’s grace, a surprise gift…but it just might help the planet too!

© Copyright by Jeffrey Y. Harlow, Ph.D (2010).

1. For a summary of the Happy Planet Index research process and to download a full report, go to http://www.happyplanetindex.org/ .
2. Here’s a quickie summary of how the index is calculated: A nation’s scores on life expectancy and life satisfaction are combined into a measure of well-being which is compared in a ratio to the nation’s score on ecological footprint.  A good well-being score is a higher score; a good ecological footprint score is a lower score.  The result is an efficiency measure:  Units of well-being delivered for the population per unit of environmental impact by the population.  A couple of statistical constants are included to prevent any of the three measures from being overly dominant in the final score. 
3. The link between wealth and life satisfaction is less obvious, however.  A thirdof the 35 countries scoring  highest on life satisfaction also reported a GDP per capita of less than $20,000.  I am reminded of what we learned about the United States from David Myer’s book, American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger In An Age Of Plenty…wealth does not satisfy us. See the citation for David’s book in Cool Books.