A New President - Election Day 2016 Post #6

(Just a warning: I am a pastor, and I’m about to share an opinion that might be considered political. If you don’t think pastors should share political opinions, you might want to stop reading now.)

I did not think he would really run. And he ran.

I did not think he would really be nominated. And he was nominated.

I did not think he would really win the election. And he won.

I do not think he will really be able to implement his campaign promises.  And …

And for me it’s not only about the specific campaign promises he made, it’s about the tone he sets.

I did not think that a majority of voters would approve of that tone. And ... it actually turns out they didn’t.

It was close, but there were just over 200,000 more Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump (at the time of this writing). So there’s not a decisive victory, no clear mandate to advance his agenda. We are a starkly polarized country, and this election showed that very clearly.

Let me say this before I proceed. Although I did not support his campaign, I will respect his role as President of the United States.

And at the same time, I will hold on to what I know.

I know that bullying is wrong. I know that racism is wrong. I know that misogyny is wrong. I know that discrimination against people who are gay is wrong. I know that allowing fear to motivate your actions leads to terrible results.

I know that God is real. I know that every person is beloved. I know that we are different from one another, but no one is better than anyone. I know that evil, injustice, and oppression exist and need to be confronted. I know that love will always trump hatred.

I also know that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump this year shares his worldview. Far be it from me to use the same kind of prejudiced language about “the Trump voters” as he uses about “the Mexicans” or “the Blacks” or “the Muslims.” But here’s the deal - I’m going to need people in that category to join with me to speak with some pretty loud voices of condemnation if or when President Trump’s worldview impacts his actions as President.

Finally, I’m not lamenting today. I’m actually feeling, like my friend Greg says, “Bolstered.” I mean that sincerely. I can be rather conservative about certain things, but overall I am pretty progressive in my thought, my politics, and my theology. And while that puts me at odds with the prevailing governing authorities of the season, nevertheless I’m in fairly good company.

The way I see it, we are in the midst of an enormous cultural shift, and this year’s election was a sharp, sudden backlash to that shift. But the tide is still turning, this year’s results notwithstanding. This election has illuminated a lot of really dark places in our society, and that’s a really good thing. Now, with those dark places lit up, the fear, prejudice, racism, and other horrible stuff that usually hangs out there has no place to hide.

Every member of every United Methodist Church in America has promised to “resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves” as a part of our membership vows. Well, let’s get to it! We’ve got some work to do.

In the midst of new dimensions, in the face of changing ways.

Who will lead the pilgrim peoples wandering in their separate ways?
God of rainbow, fiery pillar, leading where the eagles soar,

We your people, ours the journey now and ever, now and ever, now and ever more.

Should the threats of dire predictions cause us to withdraw in pain,

May your blazing phoenix spirit, resurrect the church again.

God of rainbow, fiery pillar, leading where the eagles soar,

We your people, ours the journey now and ever, now and ever, now and ever more.

- Rev. Julian Rush, 1985

(I apologize to those who have read this and think it is unseemly for a pastor to have an opinion about things. To be fair, I gave you advance warning!)

Your Vote, Your Voice - Election Day 2016 Post #5

We the people,
in order to
form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish
this Constitution of the 
United States of America.

"The Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble; consider its purposes."
- Frederick Douglass

It's right there, isn't it? The whole reason for doing this. To "establish justice." To "promote the general welfare." To "secure the blessings of liberty" not just for us, but for "our posterity" far into the future.

That's why this matters so much.

Please don't stay home for this one. Get out there and vote. Don't you dare think your vote doesn't matter. Don't take this amazing right for granted. Don't let anything stop you from casting your vote for the people and the issues that most closely represent your perspective. This is for "ourselves and our posterity." Our "common defense," the very way we live our lives. As Susan B. Anthony said, "Suffrage is the pivotal right."

And then, whatever the results, remember what's most important. On Wednesday morning, November 9th, 2016, here's what you are gonna do:

Hug your kids. Kiss your spouse. Smile at your friends and co-workers. Breathe deeply and celebrate being alive. Pray. Do your work. Help somebody who needs help. Offer someone a word of encouragement. Create something beautiful. Practice a little domestic tranquility. Pursue happiness. Sing a song. Live your life.

Your vote is your voice. Speak.


Election Day 2016 Post #1
Election Day 2016 Post #2
Election Day 2016 Post #3
Election Day 2016 Post #4

Luster Diminished - Election Day 2016 Post #4

Greene County Sheriff's Deputies will be stationed at certain polling places on Tuesday. This is the first time they’ve ever done that, according to an article in our local paper.

I first got this news from a volunteer poll worker, a member of my church, who confided in me that many of the election volunteers are really scared. Which is horrible. Please, let’s keep these dedicated people in our prayers.

In the article, County Clerk Shane Schoeller is quoted as saying, “In this setting, with everything that, in terms of just the emotions around the election, some of the things we've seen happen, we thought it would be good to have a presence. Not on the outside - we don't want anyone to have any intimidation in terms of entering the polling location - but certainly there at the back, as people are coming in, there to assist and be helpful.”

There’s a lot about this that is … let’s just say interesting.

The decision is based on “emotions” and “some of the things we’ve seen happen.” Which is interesting – not based on facts, any real evidence, or things that have actually happened here. (It is also interesting and worth noting that Mr. Schoeller sponsored a voter I.D. bill when he was a Missouri State Representative.)

Secondly, the idea that an officer inside a building is not intimidating, but one outside of a building is…is interesting. So someone who would be intimidated by an officer in the sunlight won’t be if they are illuminated by the fluorescents? What exactly is the difference that makes an indoor officer not intimidating?

Also interesting are some of the reactions online. People on each side are assuming that any trouble that arises would be instigated by the other side. Of course. It’s always someone else’s fault. (Note to self: Never read the comments!)

And most interesting, at least to me, are the unknown criteria being used to determine which polling places will be included. Clerk Schoeller is cited as saying that the Sheriff's department has made those decisions, based in part on the crime rate around the polling place.

Based on the crime rate?  Wait now, what? I’m assuming he meant that a neighborhood with a higher crime rate is more likely to have a deputy assigned to it. So it’s interesting, isn’t it? Is there actually a correlation between crime statistics in a neighborhood and problems at polling places? If so, what is it? If not, seems like a pretty big assumption for them to make, doesn’t it?

Look, I know that I don’t have anything to worry about from a Sheriff’s Deputy at my polling place. And I also know that nobody has anything to worry about if they just go in, stand in line, vote, and leave. It’s only the troublemakers that are going to have any trouble.

But … I have got to try to see things through someone else’s eyes. That's called empathy, and it's an important quality for a follower of Jesus to have. 

What about - someone who has a past history with law enforcement. Someone who gets nervous around cops, for whatever reason. Someone who might see that deputy there and turn around and leave. Someone who might assume that something has happened and doesn’t want to get involved and so they change their mind. Someone who might live in a “high crime area” and so have a relationship with law enforcement that is complicated at best, if not outright antagonistic.

If there are going to be deputies at some polling places, shouldn’t they be at all polling places?

President Ronald Reagan reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 1982. And as he did, he said, “The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished.” It seems to me that, if nothing else, law enforcement officers at polling places diminishes the luster of our right to vote.

Citizens, Not Subjects - Election Day 2016 Post #3

Should a Christian voter in the United States use the Bible to inform our election decisions? The first and obvious answer is “Yes,” but I think there is a pretty important distinction to be aware of first.

In the U.S., we are citizens of a Republic. The people of the Bible were subjects in a monarchy or an oligarchy. There is an enormous difference in worldview between these two realities.

We have an ongoing public conversation in our nation about the role of government in our daily lives. We have reduced the conversation to terms like “less” and “more” or “smaller” and “bigger.” Advocates for “less” or “smaller” government are those who believe that government is over-reaching, over-regulating, and needs to be refocused on a smaller set of priorities.

Here’s what is so amazing - We can actually have this conversation in our country!!! Normal people like you and me,because we are citizens and not subjects, can actually talk together about what our government should be doing, and cast our votes accordingly.

See that? Isn’t that remarkable? Let’s not take it for granted. We can tell our government what we think it should be doing. No one in the Bible or in the Bible’s initial audience would have ever dreamed of telling their governing authorities how “big” government should be! It was the governing authorities who let the people know exactly what the government would be doing at any given time.

At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” That’s a pretty cool deal if you ask me, and an idea that would have been quite foreign to people we read about in Scripture.

So back to the question: Should a Christian voter in the United States use the Bible to inform our election decisions? Well, yes and no.

It is possible for a Christian in the U.S. to want our society to be more aligned with Scripture (meaning more just, more peaceful, more loving, more like the Kingdom of God) and also think the government is just not the best way to make that happen. That person may vote very differently than a Christian with similar, or even identical desires about our society who does think government is a viable mechanism for making that happen.

In other words, two faithful Christians who each take the Bible seriously and each love Jesus and each think there are some serious injustices in the world that need to be addressed might end up voting for different candidates, or voting differently on various propositions or amendments.

And that’s okay! In fact, it’s really brilliant! Having a wide, diverse array of perspectives among our citizens is a part of what makes our nation go, gives us energy, and keeps us accountable. If we didn’t have it that way, we’d be subjects of a single authority, bound by our coerced allegiance.

What isn’t okay is when we attack as “unfaithful” a perspective that is different than our own or when we arrogantly claim that there’s only one way a follower of Jesus could possibly vote. This is America, and that’s not how we do! Yes, citizenship is messier that subjecthood, but freedom is inherently messy, and just because it’s messy doesn’t mean it has to be ugly.

Polarized, Not Divided - Election Day 2016 Post #2

As we draw closer to the 2016 election, tensions seem to escalate. I am told that here in Greene County, Missouri there will be armed security at every polling place this year, the first time this has happened. Police officers and Sheriff’s deputies will be present at the schools, churches, and other locations where we will vote, just in case.

Just in case … what, exactly? Just in case what? What country do we live in, again?

There surely have been some elections in our history that were this antagonistic, this bitter, this confrontational. Maybe 1968. But I sure don’t remember them in my lifetime. Good, honest disagreement - yes. Rigorous debate - yes. But this? This is scary.

But here’s the thing. I don’t believe our nation is divided; I think it is polarized.

To me, “divided” implies a split between two groups, in which every member of each group shares a common perspective.

To me, the term “polarized” implies a convergence of energy at two extremes, with a large diverse group in between.

I think we are polarized. The loudest voices are on the far edges, and they are getting all the attention. The poles of our society have been empowered in this season, and they are flexing. Hateful language, vilification of political opponents, physically violent confrontations, willful ignorance, an attitude of invincibility - all coming from the poles.

Meanwhile, most of us in the middle majority are able to see nuance and subtlety, to be “conservative” in some areas and “liberal” in others, to hold multiple ideas in our minds simultaneously. The middle majority sees shades of gray rather than a black or white dichotomy. But the middle majority doesn’t get a lot of press. We aren’t newsworthy.

In this election season there aren’t very many candidates at any level who come from this middle majority. Thanks in part to dramatic redistricting in the last few years, politicians often do not have to worry about representing an ideologically diverse group of people. They can shift to the poles without fear, and they have.

The question is then, How can the Church best embody the Gospel in this polarized environment? In many ways the polarization of our society has infiltrated the church itself. We are, after all, people. The church is just the people who are a part of the society, and prone to the same social forces that impact the greater whole.

A truly counter-cultural way of being would be to drain energy from the poles and into the center. That means each of us being okay with the idea that others may not see the world the same way you do.

This means rising above the rhetoric that vilifies a candidate, even a candidate with whom you do not see eye-to-eye on anything.

This means naming and resisting corruption, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves, including the systemic injustices embedded in our systems and structures, without attacking people on a personal level.

This means speaking up for all those whose voices have been lost in the cacophony of the 2016 campaign.

This means disagreeing without hating, arguing without yelling, debating without belittling.

If we might model this way of being, Church, things might end up being okay after all. And I’m afraid that if the Church can’t do it, then no one can. The Church is uniquely structured to be just what our polarized world needs at such a time as this. Now if we can only figure out how to actually be what we’re supposed to be!

Election day 2016 - Post #1

In this final week before the Fall 2016 election, many are weary. It has been a long, bitter campaign season, and the anxiety and animosity have just worn us out.

Nevertheless, the right to vote in the United States must not be taken for granted. There are many in our world who do not enjoy this right, and many others for whom voting is not free and fair, but rather undertaken at some personal risk.

And so, as a pastor, I am pondering how to apply the tenets of faith to our U.S. political process. How does our faith intersect with the decisions we make as voters? Should we apply the Gospel? Should we look to Scripture for guidance? Should we ask, “How would Jesus vote?” Or is it better to leave our faith at home on voting day and just think as citizens of a democracy instead of as subjects in God’s Kingdom?

The way I see it, followers of Jesus ought to allow our faith to impact every part of our life, and that would include how we vote on election day. Christianity is a profoundly communal religion, meant to be lived together. The Bible is filled with guidance as to how people are supposed to live together in a way that is pleasing to God, a way of life that is characterized by love and grace, peace and justice, wisdom and truth. On an election day in the United States, we are as a community making important decisions about how we are going to live together, and what role our government will play in how that happens.

But another thought may even be more important for us to remember, especially in 2016.

Followers of Jesus ought to allow our faith to impact the way we treat people who may be voting differently than we do. In other words, “take care [your] spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side” (John Wesley). I have heard hateful things spoken about a number of candidates, many of the statements not only hateful but also false. To say such things is utterly incompatible with the teaching of Jesus. Our words ought to build others up, “give grace to those who hear,” because it is truly “out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.”

In an especially brutal election cycle, the Church has a definite counter-cultural role to play. It may not be easy to serve as ambassadors of Christ in the current climate, but it is crucial that we do so.

(Note: This week I’ll be sharing more election-related thoughts here as we head toward election day.)

Diverse is Different than Divided: 2012 Election Reflection

I must say, after Tuesday’s election, most of us seem to be … just fine. Of course, there is a distinct minority of Americans which is not just fine, and within that minority there are two sub-groups: people who are ecstatic and people who are appalled.

The ecstatics are ecstatic because President Obama was re-elected and now all is right with the world.

The appalleds are appalled because President Obama was re-elected and now our nation is hopelessly doomed to oblivion.

Neither outlook is truthful, and that’s why most of us are just fine. We know we’re not great; there is a lot of work that needs to be done, so we’re not really ecstatic. We know we’re not horrible; things have been and could be a lot worse than they are, so we’re not really appalled.

And of course there are degrees of “just fine-ness,” with some of us on the pleased end of the scale and some on the disappointed end. And there is variety within the spectrum of “just fine,” depending on if you are talking local, state, or national levels.

The “just fines” voted Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and the rest. Some of our candidates won, and some lost. Some of our ballot initiatives passed, and some didn’t. Some of our amendments amended, and some didn’t. And so it goes.

And “just fine” doesn’t equal “weak” or “ambivalent” or “disengaged,” by the way. Many of the “just fines” are energetic, passionate people who care deeply for our communities, our states, and our nation. We’re just realistic about it, and by realistic I mean this:

We understand the difference between “divided” and “diverse.”

If Tuesday’s election did nothing else, it reinforced the idea that the United States of America is a diverse nation. The “ecstatics” and the “appalleds” want to talk about how divided we are, but I don’t think that is accurate. Our nation is not divided, it is diverse, and there is a big difference.

There are times it feels divided, but the problem lies with the system, which is currently structured in such a way that the myth of the divided nation is perpetuated. One of the changes I wish for is the immediate elevation in significance of multiple alternative political parties, so that the system more accurately reflects the diversity of our nation, and provides a process by which we can choose from among a more diverse set of platforms.

Just for example, this year I was struck by the number of people with whom I communicated who expressed the core of the Libertarian Party platform. Though not a clinical survey, it seemed to me that a fiscally conservative approach that emphasizes personal freedom, including the freedom to marry whomever one chooses, was fairly common. However, neither the Democratic nor the Republican platforms fully reflected this perspective, so the people who felt that way were forced to compromise something of their values if they wanted to feel as if their vote counted for something.

We should never have to choose between feeling like our vote counts and feeling like our vote fully reflects our values. Many of the “just fines” vote for people rather than party already. Last Tuesday, I personally voted for candidates representing three different parties. I think it would be very healthy to bring more voices into the conversation, more perspectives, more philosophies from which to choose, and not automatically consider these alternative parties to be “fringe” or “extreme” or any other dismissive label, but rather legitimate perspectives that we could hear, understand, and then choose, or not.

However, all in all, I’m just fine. Our nation is just fine. So is our state and our town. My president is a Democrat, my U.S. senators are Republican and Democrat, my U.S. representative is a Republican, my governor is a Democrat, my state representative is a Republican. See, just fine. Not ecstatic, not appalling.

There is a difference between divided and diverse. Our nation is not divided, we are diverse, and I for one love it that way.