Month: January 2011

As Egyptians continue to take to the streets demanding their president’s resignation, I can’t help but think of Dr. King’s statement, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but bends toward justice.” How phenomenal it is to witness citizens of another Arab League state demanding freedom.

It’s tragic that Mr. Mubarak does not get it and I wonder if he ever will. How can he not understand that dissolving his cabinet and single-handedly appointing new leadership is the very abuse of power that his citizens are protesting?

Perhaps more remarkable is the report on Al Jazeera this morning that soldiers deployed on the streets are not interfering with the protests but have, in fact, intervened to prevent police from firing on protesters. The Guardian quotes an Associated Press Report of an Army captain joining the protesters. (See the Guardian’s running blog.) Sadly, reports of violent clashes and police firing on crowds persist. The prospect of a bloodbath looms large. Reports of deaths range widely from 32 to over 70 and will only rise.

Following on the coat tails of the revolution in Tunisia, despots everywhere should be quaking in their boots. News spreads fast in the Internet age. It’s little surprise that Egypt blocked its cell network and Internet access and that China is reportedly blocking references to Egypt on social networking sites.

The US administration is now confronted with its most significant foreign policy dilemma in years. How do you remain a close ally of a country whose dictatorial leaders is poised to quell a popular democratic uprising? Egypt’s military receives more than $1 billion a year in aid from the US. How will the United States be able to continue to fund a military that turns on its own people? I concur wholeheartedly with the Washington Post editorial calling on the administration to “prepare for the peaceful implementation of the opposition platform…. And it should be telling the Egyptian army, with no qualification, that the violent suppression of the uprising will rupture its relationship with the United States.”

We’re living in an extraordinary moment. First Tunisia, now Egypt. Free people everywhere should rise in solidarity with the people of Egypt and call on our governments to support democracy in Egypt. I am invigorated by the courage of the Egyptian protesters who have risen in the face of a brutal opponent. Indeed, I pray that their cause will meet success and that they too will live in a free and democratic society where the voice of the populace matters. The arc of the moral universe is, indeed, long, but bends toward justice. I might add that the arc of human desire is long, but bends toward freedom. Let freedom ring.

No topic captivates me more these days than church revitalization. Ahead of my congregation’s annual meeting at which we’ll set the agenda for 2011, I’ve thought much about ideas shared by Brian McLaren during the annual Woodbury Workshop at Andover Newton Theological School last year.

In his keynote address, McLaren made an excellent point about the future of the church, distinguished between the church as institution and movement. An institution, he said, exists to preserve past gains. A movement brings new gains to institutions.

At the risk of oversimplifying 2,000 years of history, what we today think of as the church morphed from diverse grassroots movements following the way of Jesus the Christ into the galaxy of institutions with their intricate structures we know today. In many churches what should be the primary goal of spreading the Good News has given way to a need to self preservation and upholding the accompanying power structures.

In this scenario the future of many churches seems awfully bleak. It’s little wonder that many mainline churches have lost hundreds or thousands of members over the past several decades while the Pentecostal and Evangelical movements are growing at such a rapid pace. Many of us have become mired in upholding archaic infrastructure that can so often enervate and distract gifted and earnest Christians.

Our challenge is to once again capture the essence of the Jesus movement. We need to transform from institutions focused on self preservation into a movement that embraces the purpose, freedom, and beauty that Christ Jesus offers.

In Movements that Change the World, Steve Addison provides five characteristics of movements: white hot faith, commitment to a cause, contagious relationships, rapid mobilization, and adaptive methods. Each of these requires active participation and a humble willingness on the part of each participant in a church to work for the glory of God. It requires a willingness to set aside willful pride and to embrace the joys and costs of discipleship.

One of my mentors distinguishes between “churchains” and Christians, and I suspect that by regaining the language and momentum of movement, revitalization and growth will naturally follow.

It didn’t take long after Saturday’s shooting in Arizona for speculation about the motive to surface. Since a Democrat was the target, so the thought went, the assassin surely was a Tea Party Republican or at least fell under Sarah Palin’s (or should that have been Christine O’Donnell’s) spell. Many of my progressive FBFs (Facebook friends) were quick off the mark to place the blame with the “other side,” citing the vicious attacks of the most recent campaign season. I thought at the time that some might be a little red-faced when the shooter’s state of mind and motivation became known.

In spite of my caution around pointing the finger at a particular party or group, I can’t help but feel that the tone set by the nation’s political leaders must have an impact on ordinary citizens. The whole idea behind attack ads is to penetrate deeply into the psyches of voters and elicit knee-jerk emotional responses against an opponent. If you’re not intentionally on your guard against such negativity and vitriol, it can easily stick. And let’s face it: it’s not just one party or group that is to blame for these ads and the airing of rancorous sentiment. Supporters of candidates for both parties stoop to such tactics.

We may never know the extent, if any, to which attack ads or the invective of politicians and their supporters added to the murderer’s motives, yet it seems reasonable to call a time out and question how much longer we will tolerate aggressive ad hominem attacks in public discourse. In a society that ascribes, at least in name, to Judeo-Christian values what has become of the commandment to not bear false witness (the 9th)? What has become of Jesus’ invitation to love your neighbor as you love yourself? Why is it that good people of faith feel that in the political realm Christian ethics are no longer applicable? Is this the intention behind the separation of church and state? I think not. Is this an outcome of the separation of church and state? Again, I think not for to agree would be hubris and comes too close to making the church an idol.

Basic principles of kindness, truthfulness, and respect – the values we should want to pass on to future generations – need to be modeled by public servants. The time has come for concerned citizens to stand up for what is right and be counted among the growing numbers of people who are dissatisfied with the extent of invective in politics. In such a rising the means and the ends are dearly intertwined. Kindness, truthfulness, and respect need at every point to be modeled. It’s time for a revolution in the way we live into our ethics. The time for action has come. No less than the very best we have to offer has to be given. We have a tremendous opportunity in this moment of questioning to begin to make meaningful change – change we really can depend on.