Kissing the NFL Good-Bye

A couple weeks ago I wrote about my like-dislike relationship with the game of (American) football. After reading it a friend suggested I read a book entitled The Winner-Take-All Society by Robert H. Frank. I've added it to my reading list but unfortunately my local library does not have a copy, so I will have to look elsewhere. About the same time the current issue of The Atlantic crossed my desk and I read a very interesting article in it: “How the NFL fleeces taxpayers,” written by Gregg Easterbrook. The article is adapted from Easterbrook's soon-to-be-released book The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America. I shall add this book to my reading list as well, but the article alone was enough to bring me to the conclusion that I need to withdraw my support from this league, if the reasons I listed in my previous post were not sufficient.

In the article Easterbrook describes how the NFL earns phenomenal profits for team owners and league executives while passing the cost of stadiums to the taxpayers in NFL cities. In an era of tight budgets and calls for decreased government spending, in a time when resources for the poor, for education and other truly useful services are being slashed by local and state governments, politicians continue to shovel largesse to private teams so that they won't move out of town. He cites numerous examples, all of which made me wonder why I should continue to give any support to this league. Why should taxpayers subsidize the Washington Redskins to the tune of $4 million dollars to upgrade their workout facility, when the team owner has an estimated net worth of $1 billion? Surely Virginia taxpayers could direct that $4 million towards more useful causes and $4 million out of Dan Snyder's $1 billion would hardly even make a noticeable dent.

The NFL is ultimately a business. It's about entertainment, but it's also about making money and it does that fantastically well. The league will receive about $4 billion dollars this season alone in broadcast rights. That's not counting ticket sales, merchandising and other sources of income. I have no bone to pick with the league and its teams for making money. If people want to pay for tickets and merchandise, if networks believe there is money to be earned in broadcasting the games, great. However, don't ask the taxpayers of Footballtown, America to pick up the bill for building, maintaining and upgrading the stadium that the teams use to earn their money. Teams should build their own stadiums. They could then choose to manage and lease them for other purposes as they see fit, earning additional income. This would be preferable to forcing communities to build these modern cathedrals, then paying them a pittance in rent to use them for their games.

In return for the stadium “rental” charges, teams receive in most if not all cases the exclusive right to revenues generated within the stadium, including ticket sales, concessions and, most importantly, revenue from the broadcast rights that go with each game. These sources of income far outweigh the rental fees the teams pay. When you factor in that the rental fees often don't cover the cost of actually constructing the stadium and paying off the debt for doing so, the teams essentially receive government subsidies to run their very lucrative businesses. I find it appalling that in a time when we hear politicians proclaiming the need to cut subsidies to the poor of our nation we continue to subsidize billionaire owners of sports teams. Something is seriously wrong with this equation.

I imagine someone will point to the economic “benefit” that sports teams bring to a city. Yes, they generate some jobs, but I wonder whether they truly generate enough local employment income, particularly jobs that pay a livable wage, to merit the subsidies they receive. For example, Louisiana gives up to $6 million a year to the owner of the New Orleans Saints as an “inducement payment” so he (hopefully) won't consider relocating the team. I would think that one could create a decent number of jobs in other ways for $6 million a year.

I am thankful that I do not live in a community with an NFL team, so I do not pay directly to support one through my taxes, although I do not have any idea whether and how much my state legislature has chosen to support the Arizona Cardinals with my tax money. I feel sorry for the taxpayers of Glendale, who get to pay for the shiny University of Phoenix stadium where the Cardinals play. (I think, to be fair, that they chose to tax themselves to build it, but I was not around at that time so I am not familiar with the details.) The residents of Tempe and Mesa should congratulate themselves on having the wisdom to reject efforts to construct the stadium in their cities.

The NFL will continue with or without my support. I don't even mind that they do. In fact I don't mind if they continue making money. But I do mind that they do so on the backs of taxpayers, when they do not need to do so. Team owners should take responsibility for the expenses of their teams and not expect taxpayers to subsidize them. Their earnings are more than adequate to pay for their stadiums and upgrades and whatever else they want. And if they aren't, then maybe they need to adjust their business model rather than blackmailing cities into pouring millions into their coffers. I don't expect them to change their ways, but until they do, I don't need to be an active contributor to their bottom line. I'm sure I can find better ways to spend my limited income—as well as my Sunday afternoons.

Accusers or Defenders? Reflections on The Crucible

As I shared the other day, I reencountered two classic works of literature this past week. I already wrote about my thoughts on watching the 2011 film version ofJane Eyre. Today I want to explore my reaction to watching a production of Arthur Miller's play The Crucible.

I had not seen or read The Crucible since high school. I remembered the basic plot but had forgotten most of the details. I had not ever, to my recollection, seen it performed on stage. Although I knew of the connection between the play and the infamous Salem witch trials of 1692-93, I was not prepared for the strong reaction I experienced as I watched the performance of a local Christian high school. In the director's notes was written:

It is our hope that as we leave the theatre following the production, we will heed the lessons of history to search our own souls.

Watching this play, particularly after viewing Jane Eyre only days before and after reading Danielle's reflections on visiting a slave prison, certainly has caused me to search my soul.

The Salem Witch trials were conducted in one of the most religious communities in America. To cite the director's notes: “The Puritans believed God had chosen them to establish a model community for the rest of the Protestant world and envisioned themselves as a 'city on a hill.' Their leaders created a theocracy founded on biblical principles, whose purpose was to prevent any kind of disunity that might open them up to destruction.” When I read this, I immediately think that this remains the ideal of certain groups of Christians. God has established the United States to be a city on a hill to the world and as such we need to found our laws and culture on biblical principles. Although I do not agree that God has established the United States as a city on a hill, I am certainly inclined to support the idea that we should found our laws and cultural norms on biblical principles.

But then I consider the results of this in New England. I watched the performance of The Crucible with a deeply troubled soul. At times it pained me to see these “biblical principles” applied in such a way that innocent people were accused, condemned and many of them hung merely on the basis of suspicion and ungrounded accusations. Certainly the issues involved were more complex than simple religious fervor, but the insistence that they were doing the work of God as they tried, condemned and executed these people (mostly women, which is also significant, although some men were also accused and executed) for witchcraft makes me question the very principles which they sought to uphold. They believed they were upholding the teachings of Scripture, when in fact they were violating the very teaching of Jesus to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Their own fervor blinded them to the travesty of their actions.

Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible at the time of the McCarthy trials, in which suspected Communists were accused and condemned publicly. He saw a distinct parallel between the two events. As I watched the play I saw parallels to our current society as well. Out of fear of perceived threats to the “biblical foundations” of society, out of insecurity and fear in light of cultural transformation and the economic difficulties we have been passing through for a few years now, I see a tendency among some to react with a similar witchhunt – looking for a group or groups of people whom we can blame for the “decline” of our country. The “illegal” immigrants are to blame, or the homosexual community with their “gay agenda.” We may not be able to put them on trial in a court of law anymore (thank God for that), but we still see them put on trial in the court of public opinion. We see our legislators in many states and in our national Congress, working too often to enact laws that restrict, exclude and punish those we blame for our issues, rather than looking for positive solutions that embrace the diverse mix of people that form our nation.

Where is the Church in all this? Are we, like the Puritan leaders of 1692, leading the witchhunt, seeking to accuse and condemn those we determine to be sinners? Or are we defending those unjustly accused, standing with them, affirming their dignity, worth and value as children of God against the voices that would cast them out? Will future generations look back on us as we now look back on the Salem witch trials?

I want to stand for those who are accused, condemned and outcast because they are different than the majority. I want to stand for those who do not have power, influence and privilege in our country. I don't have to affirm everything such people may or may not do. That is not the issue. The issue is that they are also children of God, uniquely created just as I am and worthy of full embrace as brothers and sisters. Jesus didn't exclude those who were on the fringes of society, the ones that the “righteous” people so readily condemned. No, he embraced them, ate with them, loved them, while directing his critique to those who considered themselves righteous. Do I care more about maintaining an outward appearance of righteousness, or do I care more about loving the real people God brings into my life?

A Legacy of Shame

Recently Danielle at From Two to One wrote a powerful article describing a visit she and her husband made to an old slave fort in the country of Ghana. I won't try to retell her story; you must read it yourself in her own words. Her tale has remained in my mind since I first read it, disturbing my efforts to ignore unpleasant truths. One detail that she shared sticks out particularly: that over the dungeon where the captured Africans were held, abused, tortured and dehumanized until they were sold and shipped away, the white masters of the fort and the territory had their chapel. Danielle writes:

As they [the white masters] sang worship songs to the Almighty God, the captives who had been beaten and raped and tortured shouted for mercy and rescue.

How, I ask myself, could people who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ engage in such behavior? How could they so casually worship God while under their very feet were hundreds of humans whom they had abused, raped and tortured and whom they were going to sell into lives of slavery to serve the economic interests of other white Europeans?

I asked my wife this question and she gently reminded me that humans have a remarkable ability to justify their behavior, often by dehumanizing others. The white masters didn't feel any sense of guilt because to them the black Africans were not really fellow humans. They were fundamentally inferior, even inhuman. Therefore it was not immoral to treat them as beasts. Worse still, these people who considered themselves Christian in some sense of the word turned to the book of Christians, the Bible, for justification of their actions. This book which speaks of God's love for humanity, which describes the great lengths to which God has gone to restore humanity—all of humanity—to harmony with the divine as it was intended, was read in such a way as to support the dehumanization, abuse and degradation of people created by that same God.

The painful truth is that one can read the Bible in that manner.

In fact the Bible has often been used to justify the mistreatment of various groups of people throughout history. One can cite verses in which slavery appears to be normal and acceptable. One can cite verses in which God commands one group of people to annihilate entire cities and other groups of people. One can cite verses in which a woman who has been raped must marry her rapist. One can cite verses to argue that women are subordinate to men. The list could continue. What troubles me is that I so rarely hear anyone in my circles speak of how they are bothered by these verses or how they are interpreted to justify and support the exclusion or abuse of entire groups of people. In the past year I have found a growing number of voices who do speak openly of this, but I'm still not hearing it from the pulpit, at least not very often.

Instead I continue to hear voices that call for the submission of women as the biblical model. I hear voices that would have us deny equality to women, homosexuals, immigrants and other groups. These voices cite the Bible as their authority, often pointing to specific texts as support. How does one interact with a text that can be so freely used to support the subjugation of other members of God's creation? How is it that the message of redemption, liberation, restoration and renewal are so often drowned by the voices of exclusion and privilege? What am I to do with this book that has been used to condone some of the most inhumane behavior humans have committed?

I'm not sure we really have learned much since the time when the white British and Dutch masters ruled that slave fort in Ghana. Yes, we no longer buy and sell slaves openly as we did then, but we continue to tolerate slavery. We continue to use the Bible to justify our exclusion of women and others from full participation in society. We may not be just like those slave masters, but are we really so different? Am I really so different? How do I in my reading of the Bible and in living out my faith support either explicitly or implicitly the abuse of others? How do I need to think, read and act differently to stop participating in these acts of injustice?

I appreciate the many voices I have found that are speaking up openly and powerfully on these questions. Thank you Danielle, not only for this thought-provoking post but for your consistent advocacy for those who are marginalized, excluded, abused and cast off. If we are not to remain blissfully ignorant or complacent of the evils which our faith has been used to justify, we must learn to see, read and think differently. I would hate for my legacy to be looked at with the same scorn and shame that we now look back at those slave traders.

Equality is a Moral Issue

In our world today God's name and identity are still defaced. They are slandered by poverty, by injustice, by corruption, by disease, and by human exploitation and suffering. And God's name is defiled when his people willingly and apathetically accept the status quo, lacking the vision to lift up God's holiness, goodness and justice in a crumbling world.

                                                     Richard Stearns in The Hole in Our Gospel

I continue to be troubled by statements I heard earlier this year (about which I wrote previously) to the effect that inequality and poverty are simply the reality of our world which we must live with. In fact, the person who made these statements argued that in fact inequality is good, that we wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is the same. But this confuses equality with being identical. Just because people are equal doesn't mean they are all the same. Equality recognizes and affirms distinctions in people, in their characters and personalities and in their gifts and abilities. But equality denies that those differences should allow one person to have authority or privilege over another simply because of a particular characteristic. For example, why should I have the right to utilize an excessive amount of the world's resources simply because I happen to have been born in the United States? Why should the fact that I happened to be born with an X and a Y chromosome make me acceptable for certain roles, while my wife and other friends who have two X chromosomes are not, by virtue of that fact? Obviously there are real differences between a person who lives in the United States and one who is raised in a poor country in the world, just as there are biological differences between men and women. But these differences do not justify inequality.

The fact that inequality does exist in the world doesn't mean we should be content with it or accept it as an unchangeable condition. We can choose how we will respond to the advantages and benefits given to us by virtue of our background. We can determine that, because we happened to be born in the United States and therefore had access to great opportunities and privileges not currently available ot the larger portion of the world's population, that we therefore have the right to take full advantage of that position, whether we consciously choose to exploit the rest of the world or not. We can say that we have a right to keep all our money and resources and use them for our own benefit (perhaps, if we feel generous, doling out a small portion to the needs of the world's masses). After all, inequality is just a fact of life and while we may feel sorry for the poor of the world, well, in the end that's just the way the world is.

I can choose as a white man that my biological sex and my skin color entitle me to privileged treatment. I can fight vigorously against any attempts to encroach on my power and privilege and complain vociferously whenever any portion of it is taken away from me. I can insist on my right to keep my hard-earned money and use it for the benefit of my children and those who are like me, preserving the privilege that I received for the next generation. I can maintain a wall between men and women that designates certain, limited environments as the acceptable spheres for women to conduct their lives. Sure, I affirm them as equal, as long as they don't try to actually live that out too fully. After all, inequality is just the way the world is.

Or maybe I could recognize that inequality reflects the fallen nature of this world. I could acknowledge that the power, privileges and benefits I have do not come to me so that I can keep them for myself, but so that I can surrender them. I can give away power and privilege. I can affirm the dignity and worth of others. I can invest the resources God has given me (however great or small they may be) so that others might have more opportunities and choices and over time experience greater equality.

I've been reading Richard Stearns' book The Hole in Our Gospel, which is a bit of a biography but even more a call for the church of Christ to embrace God's call to act on behalf of the poor, marginalized and oppressed of this world. In the book Stearns points to Paul's words to the Corinthian church in his second letter as a reminder (among many others in Scripture) that God cares deeply about equality—that in fact equality is “a justice issue or, stated more bluntly, a moral issue in which those of us who have plenty seem willing to allow others to have nothing.” In his letter Paul writes:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there may be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

God calls us to work to eliminate inequality, using any benefit we may have to serve those who are in some manner disadvantaged. Stearns and Paul both address the issue of economic equality, but the issue of equality goes far beyond economic equality. If those of us who have privilege and power cling to it when we could and should be giving it away, we may some day find that the tables have turned on us despite our efforts and our own unwillingness to treat others as equals now will in that day come back to haunt us.

I acknowledge with great sadness that inequality does exist in our world. One would have to be blind not to see this. But I refuse to accept that this is simply the way things are, much less to affirm that somehow inequality is a good thing. Equality is, as Stearns states, a moral issue and as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who affirmed the dignity, worth and equality of all people, I want to work and speak for equality in the name of Christ. To do otherwise would be to deny the very name of the God I claim to serve.

He Defended the Cause of the Poor and Needed

While reading in Jeremiah 22 yesterday I encountered these words:

"Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,

his upper rooms by injustice,

making his people work for nothing, 

not paying them for their labor.

He says, 'I will build myself a great palace

with spacious upper rooms.'

So he makes large windows in it,

panels it with cedar

and decorates it in red.

"Does it make you a king 

to have more and more cedar?

Did not your father have food and drink?

He did what was right and just,

so all went well with him.

He defended the cause of the poor and needy,

and so all went well.

Is that not what it means to know me?"

declares the LORD.

These do not strike me as the words of a God who does not care whether we pursue justice and economic equality or not. What do you think?

Economic Inequality Harms Societies

In light of my recent post concerning our response to poverty and inequality, I find this TED video very enlightening and challenging. In the past couple years as people have protested economic injustice within the United States (and elsewhere), some have responded by pointing out that compared to the rest of the world, almost all Americans are in the wealthiest 1% of the population. This is largely true and we should not forget that. However, in this video Richard Wilkinson uses data on a variety of issues to show that the level of inequality within a given society has a significant impact on a number of areas, including social relations, health, childhood well-being, math and literacy scores, trust levels, murder rates and much more.

He points out that we cannot just speak of the relative wealth level of a country on a global scale. We must consider the economic distribution within a society. If we want to have a healthier society, we must seek to reduce economic inequality; that is to say, we must strive to reduce poverty. We must do what we can to level the playing field. It is not enough to say simply that the poor will always be with us.

I don't call attention to Wilkinson's video in an effort to ignore the significant issues of global poverty and economic inequality, but to point out that economic inequality affects us here at home in America as well. As followers of Jesus Christ, called to work with God to realize the Kingdom of God on earth, we cannot simply accept inequality as an unavoidable part of the status quo. We can and should seek to reduce economic equality as a matter of spiritual and social responsibility.

The Poor Will Always Be With Us

While in a conversation last week about the sermon I wrote about a couple weeks ago my conversation partner quoted the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:11—“The poor you will always have with you.” These words upset me because they were quoted in such a way as to excuse us from making serious efforts to reduce or eliminate poverty. They were a cop out and I don't think that Jesus meant them to be used as such. (In fact, I would argue exegetically that the issue of the poor being with us or not isn't really the focus in the passage, but that's another discussion.)

Our conversation that day centered on the Christian response to poverty and economic inequality. The man with whom I was speaking—a brother in Christ—sees the issue much differently than I do. He said that the playing field will always been uneven and that we need to accept that fact. Going further, he argued that our efforts to level the playing field are in fact sinful, because in making such attempts we presume to take the place of God. While I am quite sure that this brother and his wife do a lot to help people in need in various ways, I was astounded to hear him argue that we just need to accept economic inequality as an unavoidable part of human life, that in fact to work to counteract this constitutes sin. To quote Jesus' words in defense of this simply went over the top.

When I read the Bible, I find a lot of verses telling us as God's children to care for one another; to look out for the poor, the widows and the orphans and those who have been trampled by the powerful and wealthy in the world. I read the words of Isaiah in chapter 58 and hear a call to action, to work for change, not a statement that only God can level the playing field.

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:

to loose the chains of injustice

and untie the cords of the yoke,

to set the oppressed free

and break every yoke?

Is it not the share your food with the hungry

and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter--

when you see the naked, to clothe them,

and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Elsewhere in Isaiah (chapter 1) we read a similar exhortation:

Learn to do right; seek justice.

Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

plead the case of the widow.

I read the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25 and hear that the way I respond to those in need indicates clearly the condition of my faith.

Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

I don't see how anyone who chooses to follow after Jesus Christ can argue that we have no right or responsibility to work to reduce or eliminate the inequalities and injustices in our society and globally. To not do so goes against the very exhortations of Scripture.

I imagine that my conversation partner that day would acknowledge at least some personal obligation to respond, and as I said I believe that he and his family do what they are able. But I believe that this obligation goes beyond us as individuals and even beyond God's people as the Church. I do not accept that it is sinful to seek to remedy injustice and inequality through government action. I acknowledge that this will never fully resolve or eliminate the problems, but we can certainly do something. Ellen Painter Dollar presents some strong examples for the role of government in addressing poverty and injustice in this blog post.

We can drive a sick, uninsured child to a hospital, but if a long hospitalization or surgery is required, that child’s parents will have to either scrape together thousands or dollars (and perhaps eventually lose their home or declare bankruptcy as a result) or hope that the hospital has charity funds available. We can help an immigrant learn English and a marketable skill, but if the law doesn’t offer him a reasonable avenue toward legal work status, we can’t help him get a job that will support a family.  We can provide pregnancy counseling and baby supplies to a young unwed mother, but if that mother is unable to afford groceries, decent housing, quality daycare, and additional education for herself , she and her child will likely end up in unsafe housing, poorly nourished, un- or underemployed, and stuck in a cycle of poverty that isn’t just a problem for that family, but (in God’s economy) for all of us. Without government safety nets such as subsidized housing and daycare, food stamps, education grants, health insurance, and support for immigrants, private charity can only do so much to ease the burden of poverty.

She acknowledges, as do I, that our government is far from perfect. No government is perfect (neither would a more socially conservative one be closer to perfect). But we are better to undertake some effort to level the playing field and reduce poverty where we can than to say that it's just a reality we have to live with. I don't think that's how Jesus saw it when he walked the earth and I don't think that's how he sees it today. Yes, the poor will always be with us, but we don't have to accept that a statement that we can't and shouldn't do anything to improve this.

Finally, my conversation partner last week made an appeal to the right of people to not have their wealth “stolen” from them by the government. This argument struck me as more American than Christian, although he tried to base it on the ten commandments. The underlying issue seems to be whether it is “fair” to surrender part of your hard-earned (or not-so-hard-earned) wealth to care for others. To me this isn't even an issue, because we should gladly do so for the sake of caring for others. But even if one doesn't accept that, one must consider whether “fairness” is a concern for God. As Dollar points out elsewhere in her article:

God is not about fairness. God is about justice. God is about all people being treated with dignity as those made in God's image, about extravagant generosity regardless of merit.... It may be unfair for the wealthy to be taxed at a higher rate than the middle class, but in God's economy, it is just.

Christians may take different views on how we can address poverty, injustice and inequality in our society and globally, but we cannot take an attitude of indifference, reasoning that the poor will always be with us so we might as well just accept that fact. My conscience certainly will not allow me to do so.

The Role of Government

A lot of people I know are talking these days about the proper role of government, many of them arguing that the US government should not involve itself in caring for the poor and needy and other matters of social justice. Many people I know believe that the smallest government possible is the best one (although ironically they seem willing to allow government to interfere in certain matters that strike me as intensely personal). Today's article by Jim Wallis provides a good alternative perspective on the proper role of government. Rather than commenting more myself, I encourage you to follow the link and read what he has to say.

Ashamed

Eighteen years ago my wife and I moved to Arizona. Coming from Seattle and arriving in August we thought we had entered hell. (Have you ever been to Phoenix in August? If so, you'll understand.) We knew Arizona was largely a conservative state and for many years we were quite comfortable with that. In the past few years my views have become more progressive while it seems the politicians in Arizona seem to grow increasingly conservative (though perhaps it only seems that way because my own perspective has shifted.) There are many good things about Arizona and I should probably take the time to write an article about those. But at the moment I must say that the political leaders of my state continue to take actions that embarrass me and make me ashamed to be an Arizonan.

I wrote earlier this summer about the now infamous SB1070. Thankfully the Supreme Court of the United States negated most of the provisions of that bill, though some unfortunately continue to linger. Meanwhile the also infamous SheriffJoe Arpaio of Maricopa County (the county in which the city of Phoenix and most of Arizona's population lie) continues to spout his hard-line conservative rhetoric while being investigated by the federal government for policies and practices of his department over the years. As if he didn't have enough to do enforcing the laws in the county, he pushed the state Attorney General to launch yet another investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate. I do not understand why our Attorney General even bothered to give Arpaio's query any attention, yet it fits within the weird world of Arizona politics.

Our current governor Jan Brewer leads this pack of conservative nut cases. She seems determined to take any and every action she can to thumb her nose at the federal government and in the process cement Arizona's reputation as a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary conservatives. In her latest pronouncement in response to the new policy of the Obama administration to allow children of illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria to apply for temporarily defer any threat of deportation, Brewer issued a state executive order instructing all state agencies to deny benefits and services to these young people. She claimed that the state could not afford to provide these benefits to them. I don't know what injury some immigrant did to Governor Brewer in her past, but she obviously has some deep-seated antipathy toward anyone who doesn't meet her definition of a true American and true Arizonan. I wish she would be honest enough to admit that she just doesn't like illegal immigrants instead of couching her actions in language that speaks of the economic burden such people will place on the state. Rather than posing an economic burden, the young people eligible for deferment of deportation under the new policy would likely contribute to our state's economy. They have education and initiative. They bring new life and energy to our state. Rather than denying them any benefits, we should be welcoming them.

Governor Brewer is demagoging, playing on the emotions and fears of people in our state which has been hard-hit by the economic recession. Rather than dealing with real issues, she has chosen to blame the state's problems almost exclusively on illegal immigration. In this she and those who support her see things too simplistically. While illegal immigration does create problems in Arizona and elsewhere, it also creates opportunity: opportunity for the immigrants themselves who are mostly looking for a chance at a slightly-better life, opportunity for our state and country in the energy and labor of these new immigrants and opportunity for the rest of us to choose to show kindness and hospitality to the foreigners among us rather than to treat them as pariahs and seek to exclude and expel them from our country. When we do the latter we act contrary to the values that God instructed us to live by.

Governor Brewer, as a citizen and voter of Arizona, I call on you to adopt a different approach and attitude toward illegal immigrants. I respectfully yet strongly request that you rescind your embarrassing and immoral executive order excluding children of illegal immigrants – youth who wil now be able to live and work in our country – from any benefits in our great state. Your actions and your words dishonor our state and the people who strive to make it a better place for all who live here. Should you continue your current course, you can count on me voting against you in the next election and actively speaking against your policies in the meantime. You do not represent my views but instead you bring shame on us.

Is it moral to eat bananas?

I took a break from blogging the last two weeks. The first ten days or so I was entirely disconnected from the on-line world. And it was so great, so refreshing. I need to make a point of doing this regularly – except that my job requires me to be on line, so I guess I'll have to schedule it for vacation periods.

Lately I've been contemplating whether eating bananas is morally tenable. This may sound like a strange question, so allow me to offer an explanation. During my time off line I read Julie Clawson's book Everyday Justice. I discovered Clawson's blog not too long ago and really like her perspective on justice as a central part of the life of faith. In this book she looks at how some of our daily choices have global impact and challenges the reader to consider what steps she or he could take to begin to live a more just life.

I came away from this book both encouraged and challenged. I am encouraged because I see that steps my wife and I have taken recently – as well as some choices we have long practiced – correspond to her suggestions. We've made some healthy steps to living justly. We're seeking to reduce our consumption, purchase more local and healthy foods, live more simply, reduce or eliminate pesticides and chemicals from our daily lives and many other steps. We've actively recycled for years. Not doing so, especially in a city such as ours where we can recycle so many things through the city's curbside recycling program – seems immoral. We are growing in our awareness that the life of faith includes caring for the other members of God's creation as well as for the non-human aspects of creation. Readers of this blog have followed my journey this year as I've grown in this awareness.

But reading Clawson's book reminded me that there's still far more I can do. I appreciate that Clawson doesn't write to lay a guilt-trip on the reader. She encourages each of us to begin making small changes in our lifestyle, recognizing that most of us cannot radically change our entire lives overnight. She also recognizes that there are limits to what each individual or family can and is willing to do. Repeatedly Clawson asks us to consider who pays the true cost for the various products we consume. She didn't leave me feeling guilty, but did give me plenty of ideas to consider for further changes.

Which brings me back to my question: is it moral for me to eat bananas? There are various facets to this question. The first concerns the manner in which bananas are grown. As Clawson examines in her book (though not specifically concerning bananas), I need to consider whether the bananas I consume were grown and sold to me in a way that values the dignity of the growers. Or is that super-low price at the local supermarket reflective of the meager amount that the farmers were paid, while the multinational fruit company made large profits? I must also consider whether in the process of growing the bananas the farmers used toxic pesticides (by compulsion or otherwise) which harmed themselves and their local environment. Who is paying the true cost of those bananas? If in my desire to pay a low price I am forcing the farmers to pay a high one, then eating those bananas could be an immoral act.

There are various ways to avoid passing the cost of my bananas to the growers, but these involve fair-trade and organic farming. We often try to purchase organically-grown bananas at our local store, which is a positive step, one I believe Clawson would affirm. But I'm still left with a nagging doubt, because no matter how much benefit the grower sees for my organically-grown bananas, I live in a place where bananas do not naturally grow. In fact I live a long way from such places. Which means any bananas sold in my local store have traveled a long way to get here. This means that lots of fuel has been used to transport them, contributing to global climate change and environmental degradation. My purchase of fair-trade, organically-grown bananas may be a more ethical choice and bring more benefit to the growers, but it still comes with a price tag that I am not immediately paying. But if I stop purchasing bananas altogether and many others chose to do so as well, we could eliminate the market for such bananas and therefore the source of income for banana growers, leaving them unemployed. What is a banana-eater to do?

I don't have an answer to this question, and Clawson doesn't offer one either. I don't fault her for this, because it reminds us that ethical decisions are multifaceted and rarely have simply solutions. I will try to purchase organically-grown bananas and look for those that have traveled less distance, but I cannot say that I will never purchase regular bananas from the supermarket. I am thinking more about the impact of my purchases though, which I consider to be a healthy first step. Living justly is not a matter of a few simple adjustments. It requires rethinking and reorienting our entire lifestyle, which takes time and deliberate effort. I encourage you to read Clawson's book and consider what steps you can take to begin to live your life more justly.  

GMOs and Global Hunger

Last week I began an exploration of Genetically Modified Organisms, the corporations that are developing them and the implications these organisms have for the future of our food supply. You can read the first two installments of the series here and here.

Today I want to consider the argument made by these corporations that the work they are doing will significantly help to reduce hunger in the world. I'm all for that. Who wouldn't be? I can't think of a single person who when directly asked whether he or she would like to reduce or eliminate hunger wouldn't say yes immediately. Which makes it a very powerful argument when a corporation tries to promote the use of GMOs. Too give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the people running these corporations really do believe that their genetic modifications will help increase global food supply. But I'm skeptical.

From the documentary The Future of Food I learned that several staple food items that we produce in the United States cannot be sold profitably by farmers. So the government subsidizes farmers to grow things such as corn and soybeans. Much of what cannot be sold domestically is then sold or given as food aid to developing countries. We say we do this because we care about hunger in the world. As I said before, I'll give us the benefit of the doubt and agree that we really do want to do the right thing. But here's the problem. In our efforts to do the right thing, what we're really doing is simply subsidizing our own farmers while driving local farmers in developing countries out of business. They cannot compete with our subsidized imported product. They cannot grow their domestic crop and sell it profitably when the market becomes flooded with cheap American imports. This drives the farmers out of business and eventually off their land and into the growing slums of urban centers, where they join the ranks of the un- or underemployed and hungry. I don't know how to solve this issue, because there are real hunger needs out there, but most of it has to do with getting supply to the right places, not with producing more. We certainly need to do more to support and stimulate local crop production, not imported food supplies.

The corporations pushing GMOs say that these new crops will allow greater harvests, but we don't need larger harvests here in North America. We're already overproducing staples and farmers can't make money off them as it is. Nor do farmers in developing countries need GMOs because they cannot begin to afford pricey GM seed, nor the fertilizers and pesticides necessary for industrialized agriculture. In most situations they have suitable local crops. They just need the ability to get that crop to a suitable market and receive a fair wage for their product.

Related to this issue is that the increase in GM farming adds to an already alarming trend toward eliminating diversty in the global food supply. Instead of 100 varieties of a particular crop, we may now have only 20, or 10, or even less. (The film gives some specific examples which I do not have at hand at the moment.) With less genetic variety each crop becomes more susceptible to disease and pests, which means we are at greater risk of major crop failure, not less. When these GM seeds are introduced into developing countries, they can cross breed and dilute or even eliminate local varieties of crops that may be far better suited to the local environment. And let's not forget that according to US and Canadian law, if a GM plant does cross pollinate with another, the resulting seed would belong to the corporation holding the patent for the GMO, not the local farmer. Can you see a problem here? Rather than helping local farmers in developing countries, rather than reducing or eliminating global hunger, the growing use of GMOs actually carries a significant possibility of increasing it.

One final comment for today. The corporations that are developing GMOs have now put a rider on an agricultural bill before Congress that would require the Department of Agriculture and other government agencies to allow the use of GMOs without question upon the request of any of these corporations. No safety reviews. No peer-reviewed studies. No independent testing. This is bad news for the farmers and consumers of this country. Take a moment to read about it and then sign this petition or contact your own congressional representatives and senators and tell them to oppose this rider.  

Why aren't GMO products labeled?

On Thursday I wrote about a documentary my wife and I had watched that opened our eyes to the radical changes happening in agriculture with the proliferation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The companies driving these changes (Monsanto being one of them that gets particular attention in the film, but they are not the only one) claim that they have the best interest of consumers in mind. They want to improve agricultural production and increase food supply. I remain skeptical.


As I shared on Thursday, the potential impact of GMOs on other organisms, most particularly on humans, remains largely untested. The corporations that own the patents on GMOs and which are developing new ones resist any attempts to conduct unbiased testing or to introduce government oversight. This alone should deeply trouble us. What are they afraid of? These corporations do provide funding to scientists, but only those who will provide sympathetic and supportive results. Scientists who dare to challenge the proclaimed benefits of GMOs face pressure, funding cut-offs and even damage to their reputations and careers as a result. 


At the same time, these corporations resist all efforts to require labeling of products containing GMOs. The European Union has required such labeling, as has Japan and other countries. But any effort to introduce such requirements in the United States is met with an overwhelming campaign very well-funded by these corporations to ward off such regulations. They claim that these modified products are completely safe (despite not allowing independent testing to determine this) and therefore don't need to be labeled. But what they really don't want is for consumers to have any way to hold them accountable for the effects of their products. If we know that a product contains GMOs and those who eat that product then develop any negative effects, doctors and researchers would be alerted by the labeling to consider the GMO as a possible source of the problem. This can then be documented and tracked and the companies producing the GMOs could be held accountable for the effects of their products. Without the labels, the consumer has no way of knowing that what he or she eats contains a GMO and therefore has no way to track whether the GMO has affected his or her health. If the corporations behind these products have nothing to fear, they should not be so resistant to the simple act of requiring labeling. We already require labels to contain a wealth of other information. Shouldn't we require that it inform us when our food contains a radically new biological substance?


Unfortunately our government is not defending the interests of the consumer in this area. The collusion between large corporations such as Monsanto and key government agencies such as the EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the FDA is astounding. Frankly I think it is morally and ethically wrong. Individuals work for or serve on corporate boards while either simultaneously or in alternating cycles working in key government positions. Can we trust someone to police a corporation with which they have an intimate connection? If there are not laws against such influence there should be. I would like to think that corruption exists only in poor, developing countries. But when I hear about arrangements such as those between large agricultural and food producers and the government bodies that should be regulating them, I realize how corrupt our own system has become. We cannot trust or expect that the agencies that should be seeking to protect our food supply are actually doing that. They often seem to be more concerned about protecting the corporate interests of the producers. 


The corporations driving GMO development and implementation claim in their defense that the changes they are introducing will significantly help reduce global hunger. In my next post we will examine that claim. 

A Time to Rejoice

I am celebrating today. The more I read about the change in immigration policy that President Obama announced yesterday, the more I like it. It's a good move. It's the right move. While I do not doubt that the change, or at least the timing of it, was politically calculated, that doesn't make it wrong. It simply makes President Obama an astute politician.

My enthusiasm for this positive change is tempered only by the strong negative reaction I hear from so many. I must confess that I do not understand those who oppose this move. The opposition seems to derive from a mindset that views strict enforcement of laws over basic humanitarian principles. But I think that such a response to this change in policy really demonstrates the values of God's kingdom. Those affected by this new policy did not choose to break the laws of our country, so to say they must bear the full penalty for doing so seems to me extreme and unnecessary. It says that justice triumphs over mercy, which is not how I read it in my Bible.

The people who will benefit directly from this policy are in all significant ways Americans already. They may lack the official documents of residency and citizenship, but they have grown up here and identify this place as their home, not Mexico or some other country from which they came years ago. Sending them back to a place they don't really know, whose language and culture are in fact foreign to them, is cruel and unjust. Furthermore, the policy supports those who have the potential to contribute to the United States. They have received or are receiving an education here. Some have served in our armed forces. Deporting them robs our country of valuable members of society. These young people contribute to society, not take from it. In a newspaper article I read this morning, one young local woman of Mexican origin said:

“We want to give back. We're not here just to take, we want to give back to this nation...be leaders, great leaders who inspire others.”

The same young woman also stated:

“I was raised here, my culture (is) here. I wouldn't call (Mexico) home.”

The largely partisan objections to President Obama's announcement ignore the reality of the individuals who will benefit from this change. They focus on the politics of the decision, ignoring the roadblocks Republicans have put in the way of enacting similar legislation in Congress as well as the fact that the policy change Obama has implemented comes largely from a proposal by a Republican congressman. Apparently if Obama adopts an idea originally promoted by Republicans, the idea suddenly becomes toxic. Those who object to this change also seem to see the world in black and white. You're either an illegal immigrant or you're not. If you are, you're a criminal and a drain on American society and the only suitable and appropriate way to treat you is to get you out of our country as fast as possible. There's no middle ground, no recognition that many cases are not so clear-cut. It's a false dichotomy and it's a wrong, unhelpful approach, especially since it affects the lives of real individuals.

This change in immigration policy is a sensible, humanitarian response to a difficult situation. It is not the final solution, but it is a positive step. I celebrate this as a small victory in the effort to adopt a more open, inclusive immigration policy, as I have written about over the last few days (here and here). If those who oppose this change would adopt a more cooperative, constructive approach to resolving immigration issues, the president would not be compelled to accomplish positive change through presidential decree. But until that day, I'll gladly welcome such small steps as can be taken.

SB 1070

Two years ago my current home state of Arizona passed a bill, commonly referred to by its senate designation number SB 1070, designed to hinder illegal immigration and to remove illegal immigrants from the state. Its location on the Mexican border, along with tighter enforcement of border crossing in California and Texas, has made Arizona a popular place for illegal migrants to enter the United States. Given its already sizable Hispanic population, many of these migrants naturally chose to stay, live and work in the state. Many in the state, including a majority of our state legislators, view these migrants not only with distrust but with outright enmity. They see illegal immigrants as a drain on our state economy and a threat to our health, welfare and security.


At the time it was passed, I was living outside of the country and had been for several years. My initial information and impression of the bill came through online sources and personal contacts back home. Most of those contacts are strongly conservative and favor very strict immigration policies and enforcement of those. They, naturally, supported this measure. I also initially favored it. I have lived as a legal resident in other countries in which I was required to carry immigration documents at all times, so that if questioned by authorities I could always demonstrate my immigration status. So it did not strike me as unjust or even unusual for the state of Arizona to require the same thing. 


Since returning to Arizona my view on this has shifted significantly. My objection comes not along the lines that the federal government is contesting the law. I am not particularly concerned with the question whether the states have authority in these matters or not, although I understand how some see this as a key issue in the debate. That appears to be the issue that the Supreme Court will decide this summer, looking specifically at Arizona's law. My objections come rather from two different fronts. These are not unique to me.


First of all, the question of racial profiling. The law not only entitles but requires state and local law enforcement personnel to inquire about the immigration status of any person during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” or during a “lawful contact.” Supporters of the law claim that this does not involve racial profiling, but in a state located on the southern border of the US, where the overwhelming majority of immigrants are of Latin American origin, how can it do otherwise? I hardly imagine that the state police would be inclined to question a white guy like me about my immigration status. The default assumption is that white guys like me are here legally. So it's the Hispanics who will get the extra attention. That's called racial profiling. 


Furthermore, I object to this clause because we do not have standard documents in the United States that prove someone is a legal resident or citizen. More accurately, such documents do exist, but we are not required to possess them or to carry them at all times. So a Hispanic who is a citizen or legal resident when stopped by the police and asked to produce his or her papers showing proof of legal residency, has no legal obligation and may not have any document to prove this. Most Americans don't own passports and even those of us who do will not normally carry them with us while traveling around our home city, state or country. This marks a big difference between the situation I faced while living overseas and the Arizona law. In the countries where I lived, all citizens have a residency document, usually called an “internal passport” that they carry at all times. So in such a situation, it is less unreasonable to ask resident foreigners to have a similar document with them.


My second objection relates to the first in that the whole immigration issue focuses on people from Latin America. I don't hear many calls to tighten the Canadian border. I don't see us building big walls to keep the Canadians out. Naturally not, because they aren't trying to come across illegally. They don't need to. They have decent (better, in fact), living conditions in their home country. So our call to crack down on illegal immigration stems from our fear of people whom we view as different from us, people who threaten our cultural way of life, who make us feel uncomfortable. I don't buy the argument that they take American jobs, because more often than not they are doing jobs most Americans don't want for wages most of us would not accept. In fact, I argue that these immigrants (including the illegal ones) add value to our economy. I don't have the facts to back this up, but I'm confident they exist. Our efforts to stop illegal immigration come from our fear of the "other." It's not a new issue in the history of immigration in our country, although it seems to have taken a stronger, more virulent form.


As I wrote yesterday, I read my Bible and hear God calling people to welcome foreigners and strangers, and to provide for them. God reminds people that they too were once strangers and slaves in Egypt. I hear God calling us to reach it and include those who are in need, those who are hungry, thirsty, naked, poor, desperate. I don't hear God telling us to build bigger walls of exclusion, to circle the wagons and try to protect what is ours, to react in fear to those who are different than us.


What would an open, inclusive immigration policy look like? I'm looking for someone to offer such a proposal and I'm looking for others who would dare to step up and support such a proposal. I'm encouraged by the small step taken at the instigation of Sojourners, which you can read about here. Are we willing to put God's kingdom above our own sense of country, our own sense of safety and security, and our own fear? Are we willing to stand up for those in need? 

Our Wall of Shame

I grew up in a world where the biggest perceived threat my country faced came from that place that our president-at-the-time labeled the “evil empire.” This evil empire, also known as the Soviet Union, exercised control or direct influence over a number of other countries, among them those in Eastern Europe know as the Warsaw Pact. One symbol came to define this evil empire and its satellite states: the Berlin Wall.


I won't detail here the history of the Berlin Wall. Thankfully, on November 9, 1989, while I was a student at university, this wall came down. It happened quite suddenly in the end and rather unexpectedly. The removal of this wall symbolized the victory of freedom over repression.




Twenty-some years later I find myself living in southern Arizona, not too far from the border with Mexico. We can't see it from here, but I could drive there in about an hour. This border has been the source of much controversy over the years, a controversy that only seems to be growing stronger in these years of economic downturn. In some places the United States government has erected a wall to keep out the unwanted migrants from the south. Many voices, including one that to my great relief just lost a by-election for our congressional district, advocate finishing this wall along the entire border and even doubling it just to be safe. The country that once celebrated the destruction of a wall in defense of freedom now builds one of its own. 

Some may see a significant difference between these two walls. I acknowledge that there are differences, but I'm not so certain that the underlying motive in building the two walls is all that different. Both the German Democratic Republic and the United States of America build or built their wall out of fear. The GDR feared losing too many of its citizens. The USA fears being swamped by too many migrants, despite that fact that we are a nation of immigrants.


In our region of southern Arizona, most people talk of “border security.” All conservatives and most liberals speak of the need to defend our border. Few, if any, dare suggest that we look for an alternative to bigger fences and more border guards. The climate of fear and defensiveness is too dominant.

I don't pretend that the issues are simple, but I find myself asking increasingly whether there's a different way than what has been or is currently being pursued. Especially as a follower of Jesus, I wonder whether instead of trying to keep migrants out because of our fear (whether it is based on economics, crime, or as is often the underlying issue, racism) we are called to a radically different approach. I read the Bible and hear God telling their people to welcome foreigners, to remember that they too were once foreigners in Egypt. The underlying ethic welcomes the other, not excludes them. Admittedly, Israel all-too-seldom practiced this in its own history, but we look not to their example but to the ideal that God set before them.

I am ashamed that my country, one of the wealthiest on earth with a standard of living that remains among the world's highest, a country that is built on immigration, now seeks to exclude others and particularly does so by erecting walls and physical barriers. I do not think that we really face the threat of being overwhelmed by migrants should we adopt a more humane, open policy. In fact, immigrants have been the strength of our nation, have spurred our economic growth and enriched our cultural stew.


A friend of mine offered a radical suggestion to reform American immigration policy. He stated that the government should welcome the poorest immigrants, the ones who are most oppressed, marginalized and hopeless in their home countries, and allow them to begin a new life here, Their energy and motivation could provide a helpful stimulus to our economy, while giving them opportunities they would never have at home. At the same time, the wealthy, highly-educated immigrants who we prefer to welcome today should be turned away so that they can utilize their skills in developing their own countries. Again, the idea needs some further development, but the underlying principle appeals to me because it speaks of the justice and grace that should distinguish God's kingdom. If those who call themselves by the name of Christ in the United States really want to demonstrate their allegiance to God's kingdom, our attitude and response to immigrants would be one good place for some radical change.

Training Our Economic Imagination

While walking the other morning I began thinking about other ways in which we need to train our imaginations. When I wrote on this topic last week, I focused primarily on how we might encounter, understand and express grace, hope, transformation and other core Christian concepts outside of traditional prayer and reading the Bible. On that morning my thoughts went beyond this to consider how we need creative, Christian imaginations that can conceive of new ways of structuring our economic system that promote equality, compassion, sustainability and reduce greed, competition, self-promotion and needless consumerism. I believe there are already some minds out there working on such questions, but I am unaware of them and, more significantly, their voices are not being raised, promoted or heard in our current political climate nor in our churches.


As I read and watch the news these days, and even at times as I listen to sermons at church, it seems that the current economic situation dominates the conversation. Understandably so, but I am troubled because so often the underlying question seems to be how we can get our economy moving again and which candidate's plans will best stimulate renewed growth, not whether renewed growth and a return to business as before really answer our crisis. What if our whole economic philosophy is flawed? What if the reason we are at the place we are now results from the idea that more is better, that in order to keep our economy healthy we need to convince people to buy more and make it possible for them to do so? This approach has led us to massive personal and national debt, to the degradation of our environment and with it our well-being, and to a fundamentally unsustainable approach to living. In the midst of our current economic recession I hear voices speaking mostly about how to get Americans back to work by creating jobs, not about how we can create a sustainable economy that doesn't depend on an ever-expanding consumer market to create demand and with it jobs.


I wish I had the creative mind I'm calling for. I wish I had a better grasp of economic theories and the ability to think outside of or beyond those theories to envision new ways in which we could create a sustainable, just economy that would provide adequate, meaningful, sustainable work in a healthy, respectful environment that didn't depend on manufacturing more goods at an ever-lower price. I'm probably dreaming. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid to even think that such a world would be possible. Maybe it isn't possible. But I'd sure like to see some creative imagination brought to bear in this area of our lives, rather than continuing on the same old path that got us where we are in the first place. Surely in our business schools, corporations, even in our houses of worship and quite possibly in our homeless shelters there are women and men who can raise up new ideas, and maybe, just maybe, there are some politicians and other leaders willing to embrace and champion those ideas and lead us in a new direction.


If you are aware of anyone writing and promoting new ideas in these areas, I'd love to hear about them. Maybe I'll even be able to understand what they are saying. I don't think our nation is doomed to failure, but I'm not convinced that future success lies in getting back on the road we were on previously. Surely there's another way.


I still have hope. 

An Echo from Bonhoeffer

I have long admired Dietrich Bonhoeffer, so much so that my wife and I named our son in his honor. I'm currently reading a recent biography of his life—no, not the one by Eric Metaxas, although I have read that one as well and have definite thoughts about it, but the one written by Ferdinand Schlingensiepen. In today's reading I came across a citation from a letter Bonhoeffer wrote to his oldest brother Karl Friedrich in 1935 in which he says:

“I think I am right in saying that I would only achieve true inner clarity and honesty by really starting to take the Sermon on the Mount seriously. Here alone lies the force that can blow all this hocus-pocus [he was referring to Naziism] sky-high – like fireworks, leaving only a few burnt-out shells behind...Things do exist that are worth standing up for without compromise. To me it seems that peace and social justice are such things, as is Christ himself.”

In these words I hear Bonhoeffer saying in 1935 much the same thing that Kathy Escobar and others are saying in 2012. I hear a call to live from the teaching and example of Jesus, particularly as given in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. I am encouraged by the reminder that Bonhoeffer too recognized that for some things – or against some things – we must take a firm stand. I don't think that Kathy Escobar or any one else needs her words confirmed by the words of someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but at the same time I find strength in being reminded that this message resonates throughout the history of God's people. Most of the time, as it was in Bonhoeffer's day, it is the minority voice speaking against the dominant trends of power and the status quo. Unfortunately, now as in his time these voices often dominate the conversation even within the Church. But that should not keep us from speaking out, from standing without compromise for those things – or people – that truly matter. For Bonhoeffer this stand eventually cost him his life. I must confess that I hope such a stand will not be so costly for me, but it will have a cost. Am I willing to pay the price?