My Prayer for Election Day

I have received numerous requests, invitations and exhortations to pray for the outcome of this election. Most of the time these requests come with an expectation--stated or not--as to what that outcome should look like. I've heard time and again that this is the most important election in the history of our nation, quite a statement considering that this is the 57th presidential election in this nation's history. I wonder how many previous elections were deemed at the time to be "the most important"? Do we have a false sense of our own significance?

Leaving that question aside for the moment, I do believe that we as followers of Christ should pray for this election, but not necessarily in the way that many may think. I do believe there are important issues at stake and I certainly have my own opinion on most of them. I know how I would like to see the results turn out Tuesday evening. I also know that many of my friends and acquaintances fervently hope for exactly the opposite outcomes. And in many cases we would all say that our result is more in accordance with God's will. Since elections cannot end in a tie, one side will be disappointed in every instance. Tuesday night (or perhaps later in case of a close race), some people in this country will go to sleep rejoicing that "good has triumphed" while others will go to sleep grieving over the demise of our nation. A bit melodramatic really, considering that the God of the universe has been known to work through some pretty amazing circumstances ranging all over the spectrum. Do we really think that God's will may be thwarted by the outcome of our little election? Can God not take into account our choices and still transform them to bring about their kingdom on earth?

So here, in broad strokes, is my prayer for election day 2012:

I pray that regardless of the outcome, we as a nation will realize that our strength lies in our unity (not uniformity) and that the road forward lies in working together, not in holding tightly to our precious agendas.

I pray that those who celebrate their victories would remember that many are grieving over those same results and act with grace and dignity.

I pray that we as a nation would learn humility and turn from arrogance and pride.

I pray that we would learn again to converse civilly and reasonably.

I pray that we would realize that this nation is not going to hell in a shopping cart just because any particular candidate gets elected. The world will not end on Wednesday just because B.O. or M.R. has won the election. Let's stop pretending otherwise and dump the hyperbole.

I pray in particular that those who call themselves by the name of Christ would demonstrate love in word and deed, not only to those we agree with but even more to those we disagree with. We dishonor Christ when we speak words of hatred and demean other humans who are created equally in God's image.

I pray that even as we all long for economic recovery and better days ahead, that we would remember that God's blessing does not reside in our financial or economic well-being. May we actively care for those who are in need as Christ has taught us and demonstrated to us.

In summary, I pray that God's kingdom will come and God's will shall be done here on earth as it is in heaven, affirming that this can happen whatever the outcome of any political race.

I get the sense, at least from Facebook, that many are anxious about the future of this country. Although I hardly consider myself an optimist, I don't feel that same anxiety. I trust that God's will shall prevail no matter what the results of the election are. God's kingdom is so much bigger than the United States and the outcome of our elections. I find great assurance in that. So yes, I'll be watching the results Tuesday night, and I hope to have some reasons to rejoice and probably will have others to grieve. But in the end, God's kingdom will not be hindered by this and I shall continue to pray and act that God's will may be done here on earth as it is in heaven.

God's Politics?

I had hoped to make it through to the election next month without being told how I should vote as a Christian. Alas, such was not to be. Last Sunday I learned that as a Christian I need to stand against the moral disintegration of the United States by: 1) standing for a constructionist view of the U.S Constitution, 2) standing against the accumulation of debt, against increased taxation and against increased government spending and 3) against abortion. I was told that the fate of our nation and, implicitly of our faith, hangs in the balance. In fact it hangs tenuously by the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court, where four current members do not stand for these three issues. With one more nomination by an ungodly president, the balance could shift and we would descend into a tailspin from which we might never recover (that language is mine, not the message I heard, although the sense was certainly there.) Interestingly, I remember hearing such statements as far back as the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

I am troubled not by the fact that my pastor has his own opinion on these issues, whether I concur with them or not. I think there is room for diverse viewpoints on most political issues. However, I am very troubled that he drew a clear connection between taking particular stands on these issues and standing for one's faith. In fact I was flabbergasted to learn that my view of the U.S. Constitution represents a faith issue. I heard on Sunday the distinct statement that to accept the view that the Constitution is a living document and to allow for its interpretation in light of a modern context is sin. Again, I am not arguing for or against this view of the Constitution, but whichever viewpoint you hold (or whether you hold any at all), I hardly think it qualifies as a matter integral to Christian faith. It troubled me very deeply when my pastor quoted from the U.S. Constitution during worship as if this were some holy, sacred document. It is an amazing document that has served this country well throughout its history and, I hope, will continue to do so for many years to come. But whether it is interpreted in one way or another has nothing to do with God's kingdom. God's kingdom will endure and advance whether we interpret the Constitution in a strict constructionist manner or whether we allow for reinterpretation based on current conditions. This may well make a difference in terms of where our country goes, but where our country goes is not a kingdom-of-God issue. God's kingdom does not depend on the United States. God can and will work through this country whatever it looks like. Try not to fall off your chairs at this, but God can work even without the United States.

I believe that my pastor fell into a typical evangelical error on Sunday. He equated a particular cultural viewpoint with a kingdom-of-God viewpoint. According to this perspective, if we fail to vote in a particular way, our country will lose God's favor (do we enjoy some special favor anyway?) and stray off the path of godliness. I'll let you in on a little secret, we've never really been on the path of godliness. Yes, we've done some good, decent things as a nation. We've also done a lot of incredibly sinful, selfish, destructive things that have certainly caused God to weep. I don't know that this is anymore the case now than it was fifty or a hundred years ago.

Along with our “enlightening” message, we received a voter's guide on Sunday. This voter's guide, although declared to be “non-partisan”, comes from an organization that is non-partisan in a strictly legal sense only. A look at the questions they ask candidates and the issues that affirm, including statements made in the guide concerning citizen-initiated propositions, reveals quite clearly what they support and what they oppose. This organization has every right to push their position, but I really resented having this forced on me in Sunday morning worship and even more being told that this was not an effort to influence my vote, but just a desire to help me be a more-informed voter.

The whole worship service left me with the feeling that, in order to fit into God's family, I must adopt a certain set of political views. If I don't, my godliness is apparently in question. There's no room for diversity, no room for discussion or exploration of the complex context of most political issues. The message and the voter's guide were simplistic, dividing issues into black and white without any possible middle ground. It left us with a false dichotomy. We're either for or against, in or out, standing for righteousness or allowing sin to spread.

All this struck me as particularly ironic given that I just finished reading Gregory Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation. This book challenged my thinking about the interaction between faith and politics. Boyd argues clearly and strongly that we as Christians err whenever we put our faith in bringing about God's kingdom through the power of the kingdoms of this world. In fact he calls it idolatry. He points to the history of the church to demonstrate that whenever the church has sought and gained political power, it has done far more of a disservice than a service to the Gospel. Most often is has resulted in the name of Christ being defamed rather than exalted. Boyd doesn't tell his readers to disengage from politics. But he does encourage us to recognize that God's work does not depend on whether a particular politician or set of policies gains power. God doesn't work through power-over structures. God works through service, through sacrifice, through counter-cultural movements that transform hearts from within rather than seeking to impose change through laws and legislation. There are times when laws and legislation are appropriate and useful, but ultimately they do not bring about the kingdom of God.

If we're going to talk about political issues from the pulpit, let's talk about issues of real righteousness, like whether we are fostering justice, peace and love. Let's talk about our own lifestyles of greed that directly and indirectly leave most of the world in dire poverty and destroy God's creation. Let's ask whether our behavior demonstrates the love of God more than a desire to protect our personal interests and our American way of life. I love my country, but the kingdom of God is about so much more than defending any particular view of it. In fact the kingdom of God is about far more than the United States at all.

This has been a lengthy post, but Sunday's message left me very troubled. I debated whether to share my thoughts about it, but in light of the applause that arose from much of the congregation after Sunday's message, I felt I need to speak out and offer an alternative viewpoint. Within the worship community on Sunday there was little place for that, although I appreciate one couple who I respect and appreciate, who came up to me afterwards and asked what I thought and how I was feeling. We had a very healthy and open conversation for several minutes, the kind that we need more of in the church. I know the pastor felt very passionately about what he shared and sees these as really crucial issues, but I think his message presented things as far too black and white and false equated certain viewpoints with the kingdom of God.

This blog is for the October synchroblog on faith and politics. Others writing about this include:

• We the People by Wendy McCaig
• Pulpit Freedom, Public Faith by Carol Kuniholm
• Plumbers and Politicians by Glenn Hager
• Conflating Faith and Politics by Maurice Broaddus
• You Cannot Serve Two Masters by Sonja Andrews
• Would Jesus Vote by Jeremy Myers
• A Kingdom Not of This World by Jareth Caelum
• I am a Christian and I am a Democrat by Liz Dyer
• 5 Ways to Make it Through the Election and Still Keep Your Friends by Kathy Escobar

Speaking - and Listening - in Love

As we head into the heart of the election season, I keep being told to “vote my values.” I wholeheartedly concur with this statement, except that usually those who make it have a clear set of values that I'm supposed to vote according to. What they really should say is “vote our values.” That would be more honest. Because in fact I think most voters vote according to their values. The problem doesn't lie in not voting according to our values. The problem, if we choose to see it as such, lies in our different values. This shouldn't surprise us, given that we live in a pluralistic society that values freedom of opinion and expression.

Even if we try to narrow the message of “vote your values” to “vote your Christian values” we run into difficulties. Despite what we like to think, Christians take different views on many issues and, in most cases, argue that their views are “biblical.” I don't know whether we could even define a list of values that all who call themselves by the name of Christ should vote according to, because ultimately what defines us as followers of Christ is not a set of values that inform our voting, but a set of beliefs about a certain person named Jesus the Messiah. The last time I checked his name wasn't on the election ballot this fall.

A lot of polemic is flying these days over which candidate more fully represents “biblical” values (there's that problematic phrase again). The answer you give will depend on how you define those values. In fact, neither candidate can or should make the claim to be “the” godly candidate (and I don't know that either has, in those words at least.) Their supporters, however, seem quite willing to do this on their behalf. I am tired of hearing that President Obama is ungodly, that he is leading this nation away from God, that he's not a Christian, and on and on it goes. I find it quite interesting that so many who call themselves by the name of Christ have such difficulty acknowledging that our president views himself as a follower of Christ as well. Just because he doesn't line up with a certain list of political viewpoints doesn't mean he's outside of the Kingdom of God. Only God gets to determine that. You may legitimately differ with his policies and politics, but don't tell me that the man is ungodly and anti-Christian.

Having said that, I must say that Mitt Romney also should not be charged with being ungodly. Although I take issue with key theological points of his Mormon faith, ultimately he does not stand or fall before God based on his political views and policies. Neither candidate, no candidate in the election for any position, can stand as “God's candidate” because God doesn't have a candidate running in any electoral contest. He doesn't need to. God will accomplish God's purposes through whichever people we elect. Regardless of the outcome of the election and the resulting impact on our nation, whatever it may be, God will continue to do God's work through God's people.

I have spoken out on several issues I feel strongly about in the last few months. I do not regret that nor disclaim what I have written. But recently, at the encouragement of Caris Adel, I started to read Gregory Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation. I haven't made it far yet, but his first chapter struck me squarely on the forehead. As followers of Jesus Christ we are not called to advance a political agenda. Yes, we can and should engage in the political arena. But we are called far more to represent the Kingdom of God and to do so through acting in love and grace toward one another. When our political rhetoric becomes such that we deride those we disagree with, our we really demonstrating the love of Jesus? I recognize that I have been guilty of this. I see that my voice has often been unnecessarily strident. I acknowledge that I have often spoken more than I have listened. I appreciate the challenge of Danielle's words at From Two to One earlier this week. In reflecting on what she wrote and what I am reading from Gregory Boyd, I want to adopt a different approach in the remaining weeks of the election period. I may still speak out at times, but mostly I want to listen, ask questions and engage in respectful, civil conversation. The result may not be that you persuade me or that I persuade you, but at least we can learn from one another and in the process recognize that we don't always have to agree to live in harmony with one another. Unity does not require unanimity and those who differ from my beliefs and opinions are not inherently my enemies. In the end it's not about who wins this election. Our nation will not go to hell in a handbasket regardless of which candidate wins. This country is more than our political leaders and following Jesus is about far more than getting “our” candidate into office.

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.

Not the Paramount Issue

A couple of weeks ago in a men's Bible study I attend, the leader of the group that week shared about a line he was not willing to cross. He said that a “line-in-the-sand” political issue for him was whether a politician opposed abortion or not and stated that he could not vote for one who did. I can respect that, even though in the context of the passage we were discussing that week (Esther 3), I felt it was rather a stretch to tie this topic into the conversation. At one point in my life I would have adamantly said the same thing. A politician's views on abortion became the single issue on which I would cast my ballot for or against him or her.

I no longer think that way. I no longer believe that one can make a single issue THE deciding factor in supporting or opposing a politician. The world is much too complex for that and the political arena has too many factors involved to make one issue the ultimate criteria. Am I being more godly or ethical to support a politician who opposes abortion but pursues wars which kill thousands of non-combatants? Is a politician more moral if she or he opposes abortion but supports policies that deprive the poor of support? Morality involves a wide range of issues and concerns and cannot be reduced to a single topic. Judging a politician simply by his or her views on abortion is simplistic and naïve.

Interestingly, someone pointed out to me that the Republican party, which has made a big point of their opposition to abortion, has in fact done very little to act on that plank in their platform. As evidence, this person pointed to the period in the Bush era when the Republicans had clear control of Congress and the White House and could have pushed through just about any anti-abortion bill they wanted. In the end they did little, despite their claims to be against abortion. The person who called this to my attention suggested that the Republicans recognize that having this plank in their platform works to their political advantage by attracting the single-issue anti-abortion voters, but if they were to actually achieve their goal, they would no longer have the uncritical support of that group of voters. It is to their political advantage to say there are opposed to abortion but to do little to work against it.

Unfortunately I think that lately this has been less the case, at least in many state legislatures. We see an increasing number of bills that seek to limit access to abortion as a means to eliminate it. We see waiting periods and forced “counseling” sessions and even had the possibility of a woman being forced to have a vaginal ultrasound. I think most of these measures are ridiculous and coercive. They do not respect a woman's individual rights, but treat her like an imbecile who is incapable of making an informed, personal decision. For this reason I oppose such measures.

Despite what the reader may think at this point, I do not favor abortion. I think it should be eliminated, but not by legal restriction. I think it should be eliminated by providing an environment in which women have better choices. This may include better adoption support, better support during pregnancy and after delivery for all women but particularly for those who find themselves in difficult circumstances, unable to adequately care for this new baby. I support the use of contraceptives so that women (and men with them) have more control over the timing of pregnancies. I want to see a culture in which women are not threatened, coerced or forced in any manner – psychologically, physically or otherwise – into sexual activity. Let's do all we can to eliminate “unwanted” pregnancies so that abortion becomes essentially a procedure used only in rare cases. We need to affirm the value of life holistically, including the lives of women.

I want to vote based on a broader ethical platform, one that recognizes that the Kingdom of God encompasses a wide range of issues and choices. For example, I'm not going to automatically support a politician who opposes abortion but promotes the exploitation of our environment. I'm not going to support a pair of candidates who oppose abortion but push for a budgetary policy that guts support to society's weakest and most vulnerable while cutting taxes for the wealthiest. These are also moral issues and I can no longer say that abortion trumps them all. The issues are too complex for that.

Abortion is certainly a political topic and if it is significant to you, then you should factor that into your voting decisions. However, I encourage you to think about other important issues as well and recognize that by supporting an anti-abortion politician (call them pro-life if you prefer), you may at the same time be lending your support to other issues that are also of significance to a voter who wants to see the values of the Kingdom furthered in our society.

Romney Shows His True Colors

I have not supported Mitt Romney to this point, but his choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate solidifies my opposition to his candidacy. With this choice, Romney clearly demonstrates that his path to restoring America will come at the expense of those who can least afford it. As the chief author of the GOP's budget plan – Path to Prosperity, Ryan stands out as a staunch advocate for what Jim Wallis has described as “an immoral document.” This budget proposal and the principles that Ryan stand for run counter to fundamental principles of Scripture. God calls us to speak up for and defend the rights of the poor and needy, the widows and orphans. God does not call us to gut programs that help the poor while extending tax breaks to society's wealthiest members. For this reason the Republican budget plan authored by Ryan and the principles on which he formulated that document are immoral.

Unfortunately many other believers in this country will not see things this way. They have bought into a gospel that exalts wealth and success. Although not all would say it as clearly and directly as this, the fundamental American gospel holds that wealth is an indication of God's blessing and poverty an indication of God's curse. Consequently, those who have been blessed by God should be allowed to enjoy that blessing as they desire and the poor obviously just need to get right with God and get working so that they too can enjoy God's blessing. In adopting such a worldview, explicitly or implicitly, we forget or ignore the many injunctions in Scripture to care for the needs of the poor, to defend the cause of the weak and powerless. Yes, we need to do that first and foremost in our personal lives and in our churches, but we also need to advocate and strive to create governmental structures that do so as well. We will not achieve a just society simply by relying on the philanthrophy of individuals and private organizations. We need to reevaluate our understanding of the gospel message and speak out in defense of the poor, weak and marginalized.

I recognize quite clearly that this country needs to make some serious adjustments if we want to continue to have a healthy future. But those adjustments should not come at the cost of society's most vulnerable. We need to restrain government spending, but we can't do it primarily or exclusively on the backs of those who can least afford it. While advocating for cuts to welfare programs, Representative Ryan would expand military spending. While cutting programs to protect the environment he would extend tax cuts to the wealthy. His priorities are out of line and any progress he and Romney might achieve in reducing the deficit in this way would come at too high a cost. Yes, we need to make some hard choices as a country, but the ones offered by Romney and Ryan are not going to lead us in the right direction.

I wish I could say that President Obama offers a great alternative. Unfortunately that is not the case. The Democratic party has its own significant weaknesses. I wish there were a realistic alternative, a third party that would stand for a broad, Scripturally-sound, just society – a sort of Christian Centrist Party, although I'm hesitant to put the word Christian into the name of a party because it would be sure to be abused and misused. I am intrigued by the platform of the current Green Party candidates Stein-Honkala and may choose to throw my support behind them. But I simply cannot support a Romney-Ryan ticket that would attempt to right the American ship by reducing or eliminating support for those who most need it. To do that would be, in my mind, fundamentally unjust and immoral.

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. 

The Lemon Tree

I recently finished reading a most interesting book entitled The Lemon Tree. Written by Sandy Tolan, The Lemon Tree explores the conflict between Palestine and Israel from the time before the creation of the modern state of Israel by following the stories of two families united by a single house. The house was built by Ahmad Khairi, a Palestinian, in the town then called Al-Ramla, located northwest of Jerusalem. Following the establishment of the state of Israel and the war that followed in 1948, the town came under Jewish control and the house eventually came into the ownership of Moshe Eshkenazi and his wife, recent immigrants from Bulgaria. In the ensuing years, Bashir the son of Ahmad and Dalia the daughter of Moshe would see their lives become intertwined because of this house. They develop a close bond but yet struggle to overcome the huge obstacles that separate them as Israeli and Palestinian. 


I liked this true story and the way the author presents it. By placing us in the context of these two individuals and their families, we can see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a very different and much more personal level. This isn't just about two nations and their destinies. It's about real people living real lives in real homes. As he tells the stories of Dalia and Bashir, Tolan fills in larger details about the establishment of modern Israel and the wars between it and its neighbors over the years. But he does so evenly, not favoring one side or the other and always keeping the impact of the events on the lives of our two heros in the forefront. It is a moving story and I highly recommend it, particularly if you are inclined to favor one side or the other. Tolan will help you see that neither group is entirely innocent of the problems that now divide the two and will also demonstrate through the relationship between Dalia and Bashir that solutions remain difficult and elusive.


I come from a faith background that unwaveringly sides with Israel. It sees the Jews as God's chosen people and embraces the idea that the establishment of the modern state of Israel was an act of God, a step toward the fulfillment of prophecies made centuries earlier. For much of my life I unquestioningly accepted and agreed with this perspective and the theology behind it. But over the years I have come not just to question this perspective but to actively reject it. The Jews may still have some status as God's chosen, although I am inclined to believe that the Church universal are the people of God now, but that does not mean that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was an act of God. Reading this book showed me how much it was the act of human beings and how significantly their visions, dreams and weaknesses (on both sides of the divide) played into the events of 1948 and the years since. I do want to state clearly that I am not inherently opposed to the establishment or existence of Israel. In a certain since, I view it as a fait accompli, something that the world must work with as it seeks a way forward, rather than something that can be undone as part of any “solution.” Whether this was the best way to make amends to what befell the Jewish people in WWII could be debated endlessly. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to give them land in Germany, for example? But that question was never asked and to raise it now would be pointless.


However, accepting the existence of Israel does not require us to unwaveringly take the side of Israel in every conflict that occurs between them and the Arab world. The modern Israeli people, just as their forefathers of old, are fully capable of sin and error and in their efforts to secure their future in the land of Israel, they have far too often behaved in ways that prolong and fuel the conflict and must certainly grieve God Almighty. One of the steps required for any process of reconciliation to occur is for Israel to acknowledge these crimes and to change its ways. But this takes us into a discussion of how one might find a way forward, which we will come to shortly.


I cannot support those in the American Christian community whose support for Israel blinds them to the failures, sins and crimes of Israel. God is the God of the Jews, but he is also the God of the Palestinians and other Arabs. Does God favor the Jews more than those other people? I don't believe so. I believe that God's grace and mercy extend to all without difference, yet by our uncritical support of Israel because of a particular theological interpretation (and perhaps out of enduring guilt from WWII), we hinder these Arab peoples from hearing and receiving the love and grace that God extends to them as well. By our actions and words in support of Israel we say we want all people to hear the Good News, except the Palestinians and those who support them. Those people don't really have a place in God's kingdom.


Can there be a way forward? As Tolan demonstrates in The Lemon Tree, no easy one exists. But I think that the followers of Jesus can offer the only realistic one – the path of forgiveness and repentance, the path of grace and mercy. This requires acknowledging wrongs done to us and by us, followed by seeking and offering forgiveness. It requires a willingness to be wronged. It demands that we see our enemy no longer as an enemy, but as person whose dignity and worth come from God just as much as mine do. I don't know that it is humanly possible to live in such a way, particularly in such a heated situation as that between Palestinians and Israelis. I do believe that we who call ourselves followers of Jesus must speak out in support of these radical notions. We must speak in favor of peace rather than continuing to uncritically and consistently take the side of Israel regardless of her actions.


In a highly polarized world and in this particularly polarized conflict, stories like those told in The Lemon Tree are especially needed. A similar story is told in the movie of the same name, although the book and the movie are about the same people or exact situation. We need to remember that these conflicts involve real people and not reduce them to blocks of people whom we can support or oppose without critical engagement. We need to prayerfully read and watch the news and remind ourselves that God loves the people on both sides equally.

Obamacare -- A Step in the Right Direction

When the law now commonly referred to as “Obamacare” was first debated more than two years ago, I was strongly opposed to it. I rejected as a matter of principle the idea of government involvement in healthcare. I did not think that the government could do anything to help the problems our country faces regarding affordability and availability of medical care to all. On the day the law passed Congress and was signed by President Obama I was attending a business meeting in England. An English colleague rejoiced at the news, while I expressed serious reservations and disappointment. She saw it as a small victory that our country finally took a step to providing medical coverage for all its citizens. After all, we were the one remaining major industrialized country that still did not do this. By European standards the healthcare situation in the United States was simply barbaric. Sure, they recognized that we have some of the best quality healthcare in the world, but for significant portions of our population this remained inaccessible due to costs. At the time I acknowledged the problems she pointed out but argued that Obamacare and government involvement in healthcare did not offer a helpful solution.

Today, when the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare act, I rejoiced. This obvious contradiction can be explained by the shift in my own viewpoint over the last couple years. This shift comes from my frustrations with skyrocketing healthcare costs and the lack of any other realistic proposal to begin addressing them. It comes also from my growing awareness of the growing number of people who either have no healthcare insurance or whose insurance premiums and costs are increasingly burdensome. My family would be in the latter category. Thankfully we do have health insurance, but each year our premiums climb and I can only mitigate that climb by continuing to increase our annual deductible. Our health insurance premium alone takes a serious bite out of our pay each month and there is not a thing I can do to reduce it. Even with that insurance available to us we avoid going to the doctor unless we really have to because the deductible costs us so much. But again, we are fortunate in that we at least have some type of coverage.

I recognize now that enacting this law is a matter of justice. It is a matter of making sure that the most disadvantaged members of our society do not fall through the cracks. Those opposed to Obamacare will raise all sorts of arguments against it. They will rail against the growing infringement of government on our lives. They will discuss the political impact and a multitude of other issues. But as this article from Sojourners points out, for believers these shouldn't be the main issues. As Jim Wallis, the author of the article states:

“Our bottom line is different. We don't start with politics, but rather with how these decisions affect real people.”

As God's people we should be raising our voices in defense of those who are left behind by our economic system. We should be looking after those in need. We should not leave them at the mercy of an impersonal market economy. The market economy, despite its strong advocates in the conservative political ranks, is not going to solve the healthcare problems we face. The market economy doesn't look out for the outcasts of society. It chews them up, tramples them down and grinds them to dust. We should be doing all we can to counteract that. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but this healthcare act takes us a step in the right direction.

I am not familiar with all the provisions of the act but from what I understand, as someone who already has insurance, the impact on me will be minimal. In fact it may be positive, if it can begin to reign in rising costs. I am pleased by many provisions of the act such as those described in this chart.

I no longer share the fear of the government compelling us to buy health insurance. In fact I do not understand why we tolerate requirements to purchase insurance for our vehicles but vehemently resist any suggestion that we be required to carry insurance for our health. Where are our priorities?

I'm open to changes and improvements in this law, but I think that lobbying for its repeal would be a huge step backward. I would love to hear some meaningful proposals from those who oppose this act. I don't consider healthcare savings accounts to be a viable option, because they require that you actually have money to invest in them in the first place. Even if I were freed entirely from my monthly insurance premiums and put that entire amount in an HSA, an unlikely possibility, I could easily be bankrupted by a serious medical problem. So if you oppose Obamacare, bring some real suggestions to the table, suggestions that look out for the most needy and disadvantaged in our society. I'd love to hear some suggestions that see medical care as something other than a for-profit business. But I suppose that in suggesting this I mark myself already as radical. I'm okay with that, because I think we need some radical new ideas. I don't think Obamacare is the final solution, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction.

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.

Praying for the President

This article by Eugene Cho caught my attention today. His message applies at any time but is particularly timely in an election year.

My Eyes Have Been Opened

I was browsing the internet the other day when this article caught my eye. The editor certainly chose a title that would capture my interest. I read the article and was rather appalled by the assertion of the author. I do not think that making money is inherently sinful, but this author essentially concludes that personal success and happiness is the ultimate moral value. The runs counter to the entire teaching of Scripture, as the author duly notes.

I linked this article to my Facebook page which prompted a colleague of mine to direct me to a second article. He noted that the author of the original article is president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, which reveals an enormous amount about his philosophy--if you are familiar with Ayn Rand. I was not, but this second article greatly enlightened me and at the same time frightened me.

I won't attempt to summarize the second article. My readers would do well to read it for themselves. I say it frightened me because I was completely unaware of the extent to which Rand's individualistic philosophy had infiltrated not only American culture but American church culture. The author's citation of Ravi Zacharias cuts right to the heart of the issue:

"Wealth and enterprise have so woven themselves around the message of Jesus that popular models of Christianity appear as nothing more than self and greed at the center, with strands of Christian thought at the periphery."

Prior to reading this article I would have described myself as inclining toward libertarianism. After reading it I would hesitate to associate myself with the underlying philosophy he describes. I still am sceptical of the role of government, but I see the point in his critique of unbridled libertarianism. It certainly isn't reflective of the message of Jesus. So I stand confronted by the harsh reality that much of my thinking has been strongly influenced by values that are contrary to the values of Christ, without my having even realized this. That's a painful recognition, but at the same time I'm glad I've had my eyes opened and my thinking challenged. I would never have thought of myself as being influenced by Ayn Rand, but now that I see how I have been, I want to correct my course. Otherwise I might as well sign my name on the new moral code espoused by Yaron Brook and the Ayn Randians of the world.