The Irreverent Reverend

Long before Jesus ever set foot toward the city of Jerusalem for Passover, the most important journey of his life was well underway. And his feet never moved. It was the journey inward, to that place that was not a place but grounded all other places. 

This journey kept Jesus rooted in who he was and what he was supposed to do. It kept him on the outward path even when it ceased to be popular. Before Jesus ever answered the call to do, he answered the call to be. His first pilgrimage was inward.

For Jesus, going to Jerusalem for the celebration of Passover was about remembering who he was and whose he was. Before there was Palm Sunday there was Passover. And Jesus was all about Passover on this trip. It’s hard to say if there were palm fronds and jackets strewn on the street. Who knows if there was one donkey or two? It is unclear if there were twenty people or two hundred people. 

Passover is about freedom from bondage. It is the celebration that marks the Exodus and the end of slavery in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh. Like all Jews who were physically able to make the trip, Jesus and his friends made their pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the celebration. Passover was and remains a central celebration for Jews, symbolizing the belief that God set them free. It is an archetypal story that speaks to the human experience: from bondage to freedom, from death to life, from vulnerability to strength and back again, through suffering to new life.  Every great world religion has a feast/festival or celebration that marks the cycle of renewal and refreshment, freedom and new identity.

Much of Jesus’ teaching and ministry was about setting people free from bondage and slavery that came from too much money and too little money, too much power and too little power as well as those who were broken, isolated and shunned for whatever reason.

What mattered was that Jesus was coming into the city for the feast that called all the children home. Passover was the summons to come and share and pray and remember. It was and remains a time to stop doing and be, a time set aside to remember the past.

This is hard for us to grasp. We are so focused on what we accomplish and what we possess and what comes next. When we read this back into the Bible it’s easy to focus on all the cool stuff Jesus did, but this wasn’t about doing, it was about being.

What made Jesus dangerous and powerful was that his heart was undeterred. He knew what was waiting for him in Jerusalem and he went anyway. He was unafraid of the consequences of his faithfulness. His actions embodied his words; his words mirrored his actions. He was of one heart and mind. He walked one path. The only way you get that kind of clarity and resolve is by being faithful to the inner journey. It is not an act of will. It is not a parade you join just because it happens to be going by.  

The celebration of Palm Sunday has nothing to do with whether or not there were palms and cheering crowds. It is about Jesus’ steely resolve to keep on being who he was and keep on doing what he was doing. Jesus’ inner journey is a path for us to follow, but in a way that is uniquely our own. We discover it by reaching in deep and allowing ourselves to listen for God’s whispering presence. 

As we follow this path, we discover it is how our entire lives are best grounded. It is the journey nurtured in silence, a path discovered and uncovered through listening. It keeps us rooted in what we are supposed to do and keeps us doing it even when it ceases to be popular. This journey will give us the fortitude and clarity to remain undeterred. This is what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

“When you have played basketball for a while, you don’t need to look at the basket, when you are in close like this,” he said, throwing it over his shoulder again and right through the hoop. “You develop a sense of where you are.” These words from basketball great William Warren (Bill) Bradley in a 1965 interview with John McPhee chronicled Bradley’s career as a super star basketball player.

Bradley could throw a basketball from just about anywhere on the near side of the half court line and make a basket with just pure net. No bouncing off the rim for him. His skill, talent and discipline took him far in the world of basketball.

His superstardom in basketball was (I confess) not nearly as interesting as his observation that he developed a sense of where he was. To be so intimately related to a space that one has a sense of where one is without needing to look is remarkable. This sense of where Bradley was carried him through a lengthy and diverse career that no doubt put him in situations he could never imagine, both on and off the court.

I wonder how many of us have such a sense of intimacy with our own lives that we know where we are without having to look. This last year has sent many of us out into the weeds in more ways than we can count. We have been knocked off every pin that holds us in place on the bulletin board of life. Not much looks the same as it did a little over a year ago.

Life feels very strange.  Jobs have evaporated, financial security is precarious for many and food insecurity has sent people who were used to donating to the food pantry to that same pantry for help. Rent and mortgage payments are eeked out with little left to spare. The end of the struggle seems nowhere in sight.

Knowing where we are in times like this is the foundation that keeps us standing firm when everything else is shifting around us. We know we are further from the life we lived a year or so ago, but that doesn’t mean we are lost. The stuff around us has moved. We have not. We stand in the same place on the same rock we have built our lives on since we first discovered there was a rock on which to stand. Not everyone has the same rock or calls it the same thing. What’s important is that it’s a place to stand.

It may be family, it may be a community that sustains us or it may be an intimate group of friends who commit to being there for each other. There are as many rocks as there are people who stand on them.  When it seems like everything is shifting it’s worth taking a look at our rock and seeing what it’s all about. Such reminders are grounding, if you’ll pardon the pun.

Most of the rocks I hear people talk about are relationships. We stand on the strength of the relationships around us. They steady us and hold us up when we can’t do it on our own. They may be the people who work at the food pantry, staff the rental assistance office or the utility assistance office. The rocks may be closer to home. And, as Bradley noted, when you’ve been at it for a while “you develop a sense of where you are.”

Take note of your rock. Is it big enough to stand on comfortably? Is it rough or smooth? Is it slimy or clean? Is it flat or round? Does it have any rough edges? Are there other rocks adjacent to it? Is it above the surface of the water or below? Does it sit on a forest bed or in a desert? What else do you notice about your rock, this place where you stand and have a sense of where you are? Is it enough or do you need to change rocks? Only you can decide if your rock is still right for you. If it isn’t, you can change. You will still have a sense of where you are.

Dear Pope Francis,

You really blew it on this one. Your condemnation of gay relationships as “sin” misses the mark of Christian love by a country mile. Love is love. Who are you to judge? Who are you to cherry-pick a few passages of Scripture, take them out of context, and make a sweeping pronouncement about ten percent of the world’s population. I must say, it takes some serious chutzpah.

It seemed to the world that you were the Pope who would bring the Roman Catholic church out of the dark ages. You seemed so progressive and loving to so many. Apparently you draw the line at the LGBTQI community. And, pardon me for saying, such judgement is way above your pay grade.

The Roman Catholic church could take a few lessons from us Protestants. After all, we have been putting the “protest” in Protestant for centuries. Many of us, not all, believe that love is the basis for the covenant of marriage regardless of gender or gender identity. Further, we believe that loving couples of any gender can choose to be parents because love makes a family. By condemning gay relationships as “sin” you exclude thousands of loving couples who desire to be parents to the many foster children in need of loving homes. Talk about above your pay grade.

Even the government of the United States is beginning to get it. On March 16^th  the House of Representatives passed H.R.5-Equality Act which is summarized as follows: “This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.” Further, “The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”

It seems you have some remedial learning to do. The issue of human sexuality is complex and many faceted. Granted, the church has a pretty lousy record of promoting a healthy theology of sexuality, so remediation is a big topic. All the while the church has had a stellar record of protecting priests who molest children and obfuscate the issue with misinformation about who abuses children. That’s another letter for another time.

Allow me to start your first lesson. A child has a far greater chance of being abused by a heterosexual male who has access to an age-appropriate partner, than being abused by a gay person. Abusers are a complex category, but suffice it to say in relation to this topic, gay people pose less threat to children than the general male population.

Second, gays do not go out and “recruit” for the lifestyle. Gay people who work with children do not have a secret handshake they teach children to begin inculcating them to the gay life. Gay people are not out recruiting adults either, for that matter. Being gay is not something one chooses, it is how one is born. Gay people are created in the image of God and bear God within them the same way as straight people. Given the homophobia embodied by institutions like the Roman Catholic church, why would anyone choose to be gay?

Third, you would also benefit from a deeper study of biblical texts. Placing them in their larger context yields a different meaning than simple condemnation of a particular group.

Finally, by calling gay relationships “sin” you are alienating a significant percentage of your members. Faithful Catholics who desire the blessing of the church are left with the feeling that their church has abandoned them, that they are not worthy. Roman Catholics who take their faith seriously are devastated by such a definitive pronouncement. Supporters of the LGBTQI community are also disappointed in their church for being so narrow minded.

Those who are abandoned by the Roman Catholic church will find a warm welcome in Open and Affirming congregations in the United Church of Christ. We welcome them with open arms and bless the covenant of love they share. I stand in the full authority of the office of ordained pastor and proclaim that love is love and those who pledge their lives together in covenant relationship deserve to be blessed, married and welcomed into the community of faith.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, please contact me.

Humbly in Christ’s Unjudging Love I Remain,

Rev. Patricia L. Liberty

The history of voter suppression in the United States is essentially the history of voting in general. From the beginning, voter suppression was about the black vote. After the Civil War when four million slaves were freed, there was fear that black voting would overwhelm the white power brokers of the south.

Despite the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments designed to guarantee equal rights and voting access to blacks, suppression of the black vote continued. As early as 1870 efforts to suppress the black vote were ramping up in earnest. Known collectively as the Jim Crow laws–poll taxes, literacy requirements and “whites only” primaries–were the main ways the black vote was suppressed. The “Grandfather Clause” allowed poor whites to vote, regardless of their literacy, if their grandfathers voted by 1867. Some of these measures were not repealed until the mid- 1960’s.  

This did not mean that voter suppression was over. Gerrymandering, misinformation, tightening the window for absentee voting, banning same day voter registration, providing proof of citizenship and/or a government issued photo ID, closing polling places in minority communities, slowing down the mail and failing to count actual ballots cast in predominantly African American districts (that have already been gerrymandered) are forms of voter suppression. All these tactics were used in the 2016 election.

 Disenfranchisement exists in all fifty states and is a tactic used by both Republicans and Democrats. According to the Brennan Center, thirty-three states have introduced 165 bills to restrict voting access. The bills primarily have to do with stricter voting ID laws, limiting mail-in voting, decreasing voter registration opportunities and enabling more aggressive voter roll purges.

Legislators in 37 states are fighting back with voter expansion bills that address issues like mail- in voting, early voting, increasing access to voter registration and voting rights restoration. Included in this are voting rights restoration that are aimed at felons and other criminals who have served their prison sentences, but are prohibited from voting because of antiquated laws.

The Supreme Court is also taking up bills that will define the future of the country in regard to voting rights. Two cases from Arizona have reached the Supreme Court and are being litigated at the time of this writing. According to the Brennan Center, the cases themselves are less important than the implications of them receiving a fair ruling. The first suit comes from 2016 when voters filed suit in federal court to challenge Arizona policies as racially discriminatory. It is an “out of precinct” rule that any vote cast in the wrong polling place must be excluded even if it is for ballots cast in state wide or national elections. The other is a ban on collecting and turning in mail ballots by anyone other than voter’s immediate family or a caregiver.

Both of these policies were deemed discriminatory, and the ninth circuit court of appeals asked the Supreme Court to take up the matter. This is concerning because this Supreme Court is not friendly to voting rights. Chief Justice John Roberts has a long history of chipping away at voting rights laws (it stretches back to his days as a clerk). This issue is important because it rests on precedents set in the Voting Rights Act, one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation in American history.

The Voting Rights Act prevents discrimination and lack of access to voting for people of color. Section 2 prohibits states and localities from imposing any “qualifications or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure…in a manner which results in denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race of color.” It also allows voters to file suit to challenge discriminatory policies.

The upshot of all this is simple. The landslide victory of the Democratic Party in last year’s election is the direct result of increased voter registration, primarily among people of color. These voter suppression proposals are an effort to suppress the black vote. This is a tactic that is as American as apple pie.

In a representative democracy, the right to vote is guaranteed. We have standing laws to prevent voter suppression, but they are coming under strong attack. Part of what is at stake is the limit of state’s rights and the reach of the Federal government to regulate voting. This tension is as old as the country. As long as racism exists, there will be voter suppression. As long as white (primarily) men make the laws there will be voter suppression. It is clear that Republicans cannot win if blacks vote in high numbers. Their solution–make it harder for blacks to vote. In a representative democracy, this is just plain wrong.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) a six foot golden statue of the former white house occupant appeared front and center at the entrance. The statue was clad in pants looking like the American flag, a suit jacket (to remind everyone he is a businessman) and a red power tie. A magic wand (to needle President Obama who said he didn’t have a magic wand) completed the ensemble. The golden likeness of Trump defined the meeting.

This monstrosity was the gift of artist Tommy Zegan who apparently spent his entire life savings to construct the likeness. He is hoping to sell it for a million dollars. He would also like to see it displayed at the Trump presidential library, which precludes it being sold. Someone should tell Mr. Zegan he needs better financial advice.

Despite protestation to the contrary, the parallels to the story of the golden calf found in Exodus are unmistakable. You may remember the story. Moses left the Israelites for forty days and forty nights to go up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. The Israelites, fearing Moses would not return, demanded that Aaron make them a “god to go before them.” Aaron gathered up all the gold jewelry of the Israelites and constructed a molten calf which the Israelites declared to be their god. Aaron then built an altar and proclaimed the next day to be a feast day. The Israelites rose early the next morning and made burnt offerings and peace offerings to their new god. God clued Moses in to what the Israelites were up to. Moses headed down the mountain with the two stone tablets and smashed them in a fit of anger. Things went downhill for a while, but eventually the Exodus got back on track.

A few points are worth noting. First, when there was an absence of leadership people got nervous and talked Aaron into his ill-fated action. He was a little insecure about being number two to Moses and was vulnerable to the pressure of the crowd. It was the perfect storm–Aaron’s insecurity and the Israelite’s anxiety. In the absence of real leadership, the Republican Party is willing to settle for a talentless, dishonest, incompetent charlatan whose cult-like powers have persuaded some to check their brains at the door. In the absence of a true statesman and leader for the Republican Party, they have fallen for the glitz and glamor of a common con man whose narcissism and ability to blow smoke up the corporate butt of millions of Americans is second to none.

For over two hundred years our country has depended on a two party political system to function. Each party has a philosophy of government that is different and provides a creative tension that allows government to work. This system goes haywire when political parties are more concerned about staying power and feathering their own nests than serving the needs of the people who elected them. We are seeing this on full display in the cult-like following of the former occupant.

Let us not forget that Trump fulfilled none of his campaign promises, badly mismanaged a pandemic that has cost over 503,000 American lives and artificially inflated the stock market to a dangerous level. Under his mismanagement of American government and politics, the rich have become exponentially richer and the poor have become exponentially poorer. And all the while the former occupant lies through his teeth about just about everything.

Second, everyone in the biblical narrative participated. They willingly gave their gold earrings and rings to make the idol. There were surely those people who didn’t think it was a great idea, but with peer pressure followed along with the crowd. There’s a lot of that going on in the Republican Party these days, too. Many people, not all, are jumping on this hell-bound band wagon that if given another chance, may ruin America forever. There is a herd mentality that has little to do with facts and is willing to follow a cult leader no matter where he leads. It’s enough to make us all lose sleep.  

This great American experiment was designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. It is not a perfect system to be sure. There is much in our democracy that is broken and everyone has contributed to that. The entrenchment of political parties, the blatant self-interest of our elected servants and the place that big business has in running our government by the rich and for the rich are enough to make our forbearers spin in their graves.

It all amounts to bowing at the wrong altar. Seldom has the symbolism of going in the wrong direction been clearer. Sowing seeds of doubt in the integrity of the election, renewing voter suppression efforts with a vengeance, supporting anarchist and seditious rebels who have consumed massive amounts of the Trump Kool-Aid, and having millions of people follow blindly along are dangerous consequences of bowing at the wrong altar. It’s time for people to get up off their knees and act like Americans who care for their country and work for the good of all the people.

The humanity of any society is measured by how well it treats its poorest and most vulnerable members. We can do better than the failing grades that have come from bowing at the wrong altars.  

Last week in Florida, two young women dressed up as older women in order to obtain a COVID vaccine.  After a stern tongue lashing, they were sent on their way.

Across the nation there is frustration with vaccine supply and distribution. I have felt some of that frustration as I (impatiently) wait my turn. We Americans tend to want what we want when we want it. We can be pretty annoyed when the wind doesn’t blow our way.

As I was kvetching to myself, it occurred to me that this is purely a function of privilege. In every other health circumstance I am able to access the care I need and pay the co-pays on my prescriptions. I do not have to wait inordinate amounts of time to get an appointment. I am free to choose the providers I want. I do not have to rely on public transportation to get to my appointments. It is all a function of privilege.

Many people of color and poor people regardless of their skin color have no such luxury. They are often unable to access care when they need it. Paying for prescriptions is a luxury many cannot afford. This puts them at risk for poor management of the condition(s) for which the medications were prescribed. Poorer health outcomes among the poor is pretty much a given. Relying on public transportation adds another layer of complexity in accessing the health care system. This is the experience of far too many people in the United States today. Every. Damn. Day.

When it comes to COVID, people of color and the working poor account for a higher number of infections and have higher mortality rates.  This group often comprises front line and essential workers who do not have the option of working from home.

And then we come back to waiting our turn. When annoyance and impatience are front and center, it’s an invitation have a little patience and humility. As hard as this may be to comprehend, we are not the center of the universe. Sorry to bring up a touchy subject.

It’s also a reminder that this country is still in desperate need of health care reform. The Affordable Care Act was a great first step, but it does not go far enough. Until there is equal access and equal care for all people, the system is still broken. As long as the health insurance companies and big pharma can realize huge profits for their shareholders at the expense (literally) of the people who rely on their services, the system is broken.

To one degree or another, the system works for most of us. It takes away some of the urgency we might otherwise feel to advocate for equal access and equal care. We are sheltered in our privilege with only an occasional glance at what the health care system is like for so many. Every. Damn. Day.

It’s easy to get stuck in feelings of powerlessness when it comes to taking on such a huge issue. Using our voices and the power of the pen is a place to start. Advocate comes from the Latin word advocare which literally means to amplify. The function of advocating is to amplify the voices of those whose voices are not heard as well as those who have no voice. We tend to forget that we have tremendous power when we join with similarly minded folks. Bringing political pressure on elected public servants is one way, and perhaps the most important way of advocating for ongoing health care reform.

While we are waiting our turn, we can use the time to send letters to our elected public servants and get health care reform back front and center in the political consciousness.

It was a foregone conclusion that former president Trump would be acquitted. Of course, we do well to remember this is not the same thing as being found innocent. It is rather obvious that his Kool-Aid drinking minions were looking for any excuse to let him off the hook, and hopefully save their own skins in the process. How that will play out in the years to come remains to be seen.

This leaves many people with is a sense of frustration and powerlessness. It’s easy to feel like pawns in a hopelessly corrupt political game. Falling prey to the temptation of frustration and powerlessness is the single greatest guarantee that none of the problems we are facing will ever be solved.

A brief history lesson is instructive.

When the Civil War came to an end there were a lot of casualties and a tremendous amount of property and economic damage. Enter Reconstruction. This was the time when the victories of the Union would be implemented in new laws, amendments to the Constitution (13, 14 and 15) and a commitment to assisting newly freed African Americans establish their lives.

What no one counted on was that changes in people’s hearts and minds cannot be legislated. The racism, resentment and unwillingness to forgo reliance on free/cheap labor to support the economy remained. In short, all the problems that started the Civil War remained when the war was over.

Regardless of what laws were passed, those who were entrenched in their positions found ways to maintain the status quo. Sharecropping emerged as a “viable alternative” to land ownership for Freedmen. Voter suppression began in earnest. Segregation in schools emerged as elite white academies were built to take children out of public schools that were now open to African Americans. Less than five years after the end of the Civil War, the roots of Jim Crow laws were germinating. Lynching was on the rise, reaching its zenith in the 1890’s but continuing well into the 20^th century.

No one counted on the intransigence of people’s hearts and minds. This is something we share with our forbearers. The things that divide us cannot be legislated away. There is nothing to be gained from the constant power struggles that simple change the winners and losers without solving the problems.

What resolves issues are conversations that find common ground. The ills of our time are not easily divided into liberal and conservative or Democrat and Republican, just as the issues of the post-Civil War era were not easily divided into the Union and the Confederacy.

Regardless of political party, most people would agree that our government is broken. On Sunday’s Meet the Press Governor Larry Hogan (R-Maryland) stated it is hard to do what is right for the American people and go against your base. That sums up a lot of what is broken in Washington. Politicians are more concerned with upsetting their base than serving their country.  

Quaker theologian Parker Palmer wrote that our current political divide crosses three lines. I am paraphrasing. First, there is the divide between people who believe in the power of ideas, values, commitments and visions and those who believe that power comes only from external sources. Second, there is the divide between people who believe in the power of one and those who do not, even when individuals come together around common goals. Third, there is the divide between those who believe in the power of slow, small invisible underground processes and those who believe that only visible large scale results are truly powerful. (Introduction xxv-xxvi, Healing the Heart of Democracy)

Discovering where we are in these uncommon yet revealing lines of division says a great deal about how hopeful we can be about the future of our democracy. If we are stuck in our powerlessness and count on forces outside of ourselves to fix what is broken in our country, I dare say we leave the fox guarding the hen house. If we see ourselves as having some agency and a willingness to reach across traditional lines of difference for the sake of shared goals and common values, we have reason to be hopeful.

In the days after President Biden’s Inauguration, there was a ten-day online People’s Inauguration. Organized by Valerie Kaur, author of “See No Stranger, A Memoir and Manifesto of Revolutionary Love” each day explored a different theme. All the themes related to change, love and justice in our world with a focus on individual action. The event is over, but the daily sessions are available for purchase. They are worth the time and money to invest in a better world and a better way of being in the world.

We are powerful. We have the capacity and the responsibility to change ourselves and change the world around us. We may never make the headlines; we may not see the fruits of our labors; we may not get any recognition—and none of this matters. What we will get is a better world for others and for ourselves.

“If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?” Growing up in the northeast, it was a frequent question asked by my parents and the parents of some of my friends. I had no clue where Brooklyn was, or what the big deal was about their stupid bridge. This was the foundation for developing my own understanding of what was important, not just what was easy. It is also my earliest memory of developing some capacity for critical thinking.

As early as 350 BC Aristotle defined courage as the balance between cowardice and rashness. He believed courage was a virtue, and was both an end in itself and a means to more wide ranging good. He also believed it was necessary for all other virtues.

A few thousand years later, Indira Ghandi agreed with Artistotle when she said, “Without courage you cannot practice any other virtue. You have to have courage–courage of different kinds: first, intellectual courage, to sort out different values and make up your mind about which is the one which is right for you to follow. You have to have moral courage to stick up to that–no matter what comes in your way, no matter what the obstacle and the opposition is.”

Moral courage seems in short supply these days. Malignant self-interest, tunnel vision about what is important and an unwillingness to tolerate discomfort when others disagree are all on the hit parade these days, especially in the political sphere. While researching this blog, I found most of the articles on moral courage were from the medical field and there were none to be found having to do with moral courage in politics. Sadly, it explains a lot.

Moral courage is rooted in values. As individuals and as a society we have to decide what is most important. The mark of a civilized society is how well it cares for those with the fewest resources, meaning those who are most vulnerable. It is an honorable value and one that seems in short supply. Anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked about the earliest indicator of civilized society. Her simple response was “a healed femur.” She went on to explain that when humans had the capacity to care for those who were injured or weakened for whatever reason, human evolution had progressed to the point of early civilization. We would do well to consider the modern equivalent of a healed femur in our time.

Courage is a desired response to physical danger and/or a commitment to stand on one’s beliefs. It is a desired trait for individuals who, despite fear of retribution, stand for what benefits the last, the least, and the lost. By definition it means a willingness to stand alone for the sake of a deeply held conviction. It is, in modern society, considered the pinnacle of ethical behavior. A capacity to face into difficult situations and hold the courage of one’s convictions is an admirable quality. It embraces integrity, honesty, respect, responsibility, empathy and compassion.

Kristen Renwick Monroe has spent the better part of twenty years researching the roots of moral courage through the eyes of altruists, philanthropists, recipients of the Carnegie Medal (awarded to civilians who perform exceptional acts of heroism)  and those who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

Her research indicates that the “altruistic perspective” involves a particular way of looking at the world in which altruists see themselves as bound to others through their common humanity. She further discovered that this perspective is as much a part of their identity as their very skin. Those with this perspective have a cognitive menu that simply does not permit idly standing by while others are in need.

While all people (except sociopaths) have an innate ethical perspective, those with the “altruistic  perspective” have a more developed sense of these values. Here is where she turned to Holocaust rescuers and discovered they had self-images that were inclusive and broadly based. They also had a strong sense of agency, meaning they saw they had the capacity and responsibility to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others. Their sense of “us” and “them” was almost non-existent. There was no “them,” only us. In other words we are all in this together.

Moral courage is a learned attribute. And that may be one of the more hopeful comments on the topic. It is possible for people to exercise and develop moral courage in the same way that exercise develops muscles. It requires the practice of ethical principles in hypothetical situations. It requires mentorship and seeking out wise elders (who are not always older) who embody the qualities one is trying to learn or emulate. It also requires an organizational or group culture that values individuals’ ethical response to challenging situations. Moving away from group think, which encourages individuals to look the other way or redefine unethical actions as acceptable, is also a needed part of the cultural ethos for moral courage and decision making.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we focus on our own moral courage and exercise the muscle of our deepest being for the sake of what is best for the greatest number of the most vulnerable among us. And, by the alchemy of grace, we will discover that acting with our own moral courage for the sake of others will be enough to change the world.

This is personal. I don’t usually speak of things in such personal ways, but this book hit me right between the eyes. I have been a church rat my whole life. There was never a time in my life when I was not a member and regular attendee at church. I was ordained to the Christian ministry six weeks before my twenty-fifth birthday and have labored on behalf of the church ever since.  As the words of the old hymn go, “I love thy church O God: her walls before Thee stand, dear as the apple of thine eye and graven on thy hand. For her my tears shall fall, for her my prayers ascend; to her my cares and toils be given, ‘til toils and cares shall end.” (Words by Timothy Dwight)

Reading this book was painful. Learning of the inextricable ties between American Christianity and white supremacy was a sucker punch to the gut. With painstaking research, accuracy and articulation, Jones sketches the indelible lines that connect American Christianity, white supremacy and racism.

Jones begins with the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention, and its dovetailing with the Civil War. He notes that “Secessionist religion survived even though the south lost the war. Its powerful role as a religious institution that sacralized white supremacy allowed the Southern Baptist Convention to spread its roots during the 19^th century to dominate southern culture. By the 20^th century the Southern Baptist Convention ultimately evolved into the single largest Christian denomination in the country, setting the tone for American Christianity overall and Christianity’s influence on public life.” He goes on to say that in the north, Christian convictions about the evils of slavery didn’t translate into black equality and a tacit shared commitment to white supremacy emerged.

A theologically backed assertion about the superiority of the white race and Protestant Christianity undergirded a century of sanctioned terrorism. White Protestant Christians saw no disconnect between going to church on Sunday morning and attending a public lynching over a picnic lunch in the afternoon.

A troubling assertion is how white theology molded itself around the glaring injustice of racism and slavery in such a way as to see no conflict between the two. White churches were both compliant and complicit for constructing and sustaining a project to protect white superiority and resist black equality. It continues to this day, not just in the south but among mainline Protestant denominations and Roman Catholics as well.

Two basic tenets contributed to the theological morphing around white supremacy. First was the notion of personal piety and a personal relationship with Jesus. Faith was seen as a primarily personal affair between the divine and the individual. Second, this personal focus on religious piety encouraged a lack of concern about social issues, justice concerns and the issues of “the world.”  This let the average white Christian off the hook for the sin of white supremacy and racism.

Jones lays out a careful argument that ends with the dismal observation that white Christian identity embodies the norms of white supremacy far beyond any conscious level of awareness. Further, he notes that white Christians stand out in their negative attitudes about racial/ethnic and religious minorities, the unequal treatment of African Americans by police and the criminal justice system. Underpinning it all is a longing for a past time when white Protestantism was the undisputed cultural power. The typical profile of a white supremacist in the United States is a white Christian, culturally European, who feel their privileged position in the west is threatened by racial minorities and non-Christians. By the early 2040’s the number of white births will be in the minority in the United States. It adds urgency to the fears and arguments that fan the flames of racism.

White supremacy is about much more than the KKK, Proud Boys and other hate groups. At its most basic level it is how a society organizes itself, and what and whom it chooses to value. By narrowing it to specific groups it lets the average white person off the hook and the thornier issues of white supremacy remain defanged.

Throughout the south mainline Protestant denominations wielded social and theological power to maintain the systems, structures and processes that protected white supremacy. It was all varnished with ample amounts of bad theology. These white religious institutions were widely understood to be the glue that held the entire Jim Crow system of laws together.

The National Council of Churches and some Roman Catholic archbishops were supportive of civil rights, but those views were not reflected in the local clergy or in the pews. Declarations on racial justice from national denominational offices were routinely ignored by local churches in both the north and the south.

The daunting task of disentangling white supremacy and Christianity is made even harder by the lack of commitment to the task. There are perks and privileges that come with being white and in the dominant religious tradition. These privileges have been enjoyed by Americans for almost 400 years. They will not go away quietly, and we are seeing they will not go away without a fight. Those fights will escalate in the years to come.

Jones writes, “Confronting a theology built for white supremacy would be a critical first step for white Christians who want to recover a connection not just to our fellow African American Christians, but also to our own identity and, more importantly, our humanity.” (page 106)

This book should come with a warning: once you know this, you will never be able to un-know it.

Bravo President Biden, bravo! Reversing the previous administration’s decision banning transgender persons from serving in the military is absolutely the right thing to do. Transgender women and men have the same desire to serve their country in uniform as everyone else in the military. Lifting the ban and allowing them to serve is a commendable decision. There is, however, cause for concern.

First, the military has a problem with white supremacists. The recent surge in hate groups in the United States is reflected in the military. It is a long standing problem and the military has yet to find a way to root it out. Most hate groups are deeply sexist, homophobic and transphobic in addition to being racist. This has implications for transgender service members who may be assigned to the same unit with white supremacists. It can affect unit cohesion and readiness for deployment as well as performance while deployed. It is not known how extensive the problem of white supremacy is in the military, since it flies under the radar. What is known is that it has increased under the former occupant’s reign of error.

Second, transgender service members do not have the same protections as gay, lesbian and bi-sexual personnel in military regulations. When “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed by President Obama in 2011 it left out transgender soldiers. This leaves them in a kind of in-between place where their complaints have a difficult time finding their way up the chain of command. In addition, the language pertaining to transgender soldiers does not match the language of the DSM V. This is the “bible” of mental health diagnoses and serves as the gatekeeper to all mental health services. The practical implication is that soldiers with gender dysphoria (severe distress in those whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth) may be unable to access mental health services which include therapy, medication and possible gender alignment surgery. Language congruence in military regulation and DSM V is needed to correct this problem.

Finally, the military has a lousy record of dealing with sexual assault and harassment. Kudos to new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for signing what amounts to an executive order to address the problem. In his Sunday memorandum he told “Pentagon senior leaders, commanders, defense agency and Department of Defense field activity directors to speed up efforts to get a handle on the situation.” Since institutions move glacially, this doesn’t offer much hope. Patriarchal institutions move even slower. The military is the quintessential “good old boy’s network” and changing attitudes from the top down is a daunting challenge.

Reading documents from military papers leads one to believe the problem of sexual assault is well in hand, and that complaints are taken seriously and resolved justly. Survivors of sexual assault and harassment tell a very different story. Protect our Defenders is a national human rights organization dedicated to ending sexual violence in the military. Their data show that in fiscal year 2018 there were over 20,500 sexual assaults. Women represented 13,000 and men 7,500.  This is up 40% from fiscal year 2016-2017. These numbers were very different from the numbers reported by the military. Protect our Defenders reported that 76.1% of assaults were not reported within the chain of command.

The major barrier to reporting is fear of retaliation. Since 59% of women reporting penetrative assault noted that it was someone from a higher rank and 24% reported it was someone in their chain of command, it is easy to understand the unwillingness to report. In fact 66% of women reported retaliation and 73% of that retaliation was from within their chain of command. One third of survivors were discharged within 7 months of reporting and 24% were released with a less than honorable discharge.

At this point, there is little hope for justice for survivors in the military. Convictions in 2015 fell 60% despite a 22% increase in reporting. Only 6.4% were tried in a court martial and 2.4% were convicted. That leaves a lot of women (and more than a few men) without the justice they deserve.

 While the military is breaking its arm patting itself on the back for lifting the ban, 38% of women and 4% of men report some type of military sexual trauma. It is second only to combat related post-traumatic stress disorder. The number is likely much higher given the reticence to report.

Lifting the ban on transgender soldiers is absolutely the right thing to do. It affirms the inherent worth and dignity of all people. The question is, “Is the military ready?” Sometimes those who are the object of an institution’s best intentions end up paying the highest cost.