Public Opinion

Better to meet a she-bear robbed of its cubs
than to confront a fool immersed in folly.
Proverbs 17:12

He also said to the crowds,
“When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, ‘It is going to rain’; and so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat’; and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?
“And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?”
Luke 12:54-57

Jesus had a low opinion of public opinion. And that was before the polls showed that 90% of those willing to express an opinion preferred Barabbas the bandit to Jesus the rabbi.

In “Newsweek,” Niall Ferguson, who previously distinguished himself with a plan to reduce the National Debt by selling National Parks (seriously, that was his plan), writes this week about how “America finally comes to its senses and faces the fiscal facts.” As evidence, he cites a Gallup Poll showing that 17% of Americans now see the deficit as the biggest problem facing the nation. This is up from just 5% six months ago and approximately zero a year ago. I have a hard time taking someone seriously who suggested selling the Grand Canyon, but I’m glad that he’s happy.

Last week I was planning to write a blog about how public opinion had shifted on gay marriage. According to the latest poll figures, it is now supported by more than half of the American people. The majorities are slim: one poll showed 51% support and another showed 53%. By contrast, just 37% supported gay marriage in 2003. It might not be the Kingdom of God, but it looked like progress to me.

My confidence in public opinion was buoyed by the news that more than 60% of registered voters would not vote for either Sarah Palin or Donald Trump.

But then I read some other poll numbers.

One poll shows that 43% of registered voters say that “most members of congress are corrupt.” Most? That seems a little harsh. Clearly, there is corruption in congress (Ensign and Rangel come to mind). But most?

Another poll shows that 38% of Americans say that President Obama was not born in the United States. That’s a little more than twice the number of those who say he is a Muslim. How is that even possible? Did the poll also ask how many think Hawaii is part of the United States?

As Bob Dylan wisely observed:

Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time

Dylan added the amusing tag line, “I think Abraham Lincoln said that.” My guess is that if we commissioned a poll, a significant number of people would say that was true.

Schadenfreude

Do not rejoice when your enemies fall,
and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble,
or else the LORD will see it and be displeased,
and turn away his anger from them.
Proverbs 24:17-18

Schadenfreude is the joy one feels at the misery of others. It is a human reaction. Evidence, I think, of our tendency toward sin. Sometimes we can’t help it. Other times we revel in it.

The Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards talked about the joy that the elect in heaven must feel when they see the torment of those lost in hell. It is hard to imagine a more unchristian thought, but that did not seem to trouble Edwards. Among the joys imagined in Edwards’ vision of heaven was a cosmic and eternal schadenfreude.

I mention Edwards because in this respect he makes me look good. By comparison, my Schadenfreude is fairly restrained.

In February I posted a blog (“Have You Heard the Joke about the Gay Guatemalan?”) about Representative Bob Watson in response to a comment he made at a luncheon in Providence. He was criticizing the legislature for spending too much time on questions about the medical use of marijuana, illegal immigration, gay marriage, and authorizing more gambling at Twin River. And this is what he said:

“I suppose if you are a gay man from Guatemala who likes to smoke pot and gamble, you probably think we’re onto some good ideas here.”

Representative Watson was arrested at a sobriety check point in Connecticut over the weekend, and is charged with “driving under the influence” and (this is the best part) possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

It’s like skit from “The Daily Show” come to life right in front of us.

Could it be more amusing? And of course we can easily think of several ways in which it could be even more amusing, and there is amusement in that speculation.

Mr. Watson was unrepentant after his gay Guatemalan joke. In a phone interview with the Providence Journal, Watson explained, “I apologize when appropriate and/or necessary,” and he concluded, “I identify this situation as representing neither circumstance.”

My guess is that he will feel differently about this latest incident.

Jackie and Jake

When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, “Who is this?” The crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Matthew 21:10-11

Some translations say, “the whole city was shaken,” others say, “the whole city trembled.” The Greek word translated as turmoil, or shaken, or trembled, actually refers to the shaking of the ground as in an earthquake. It has the same root as seismic.

When the Kingdom of God appears, as it did on the day we call Palm Sunday, the earth shifts under out feet. We have trouble keeping our balance.

If we are paying attention as we read the Gospels, this happens again and again. When the last are first and the first are last, convention is turned on its head. But over time, the newness and strangeness is lost on us. We get used to the story of the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan and they no longer surprise us. They seem conventional, and consequently they also no longer move us.

But if we can experience it again, for the first time, the appearance of the Kingdom of God is like an earthquake.

Two stories.

The first one is easy because we have gotten used to it. In April of 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first black person to play Major League Baseball (in the modern era). This happened because Branch Rickey, who was the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, made it happen. Rickey, whose full name was Wesley Branch Rickey, was a devout Christian, and he believed that integrating baseball was a sacred calling.

Shortly before Robinson’s debut, a sports writer warned Rickey that if he went through with his plan, “all hell will break loose.” Branch Rickey responded, “No, I believe all heaven will rejoice.”

When the Kingdom of God appears, it feels like an earthquake to some people, like all hell is breaking loose. But to others, this shifting of the earth is the trembling caused by a heavenly chorus.

Looking back, most of us are certain it was a heavenly chorus. And we are sure that baseball and America are better off because of Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey. It is hard for us to even conceive of experiencing it as that sports writer did.

The second story is more difficult.

The Smith College community is in an uproar (shaken, trembling, in turmoil) because of a decision by the Admissions Office to bar a student from actively participating as a “Gold Key” guide for prospective students.

Jake entered Smith as a woman, but since last summer has been transitioning into what he understands to be his real identity as a man. The Admissions Office had no problem with Jake as a guide when he was a woman, and they do not question his character, but they do not want a transgender student representing Smith to prospective students and their parents.

For my daughter, Carolyn, Smith ’07, and her friends, this is a clear case of discrimination. The Admissions Office is exhibiting transphobia. They need to rethink this and do the right thing. And Carolyn tells me (I’m sure I’m oversimplifying) that “gender is a social construct.”

If gender is a social construct, then that calls into question what it means to be a “women’s college.” As a proponent of women’s colleges in general, and a strong supporter of Smith in particular, I have concerns about that. I also have confidence that Smith will find its way. But beyond the specific issue at Smith, the larger issue is about how we deal with gender and identity.

Can you feel the ground shifting?

On the Anniversary of Dr. King's Death

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and the LORD showed him the whole land. And the LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.” Then Moses, the servant of the LORD, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command. Deuteronomy 34:1, 4-5

The summer before my freshman year in college I received a letter from Wesleyan University asking whether I would mind having a Negro roommate. At the time, I was insulted by the question. What would make them think I was a racist? I rewrote the response card to indicate that I would not mind having a Black roommate, but I did object to the question.

Looking back, the experience seems surreal. Did I really grow up in a time when we thought that white people needed to be asked whether they could share a room with a person of another race? I doubt that they sent a letter to my roommate, Stewart Malloy, to ask whether he would mind having a white roommate. But to be fair, Wesleyan was embarking on a new and precedent setting path. They were the first of the elite, private, traditional liberal arts colleges to actively recruit and admit a large minority population to the student body, and they were understandably nervous. Looking back, I am proud of Wesleyan’s leadership in that historic endeavor.

When I told my grandmother Trench about the question and about my response, she said, “You know that means you’ll have a colored roommate, don’t you?” Later that fall, when Stewart came home for Thanksgiving with me, we were dis-invited from the family meal. It was the beginning of a rift that would last for years.

As the year unfolded, Stewart and I found ourselves living through a time of great racial tension and upheaval. The Wesleyan vision of integration was continually under attack from the larger white community, which wanted “more time” to do this more “gradually,” (that was before we had even reached “all deliberate speed”) and from the pressures of the growing Black pride and Black separatism movements on campus.

Our room was, at least in our minds, like the eye of the hurricane. Stewart and I talked often about racial issues, but we never had a single argument on the subject. We listened to each other, and we learned. And like many other young people, we were busy thinking about how we could change the world.

Then one night, as I sat at my desk, Stewart came back to the room in tears. “They killed him,” he said. And immediately, I knew who the “him” was. Martin Luther King, Jr., the prophet of non-violent change, had been murdered. On campus and around the country, racial tensions increased dramatically.

A few weeks later, after a meeting with the Black student group, Stewart told me that we could no longer be friends. Nothing would change in our room, but outside we would not speak to each other. It was not personal. It had nothing to do with us. It was all about larger issues in the Black student community.

Freshman year ended and we went our separate ways. I don’t believe we spoke again until our twentieth reunion. Stewart was sitting on a stone wall in front of the College of Letters. We hugged and laughed and talked for a long time. It was as if our conversation had only been briefly interrupted.

On the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination, I find myself remembering and reflecting. Last night there was a program on CNN chronicling the events surrounding his death. A significant part of the report detailed the efforts of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to discredit King and to treat him as a criminal. Today, when current government leaders speak warmly of his contributions, it is easy to forget how controversial and revolutionary his message was.

Although I often lament our political polarization today, it is important to remember that we have made progress.

One Great Hour of Sharing

Jesus said, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!” Matthew 7:24-27

Infrastructure is important.

On April 3rd we will join with United Methodists around the world in “One Great Hour of Sharing.” The gifts we give will support and maintain the foundation of the United Methodist Committee on Relief, and make all of our relief efforts possible.

One Great Hour of Sharing began after World War II, in a time when Protestant churches were growing dramatically, and Protestant denominations were reaching cultural dominance in the United States. It was a time of optimism and institution building. People wanted to belong, and the church was at the center that belonging. We are more fragmented now. We care less about institutions and denominational labels are no longer important. In many ways, those changes are good, but they have made it much more difficult to maintain a world-wide mission.

In 2010 United Methodists gave more than ever before to support mission work around the world, beginning with a huge offering for earthquake relief in Haiti. At the same time, contributions to One Great Hour of Sharing declined by 13%. Money given to One Great Hour of Sharing doesn’t go directly to Haiti or Japan. It goes to support the infrastructure that makes relief in Haiti and Japan possible.

One Great Hour of Sharing pays for the foundation. It pays to maintain field offices and mission networks around the world. It keeps the lights on. And because OGHS keeps the lights on, when we give to special efforts in Haiti or Japan, every dollar (100%) goes directly to relief work.

In our results oriented culture, we want to see a direct connection between what we do and the difference that it makes. If it won’t make a visible difference, then we don’t want to do it. This is true in the concrete infrastructure of our country, in the roads and bridges, and it is true in the administrative infrastructure of relief organizations and churches. We have no patience with the work that must be done behind the scenes.

Infrastructure is a tough sell. People often say, “I don’t want to give money just to keep the lights on,” or “just to keep the building open.” That is understandable. It feels good to know that what we are giving is going to meet a direct need. But without the basic infrastructure, it is impossible to deliver relief efficiently.

Foundations and infrastructure are not exciting. They seldom inspire. But unless they are solid, the house will not survive the storm.

In One Great Hour of Sharing we build, sustain, and expand the foundation for a relief program that is always ready to respond around the world.

One Hundred Years Ago Today

In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor— let them be caught in the schemes they have devised.
For the wicked boast of the desires of their heart, those greedy for gain curse and renounce the LORD.
In the pride of their countenance the wicked say, “God will not seek it out”; all their thoughts are, “There is no God.”Psalm 10:2-4

One hundred years ago today, just a few minutes before closing time on a Saturday, a fire started, probably in a waist bin, at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, located on the eighth, ninth and tenth floors of a Manhattan factory building. All but one of the exits had been locked to prevent the workers from taking unauthorized breaks.

Louis Waldman, later a New York State Assemblyman, was reading in a nearby library when he heard the fire companies responding. He ran out to join the crowd in the street and remembered the scene this way:

"Word had spread through the East Side, by some magic of terror, that the plant of the Triangle Waist Company was on fire and that several hundred workers were trapped. Horrified and helpless, the crowds — I among them — looked up at the burning building, saw girl after girl appear at the reddened windows, pause for a terrified moment, and then leap to the pavement below, to land as mangled, bloody pulp. This went on for what seemed a ghastly eternity. Occasionally a girl who had hesitated too long was licked by pursuing flames and, screaming with clothing and hair ablaze, plunged like a living torch to the street. Life nets held by the firemen were torn by the impact of the falling bodies."
In the New York Times the next day the story included this grim report: “The victims who are now lying at the Morgue waiting for some one to identify them by a tooth or the remains of a burned shoe were mostly girls from 16 to 23 years of age.”

There were 146 victims in all, 129 of them women.

The Times suggested that the fire had been started by one of the machines, but an industry journal claimed that the more likely cause was smoking, which was forbidden in the factory. The industry report noted that the epidemic of factory fires was “fairly saturated with moral hazard.” In other words, the deaths were attributable to the moral failings of the workers.

The factory owners were tried for first and second degree manslaughter, but they were acquitted. The defense attorney asked a key witness, a worker who had escaped the fire, to repeat her testimony several times. After she repeated her answers almost word for word, he argued that this was evidence that she had been told what to say by the prosecutors and had memorized her testimony. Defense attorneys also claimed that the prosecution had not proved that the owners knew that the doors were locked at the specific time of the fire. Two years later, one of the owners was found guilty of illegally locking the doors on another factory and fined twenty dollars for the infraction.

When we look back, we are appalled. But it is only a few years ago that the fire at the Station night club claimed one hundred victims, and the cause of death was once again that exits were blocked, and they were not adequate. At the Station, they wanted to prevent patrons from entering without paying; at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, they wanted to prevent workers from leaving while they were being paid. But in both cases the issue was greed.

Lent and Leviticus

When any of you utter aloud a rash oath for a bad or a good purpose, whatever people utter in an oath, and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall in any of these be guilty. When you realize your guilt in any of these, you shall confess the sin that you have committed. And you shall bring to the LORD, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for your sin.Leviticus 5:4-6
As we entered the season of Lent our Jewish sisters and brothers entered the Book of Leviticus as their Sabbath Torah portion.

Our Lent will last for six weeks, but the reading of Leviticus will go on for three months.

I am not fond of Lent, but I feel like we get the better deal.

Our traditional Lenten observance often centers around giving up something, like dessert or chocolate. Modern observances have suggested taking on something, like a service commitment or a Bible Study. But this ritual of doing and not doing has often seemed shallow to me, and I have had a hard time appreciating its meaning. For me, observing Lent is a lot like reading Leviticus.

In a commentary on the first Torah portion, chapters 1-5, Rabbi Abigail Treu writes: “Reading Leviticus, it is clear that the reality of the people who generated the text is radically different from our own. It is a book that reads as ancient, obsolete, and irrelevant. In fact, one recent popular edition of the Bible left it out altogether.” For those seeking deep meaning in the biblical text, Leviticus is not an easy read.

We love the stories of Genesis and Exodus. We can identify with the characters and we can imagine ourselves in the stories. We are amazed and inspired. From Abraham and Sarah setting out on a journey into what God describes as “the land that I will show you,” to Jacob wrestling with God, to Moses at the burning bush, confronting a God’s presence in eternal being, “I am that I am.” The stories invite us to ask questions and explore the meaning of life.

Then the biblical narrative enters the strange world of Leviticus, and we encounter a seemingly endless list of strange commandments with little connection to our lives. In Leviticus we find lists of things that must be done, and other things that must not be done, with very little explanation.

But in her commentary, Rabbi Treu made an observation that helps us better understand the importance of Leviticus as well as the experience of Lent. "It is in Leviticus that we come to understand that stories can shape the heart, but ritual shapes our days."
Stories can shape the heart, but ritual shapes our days.

Faithful living requires more than inspiration. We also need to learn how to live and in the most practical and concrete sense we need to learn what to do on a daily basis.

The idea of animal sacrifice is repulsive to us, and it should be. But the idea of sin offering and guilt offering, and the idea that when a sin is committed by one person against another person the first concern must be to restore the broken covenant, these are important concepts. Punishing the guilty is not as important as making restitution to the one who has been injured. Restoring the covenant is an important practice.

Throughout the legal code of Leviticus the text speaks of persons who commit an offense by mistake. The repeated phrase is, “anyone who sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done.” If you read the actual offenses listed, in many cases it seems hard to believe that anyone could commit those offenses by mistake. But the code applies this judgment of “unintentional” retroactively. If one confesses a sin, then the very act of confession makes the sin unintentional. Restitution must still be made. The one who suffered must still be made whole. But the intention behind the act is forgiven and forgotten.

The purpose of that strange ancient list of offerings and sacrifices is to make the wounded whole, to let go of the past and embrace the future. In this season of Lent, when Christians give up things and take on things, it is useful to remember that in our rituals we are shaping our days so that they will be open to the insights and inspirations that can shape our hearts.