Regarding Treyvon Martin

Are you still thinking about Treyvon Martin? I know I am. But boy am I not qualified to comment. My main reaction has been to say, "That is messed up." So that's about my level of sophistication.

But here are some responses to Treyvon Martin's death, the George Zimmerman trial and verdict, and race in American generally that I thought were helpful/illuminating. Mostly, I'm just listening right now.

Ta-Nehisi Coates as always has good things to say. His first response set the stage for this longer reflection:

It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.

I know I already posted this link on Friday, but it's worth posting again:

15 Things Black People Must Do In Order to End Racism

With that post in mind, this tweet struck a chord:

All this writing about how young black boys should behave to avoid getting killed = telling women how to not get raped...
— SocProf (@SocProf) July 14, 2013

An interesting perspective from Stephen Kuusisto. The kicker:

Privileged space and security guards go hand in hand. And with the travesty of justice in Sanford, Florida we're told that anyone can be a security guard. And anyone can be gunned down.

The Black Youth Project posted a heartfelt response:

As we waited to hear the verdict, in the spirit of unity, we formed a circle and locked hands. When we heard “not guilty,” our hearts broke collectively. In that moment, it was clear that Black life had no value. Emotions poured out – emotions that are real, natural and normal, as we grieved for Trayvon and his stolen humanity. Black people, WE LOVE AND SEE YOU. We mourn, but there’s hope as long as love endures.

And finally, Toure posted this beautiful and poignant article on how to talk to young black boys about Treyvon Martin. It was written in 2012 and makes even more of an impact now.

There is nothing wrong with you. You’re amazing. I love you. When I look at you, I see a complex human being with awesome potential, but some others will look at you and see a thug — even if their only evidence is your skin. Their racism relates to larger anxieties and problems in America that you didn’t create. When someone is racist toward you — either because they’ve profiled you or spit some slur or whatever — they are saying they have a problem. They are not speaking about you. They’re speaking about themselves and their deficiencies.

What else should I read?

Various & Sundry: Sad Affairs, Fairy Tales, Superheroes, Parents, Happy Endings

I'm on my way shortly to Fort Bragg where I will be covering the service for St. Michael and All Angels. While on my way, I plan to listen to Colin Firth performing The End of the Affair. Doesn't that sound delicious? In a tortured, repressed sort of way, of course. I'm wondering if Colin will need to move books slightly to the left.



My sister brought these Six Fairy Tales for the Modern Woman to my attention, and I think they're pretty fabulous. My favorite:

Once upon a time a woman grew up in a land-locked state, and continued to live there because she had married her high school sweetheart, and his job was tied to the area, and she wanted to stay close to her parents, but she had always wished she had learned to surf. So when she turned 65 she used some of the money from her savings account, took her first ever solo vacation to the coast, and took a week's worth of surfing lessons, and had a very nice time.

The End.

Also, while we're talking about modern fairy tales, I thought Lance Mannion had a mighty interesting take both on Iron Man 3 (arguing that it is a commentary on The Incredibles) and on Star Trek: Into Darkness (or as he put it, Into Perpetual Adolescence). I haven't seen either of those movies to comment further, but I loved the insights nonetheless.

I'm not a parent either, but I thought this article asking other parents at the park not to help her kids was terrific. "They're not here to be at the top of the ladder; they're here to learn how to climb." True for so many things.

Not that there's anything wrong with winning. Let's just pause to admire the fact that the A's swept the Yankees this week, and especially their win in 18 innings on Thursday.

Various & Sundry, July 20

Interesting day today with lots of good conversations. The one that surprised me most, though, was the conversation I had on Twitter with someone I don't know personally who tweeted,"The only people who murder others with guns are those that already break the law. This is why gun control is not a solution. Very simple." It was one of those, "Are you seeing the world I'm seeing?" moments and I'm afraid I let my knee-jerk reactions get the best of me. Went a couple rounds based on my initial position and then, you know, actually decided to do a little research.

What I found, looking into it a titch more, is, boy, the numbers will let you argue whatever way you want. There's nothing I can even link to because the issue is so clouded that I have no idea what's a trustworthy source. One thing I found that challenges my starting point without seeming nut-jobby was this editorial, written after the Virginia Tech shooting. I can't say I like his conclusions (much preferring something that reinforces my original opinion), but it raises the question, What can we do to make our society and our particular culture as a whole less violent?

At any rate, my prayers are with the victims of the shootings in Aurora, their families and loved ones, and the shooter himself.

So let's talk about tea, shall we? Yes, let's. Because we have three tea-related items to share this week.

First, there's this gizmo that's a teapot with a timer built in. "No unnecessary bells or whistles (let alone a power cord) are needed for this elegantly simple tea timer-and-steeper to do its job. Just pour, screw, tip and wait." Nifty.

This next product makes the same mistake made by the folks who brought you the Tea Monkey Infuser. Namely, you don't want to put something that looks like a human or animal in your tea because said human or animal turns your lovely bath/tea water brown. And that's just gross.

But these folks gave it the good college try with Mr. Tea. You may not be able to see it in the small photo there, but the tag line is "throw some tea in your trousers." Really? "Throw some tea in your trousers"? That's simply unfortunate. Nice try, but no.

I keep trying to think what kind of thing you could make into an infuser where you say to yourself, "How lovely to soak this in my water! I was just hoping that it would turn clear water brown." I'm not coming up with anything. How about you?

I do, however, love the idea behind the Universal Tea Machine, “a gargantuan cross between a tea-making device, a primitive computer and a pinball machine.” Built to mark both the London Olympics and Alan Turing's centenary,

The Universal Tea Machine will dispense up to 2,000 free, freshly made cups of tea each week from its temporary home next to a giant screen streaming Olympic coverage in Victoria Park, Hackney — but you will only receive a nice builder’s brew with milk and sugar, as opposed to a dry tea bag with three sugar lumps or a cup of hot milk and water, if you can perform binary addition...Would-be tea drinkers will have to perform five sequential additions correctly in order to produce a perfect cuppa.

I'm sure Douglas Adams would approve.

In other literary references, Mark Twain has some wise words on how he came up with his characters.

My favorite obit of the week is one that the subject, one Val Patterson, wrote himself. Here's the part that's gotten the most attention:

Now that I have gone to my reward, I have confessions and things I should now say. As it turns out, I AM the guy who stole the safe from the Motor View Drive Inn back in June, 1971. I could have left that unsaid, but I wanted to get it off my chest. Also, I really am NOT a PhD. What happened was that the day I went to pay off my college student loan at the U of U, the girl working there put my receipt into the wrong stack, and two weeks later, a PhD diploma came in the mail. I didn't even graduate, I only had about 3 years of college credit. In fact, I never did even learn what the letters "PhD" even stood for. For all of the Electronic Engineers I have worked with, I'm sorry, but you have to admit my designs always worked very well, and were well engineered, and I always made you laugh at work. Now to that really mean Park Ranger; after all, it was me that rolled those rocks into your geyser and ruined it. I did notice a few years later that you did get Old Faithful working again. To Disneyland - you can now throw away that "Banned for Life" file you have on me, I'm not a problem anymore - and SeaWorld San Diego, too, if you read this.

But the whole thing is completely delightful and truly touching. I'm sure his friends and family miss him very much.

And with that I must add: Life can be short. Tell your friends and family that you love them.

Have a great weekend.

Where I'll be this week

This week is going to be a study in contrasts, I suspect. Or not. I don't know. But I'm going to two different conferences that I have a feeling will be very different indeed.

Tomorrow I'm off to General Convention, the Episcopal Church's triennial meeting, where I will be in the exhibit hall promoting Confirm not Conform as I did three years ago. General Convention in Indianapolis, where I have never been, not that I'm going to see much of it. As I remember last time, all of us in the exhibit hall would leave at the end of the day blinking in the strange light. This time, I'm not in charge of a booth on my own, so it will probably be a little easier. It's probably still going to fry my little introvert circuits, but I hope if you're going to be there you'll come by and say hello to me at the Forward Movement booth.

From there, I head straight to Portland, Oregon for (are you ready?) the World Domination Summit! This is...well, I have no idea what this is, actually, but I'm going to be there!

I'll keep you posted as I can, but blogging is probably going to be light and mostly on the lines of "ga ga ga ga tiiiiiired." When I get back I'll let you know my plans for world domination. Maybe.

Have a great week!

On today's Supreme Court Ruling

When I heard the Supreme Court ruling, I said, "Holy crap!" When I heard that it was Chief Justice Roberts who had written the majority opinion, I said, "Hooooooly crap!" Strong language, I know, but that's the way I talk when I'm home alone.

Here's what was going on in my head between exclamation craps:

One day prior to Holy Craps #1 and #2: Boy, was I annoyed with all the speculation and predictions on Twitter, blogs, and in the news. Why make yourself look foolish like that? Why not just wait and see what actually happens? Well, I know why: because simply saying, "We'll find out tomorrow" isn't nearly as much fun (and won't get nearly as many hits) as wild speculation. I ignored the stores, but the speculative headlines still seeped into my brain and ratcheted up my anxiety--and I was only a half-hearted watcher!

Immediately prior to Holy Crap #1: I was sure the Affordable Care Act was a dead duck. Certain. Given what I'd heard of the arguments in March, and (especially) given all the predictions of the court watchers, I didn't think this thing had a chance.

Holy Crap #1: As I saw the NY Times headline, Health Care Law Stands, I couldn't believe how relieved I felt. Even though I didn't do a thing to get the ACA enacted, I found myself relaxing, and so happy that I didn't have to fight that battle again. As if I had done anything about it the first time. Would I have preferred a single payer system? I guess. But I'd rather have this in place than nothing. I'm just so glad for those folks who are no longer burdened by the fear of being unable to get health care.

Hoooooooly Crap #2: I saw the subhead to the same story, Roberts is Part of Majority Upholding Mandate and a jumble of things happened at once. First of all, I felt tremendously guilty for pigeonholing Chief Justice Roberts, assuming "He is a conservative; he will do X." This was an excellent reminder to me that people are individuals not types. I had been prejudiced and partial and I feel bad about that.

Secondly, oh boy (and I don't mean that in a gleeful way), what is this going to mean for the election this fall? I'll be curious to see how this all plays out.

In the car later, listening to the various reports, I have to say that I'm very pleased with the reasoning behind the ruling, insofar as I understand it. It seems fair, reasonable, and (dare I say) conservative. It makes me rest easier, thinking that important decisions such as this will be considered in a way that (to me at least) reads as prudent.

Also: I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.

World In Prayer, May 3, 2012

It was my week for the World In Prayer prayers and they pretty much wrote themselves this week.  Once I hit that line in the Acts reading for this Sunday, I knew exactly how I wanted to pray. These prayers are from my heart.  Here they are.

Philip asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 

He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"   -Acts 8:30-31

Dear God,

I do not understand what I am reading.

I read news from throughout the world and I do not understand what I am reading.

I say I read “news,” but the truth is; I read headlines, sometimes a few paragraphs, sometimes a whole article. I get glimpses into conflicts and cultures and circumstances, but I do not understand what I am reading. How can I understand, unless someone guides me?

Help us, God, to listen to those whose experience informs them. Help us to listen to others throughout the world, to those who have lived in the conflict and the culture and the circumstances. Help us to gain perspective. Help us to have insight. Help us to understand.

Help us to understand what is happening in Mali where a recent coup and counter-coup are being discussed by leaders of West African States at a meeting in Senegal.

Help us to understand what is happening in France where voters will decide on Sunday between current President Nicholas Sarkozy and challenger Francois Hollande.

Help us to understand what is happening in Burma where Daw Aung Yan Suu Kyi and other recently elected members of the National League for Democracy took their seats in Parliament.

Help us to understand what is happening in Brazil where more than 8,500 troops have been deployed in the Amazon to tackle drug trafficking, logging, and illegal mining.

Help us to understand what is happening in Nigeria where gunmen armed with explosives set fire to a cattle market, burning it to the ground, killing over 30 people as well as many of the cattle.

Help us to understand what is happening in Serbia where presidential and Parliamentary elections on Sunday may decide whether or not the country joins the European Union.

Help us to understand what is happening in China where the United Statesand China are in conflict over the future of dissident lawyer Chen Guangchen, who is seeking to travel to the United States after escaping house arrest.

Help us to understand what is happening in Syria where security forces have stormed student dormitories in Aleppo in response to anti-government protests.

Help us to understand the world you made, the world you love, the world you redeemed.

Help us to understand. Help us to abide in you. Help us to love. Amen

This ain't no fairy tale

Yes, I watched the royal wedding and had a grand time, though it has killed my Friday. But I tell you what, my pet peeve was every time a commentator called the wedding a fairy tale. It would have been a great drinking game, except you wouldn't have even made it to the processional halfway sober.

I'm not exactly sure in what sense they are using the word "fairy tale," but from the little I've heard and seen, this didn't seem like a fairy tale wedding to me. It looked like a couple of adults who care about each other and have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what to do. Ain't no magic wands around here. Kate Middleton was not transformed from a scullery maid. The prince was not in disguise.

What struck me about it was how un-fairy-tale-like it was. It looked to me like a normal wedding, albeit with an inordinate amount of hoopla and expense. But the wedding part of it, the two people saying "I do," looked normal, happy, and decided un-star-struck.

Here's the Prayer after the Royal Wedding--one that I think would make a lovely anniversary prayer for any couple:

God of all grace, friend and companion, look in favour on William and Catherine and all who are made one in marriage. In your love deepen their love and strengthen their wills to keep the promises they have made, that they may continue in life-long faithfulness to each other; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Egypt

I was taken by surprise this morning both by the news that Mubarak had stepped down, and also that I found myself in tears when I heard. I'm watching the livestreaming video from Al Jazeera English, which you can find here. Below is a screencap.

 

Do I understand what's going on there? Do I have even the slightest inkling what ought to happen? That's a big old no. But I'm still moved by these scenes of jubilation after such valiant and overwhelmingly peaceful protest. A transfer of power without war--imagine. Well, I don't need to, do I? Let us pray for Egypt in the hard work and changes that will follow.

By the way, if I haven't mentioned it before, here's a link to demand Al Jazeera English on cable providers in the U.S. AJE has the best coverage of Africa I've seen (in my opinion, anyway) and generally has a very interesting slant on world news, one that's worth hearing.

Various and Sundry, February 4

Quickly, quickly, because there's much to do today.

You people out there in snow-land, be careful! And go easy on the shoveling, eh?

In sporting news, I'm rooting for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers for Sunday's Superbowl. Go Cheeseheads! And I loved this article about the guy who invented the Cheesehead hats, using foam from his mother's sofa.

I thought this obituary for Maria Schneider, who starred in The Last Tango in Paris, was a rather sad one. Kind of says something that she's quoted as saying, “Never take your clothes off for middle-aged men who claim that it’s art.” I also find it perhaps a painful image that she was cast as Mrs. Rochester in Zeffirelli's Jane Eyre of 1996.

Boy, do I have nothing intelligent to say about the protests in Egypt. But I did love this photo which shows "a team of Egyptian Christians forming a massive human shield to protect their Muslim countrymen as they prayed during the violent protests" on Tuesday.

And in other protest news, this 19-year-old makes the case for gay marriage as well as anyone I've seen:

More on teaching

Last Friday, I posted a link in which someone opined about changing the way we compensate teachers, with a smattering of thoughts on teacher training as well. There was some really good stuff in the comments about this (including this very compelling and scathing review of Waiting for "Superman") which made me think a little more about how I've come to my own opinions on the subject of teaching and teacher training, and I thought that would be worth repeating here.

I would especially love to hear more from people who have been teachers and can speak personally about what helped and what didn't and what they think would work. I know my own opinions are ill-informed, especially when it comes to credentialing requirements, so take what you read here with a very large grain of salt.

My perspective, however, is somewhat unique. I spent one year as a notetaker for Deaf students and five years as an Educational Interpreter. For a few of those years, I was the staff substitute, which meant that I saw lots and lots and lots of classrooms. I saw them on a day to day basis, not just when they were preparing for evaluation. And I saw them without the investment of being a parent or particularly worrying about how a child was performing in the classroom.

Now, this was over 10 years ago, but from what I remember the vast majority of the teachers I saw ranged from good to excellent. Excellent teachers could be found in every community and at every level. I remember one spectacular fourth grade teacher who dressed like an executive lawyer with four-inch heels. I remember one amazing 7th grade science teacher in an inner-city school who brought incredible energy to her class. I remember one suburban high school social studies teacher who caught my interest so much that I forgot to interpret.

From what I saw there were two things that made some teachers more skilled at teaching. One thing that seemed to make for a compelling teacher was their own interest in the subject matter. And the other thing that made a classroom teacher more effective was experience.

The teaching itself was both a gift that they had and a skill that could be learned, but I'm not sure any credential program can make you love history so that you want to share that love with your students.

I honestly don't know what teaching credentials offer. If you know, please enlighten me!

One of the reasons I question credentialing programs is because private schools don't require them and yet people clamor to get into them. If the credentialing confers such great benefits in teaching, why would people want to leave the public schools that require it to go to the private schools that don't?

So why are so many public schools doing so poorly on tests that measure their performance? I wish I knew. But I don't think it's because the teachers are "bad teachers." Whatever that means.

I thought this story about a large high school in Massachusetts was very intriguing. I really don't know how much to believe about anything I read regarding education, but I want to keep an open mind. What this school discovered seems at least worth exploring.

Here's the story: in 1999, after reviewing their dismal test scores, the leaders of Brockton High set up a restructuring committee.

The committee’s first big step was to go back to basics, and deem that reading, writing, speaking and reasoning were the most important skills to teach. They set out to recruit every educator in the building — not just English, but math, science, even guidance counselors — to teach those skills to students.

The rest of the story is a compelling account of overcoming resistance, bucking the received wisdom, and stick-to-it-iveness. I really don't know if this is a viable general model, but it's a great story. Here's hoping their success can be replicated.

Survey says...

I really don't know quite what to make of the results from the Pew Forum's survey of religious knowledge in the U.S. The big headline in the Times yesterday was "Atheists outdo some believers in survey on religion." The headline was Basic religion test stumps many Americans. But I don't know...is it basic religion to know who Maimonides is?

I mean, there were some stunners. I was shocked at how many people couldn't identify Martin Luther as the instigator of the Protestant reformation. But that's because I thought that was something everyone learned in 9th grade world history. Although it's basic religious knowledge, I thought it was just basic knowledge, period.

I was interested to see how many Catholics thought the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are symbols of Christ's body and blood. Although it's more fun to say, "Ha ha! Those Catholics don't know what the Church's doctrine is!", I wonder if another read might be that even those teaching the Church's doctrine don't believe or teach that doctrine. I don't know. Just speculating.

Although much was made of the fact that atheists scored highest on average on the test (20.9 correct out of 32), it should be noted that they still only got a 65 percent. It should also be noted that how well people did on the test seems to be more directly related to level of education than other factors.

Dan Schultz, a blogger/pastor/author, put it this way on his Twitter feed: "The Pew survey on religious knowledge strikes me as a measure of reading levels in our nation. Doesn't anyone pick up a book any more?"

He's also thinking about giving the quiz to his congregation as a conversation starter. I think that's a cool idea. There's a handout with 15 of the 32 questions, but also the full phone-survey questionnaire, which was fascinating in its own right. For instance, it reports that "half of the time interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adultmale currently at home and the other half of the time asked to speak with the youngest adult female currently at home. If no respondent of the initially requested gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender who was currently at home." What effect did age have on the results?

I'm afraid it sounds like I'm excusing the abysmal results of this survey. Well, maybe I am, a little. I'm just not sure it says what they say it says. After watching one or two rounds of Ellen De Generes' "Know or Go," I'm not sure this shows a special failing on the part of people of faith.

The tricky act of demanding rights

Today is the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment being made the law of the land:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Through a series of clicks, I found this article in the Washington Post which suggests that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was for many years largely forgotten as a mover and shaker of the women's suffrage movement because she was critical of organized religion as one of the forces behind women's oppression, while Susan B. Anthony "held her tongue for fear of driving away women of faith from the suffragist cause and offending religious men who had the power to continue to deny women the vote."

(I know a certain historian who reads this blog who I hope will chime in here.)

For me this raises the question: if you are trying to acquire right A, but to do so you must be circumspect about proclaiming truth B (or what you think is truth B), what do you do? How much is too much to ask for? How long is too long to wait? What action is beyond the scope of the goal you hope to accomplish? How do you reconcile using the help and resource of people with whom you violently disagree in order to reach the goal you desire?

From what little I know of the suffragist movement, it was long, it was hard, it was complicated, it was violent, and it was full of compromise. How do you come out of something like that with your integrity intact?

Something I need to consider as the struggle for human rights continues--and no doubt will never end. For today, I am so grateful to the many, many women who made it possible for me to vote.  It's a right and a privilege I take most seriously.

On usury

I was reading an article about the passage of the finance reform bill yesterday and a strange little phrase grabbed my attention. Here it is:

"Usury laws were set aside."*

Usury! There's a word I haven't heard in a while! You know what usury is? Well, yes, it's the charging of interest on loans. You know what else it is? It's an abomination!

Check out Ezekiel 18:13 -- If a man "takes advanced or accrued interest, shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself." I haven't heard much call for the execution of bankers or other lenders--at least not on Biblical grounds.

I saw a great quote from N.T. Wright today, from his final sermon as Bishop of Durham: “It’s fatally easy to imagine that all my prejudices are theological convictions and that all your theological convictions are mere prejudices." I think it also can be true that we can have a mix of things, holding both a theological conviction and a prejudice at one and the same time, each reinforcing the other.

When what we are reading in the Bible assists our pre-determined theological conviction/prejudice, it jumps right out at us. What I find more fascinating and much harder is seeing the theology that doesn't jump out at us. Because the world around us (or our own preconceptions) makes it seem so darn normal. Like interest rates.

Oh how I wish people had been walking around these past few years with signs saying "God hates usurers! Ez. 18:13" What a different conversation the church would be having if we were as concerned about that abomination as we were about who's sleeping with whom.

*BOY do I know nothing about usury laws in the U.S., but here is (perhaps) the relevant information from the not-always-reliable Wikipedia:

Each U.S. state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful...However, there are separate rules applied to most banks. The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in the 1978 Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. case that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed nationally chartered banks to charge the legal rate of interest in their state regardless of the borrower's state of residence.[31] In 1980, because of inflation, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act exempting federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits. This effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.

What I learned at Fundraising Day

What I intended to write about yesterday, before mitregate took up all my brain space, was what I learned at Fundraising Day. I went last year and got all snooty about events as a result.

This year, once again I learned a ton, but here are a few things that really stood out for me.

At the first workshop I went to, "How to deliver superlative donor care," the presenter, Mal Warwick, said as a throw-away line something apparently that's commonly understood in fundraising circles: "If you want advice, ask for money; if you want money, ask for advice." And I thought of how often asking for money in the church is a top-down deal with the plans already in place, presented with a take-it-or-leave-it, support us or disappoint God sort of attitude.

One of the ways to deliver superlative donor care was to provide engagement, and asking for advice--consulting with donors--was one of the ways to do that. I'm not sure that we in the church have made that connection, that financial contributions are in part tied to whether the congregation feels it has been part of setting the course for the church. I think we often do ask for input, but I wonder if being aware of that connection would change how we go about designing pledge campaigns.

The second workshop I attended was called "Fundraising is a Team Sport: Building a Culture of Fundraising in your Organization," and although I got a great deal of useful information about that topic, the thing that stood out to me was something completely different.

The presenter talked about someone who had wanted to quantify what is the exact number of times of asking for money that is too many times. Is it that every month is too much but every other month is OK? Quarterly is too much but three times a year is OK? And what this person found was that the number of times an organization asked for money didn't matter; what mattered was that the organization was able to show the impact of the previous gift.

That made so much sense! I can imagine it as a conversation between two people. "Give me $5," says one. "I gave you $5 last week. What did you do with it?" "I just need $5 more dollars." I've had those kind of conversations and they are a real turn-off. And I can see how we often do that in the church, mindlessly asking for money without reflecting on how it has been used or how it has made an impact.

But their contributions do make an impact! I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the "God wants you to give money" trope. I realize now that this is partly because I was unclear how the church was using the money I gave to God. How much easier would it be to ask for money year after year if we were able to say, "Your money does this and this and this; we want your input other whether those are good things to do, if this is the mission to which we as a group feel God has called us. If you do think these are good things and part of our call as people of faith, we want you to know that your financial contributions will help us to do those good things and more in the future."

Did God create science?

I've been thinking about science. 

This all started last weekend when I read an article in the Huffington Post called The Nonscience of the Scientific Arguments Against Evolution.  What got me was one of the comments which said,

Attention evolutionists....Let me spell it out for you....

God created science! So you cant say religion is anti science, makes no sense, so squash dat man!

Oh, the logic!  The logic!  It hurts!

But since then, I've been pondering: did God create science?  Because when I think of science, I don't think of a thing, but a process.  I think of science as a way of approaching creation, using observation and testing hypotheses.  I think science is accountable to a creator God because it must be faithful to the creation observed. 

But I am falling into my own pet peeve of making science a being rather than a process.  I commented about this on Icearc's blog yesterday, saying, It annoys me to hear, "Science says," when it's really, "Based on evidence we have discovered through the scientific method, we currently believe..." One of the things I appreciate about the application of science is that, given replicable results, people will change what they used to believe in the face of new evidence. 

Sadly, I do find that religion is anti-science more often than not.  Why, though?  Why is religion so against data and evidence?  Over on the InternetMonk site, there's an Update on the Creation Wars talking about an Evangelical OT scholar who was pressured to resign from the seminary where he taught after posting a video in which he said,

“if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

I did it again, assigning "religion" agency as if it was a person.   Why is a certain kind of religious worldview so threatened by data?  For me, as a lover of books of all stripes, stories have meaning beyond the literal "this is how it happened."  What happened to us that we have to limit ourselves to making the Bible a news report rather than an epic tale?

We interrupt this blog for an update from the ongoing saga of the Anglican Communion

Sorry...sorry...just can't keep my mouth shut on this one even though I realize 99.9 % of people everywhere don't give a rat's ass about it.

So. The Church of England is having its General Synod (somewhat like General Convention, only annual -- am I getting that right?), and a member proposed a resolution that would recognize the Anglican Church of North America, a group led by the former bishop of Pittsburgh who decamped from the Episcopal Church, as part of the Anglican Communion, in fellowship with the Church of England. This got amended somewhat so that the final resolution, which passed handily, reads:

That this Synod, aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.

[Anyone who's followed this more closely than I please feel free to correct any factual errors here.]

That all seems reasonable enough, but what I don't think the C of E understands is that these are not reasonable people. Allow me to give an example from my own experience.

There was a parishioner, let's call her Madame Flowers. At first glance, she seemed a welcome addition to the parish, well-groomed and active. Active in everything, actually. To the point where it seemed a bit weird.

To make a long story very short, Madame Flowers trespassed into all sorts of areas, would not take no for an answer to anything, accepted no boundaries or limits, and, when on one occasion was escorted by me to the office door to end a conversation, accused me of assault. In short, she was a terribly disruptive presence and the parish, I think, did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of protecting its members from substantial damage. Madame Flowers was in no way evil, in my opinion, but her behavior made it almost impossible for her to remain in the community unless she was willing to make substantial changes, which she was not.

(Let us for the moment gloss over the part where her mother was found mummified in her home while she claimed she had seen her alive just the week before.)

The thing about ACNA that I don't think the C of E understands is that I think most of us are not as concerned about their belief as about their behavior. When I heard that synod had passed this resolution, I tweeted, "Good luck, C of E. You're gonna need it." These folks, for whatever reason, think nothing of trespassing boundaries all over the place and then accusing the people who say no of assault.

Truly, I feel for you. You have no idea what you, in your desire to be reasonable, have gotten yourself into. Blessings. [Insert sign of cross here.]

Meanwhile, in Uganda...

Two stories predominate the regular Google alert I get on the topic of Uganda: one is the anti-homosexuality bill, still being roundly criticized by church and political leaders outside of Uganda while Ugandan politicians tell non-Ugandans to MYOB, a reaction I can appreciate even while thinking the anti-homosexuality bill is horrible.

"We cannot tell the Senate what to do. We cannot tell Congress what to do. So why do they feel that they can tell us what we should do in the interest of our people?" James Nsaba Buturo, Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity, told AFP.

The other story getting a lot of play that you may not know about is that there are lots of negotiations going on over new oil fields in Uganda. Companies from Russia, the U.K., France, as well as Exxon, "among others," have been trying to get in to Uganda "following the discovery of around a billion barrels of oil in three exploration blocks." As I understand it, there has never been petroleum production in Uganda before. Let's hope they learn something from Nigeria's experience.

I can just imagine how these two very different stories may become intertwined. But what do I know? At any rate, I wanted to give you a heads up.

But the facts of life keep changing!

So there's been a few things in the news this week about sex education. Last Sunday, Ross Douthat had a thoughtful editorial in the NY Times that (I think rightly) points out that much of the battle over what is effective is a disguise for "a battle over community values"--or personal values. Much chatter ensued.

Then on Tuesday, the Washington Post ran a story provocatively headlined, Abstinence-only programs might work, study says. There really should have been an asterisk after the headline. People jumped all over this, but the upshot was that this abstinence-only program wasn't what most people think of when they think of abstinence-only programs. "Ms. Brown noted that the abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study centered on people with an average age of 12 and that unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage," it says VERY late in an article in the NY Times.

The thing I keep missing in all these discussions is any mention of how to help parents share their own values with their kids. What I'd love to see are programs for parents while their kids are in elementary school--not while their kids are in the heat of hormonal fury.

I remember with what trepidation I went to a workshop called Holy Hormones at the 2005 Earl Lecture series, Sex and the City of God. I still remember with what vehemence I insisted on bringing the workshop leaders to our parish to present--not to the kids, but to the adults.

The primary thing this workshop made me realize is our very paltry and limited our definition of sex education--indeed, sexuality--often is. Sex education for parents is about so much more than telling kids, "Don't have sex! (but if you are, here's how to do so safely)." The presenters had us asking ourselves, what's the right age for a person to see an R-rated movie? Shave their legs? Wear make-up? And then ask at what age we did those things?

There's also a curriculum for youth that I never used, called Love--all that and more, which sounds very good.

But the main thing for me is that I don't think we do enough in any area of society to help adults articulate what they have learned about sex and sexuality, and then what they would like their children to know. I wish there were a lot more of that. It's so ironic that we call teaching about sex "the facts of life" when the huge bulk of it isn't factual at all, is it? The basics are pretty simple, but the truth is--well, wow, a mass of culture, mixed messages, and the unknown.

Then, of course, you could always get the friendly school nurse to make things clear.

Afghanistan

I don't know what to do about Afghanistan; do you?

I'm with James Fallows who is torn about the decision to stay. Well, I hope he's right is the headline of his entry.

I'm also with Andrew Sullivan who, the morning after, "thinks this strategy is doomed," but sees the strategy in it: "If McChrystal does his best and we still get nowhere, Obama will have demonstrated - not argued, demonstrated - that withdrawal is the least worst option."

I'm also cognizant that Afghan women leaders have asked for the troops to stay:

In a series of conversations with a dozen women leaders spanning a range of sectors, from health care to business to politics, some of whom rarely speak to journalists, the consensus was that existing troops must stay for now-if only because things would be far worse were they to leave. Insecurity would, the Taliban would gain power, and women and girls would immediately lose ground.

Should we not listen to them?

And then there's Thomas Friedman's very reasonable editorial in this morning's NY Times, saying our efforts in Afghanistan are "just too expensive." I would tend to agree with that.

But I also feel deep in my gut what fellow-blogger Rick put into words: "In all the sensible, well reasoned, apparently prudent words of the President's speech, every time it panned to the audience, all I could think over and over was, 'Dear God. They're just kids.'"

All I really know is that I'm glad I'm not president. I'm glad not to be put into a position where no decision is clearly and unequivocably good, where no matter what you do, people are going to be hurt or killed. I don't have the moral fortitude for that.

All dogs go to heaven

Those that don't get taken care of by atheists here on earth after the rapture.

My personal hunch is that one of the major discoveries of this coming century will be the recognition of the moral life of animals. So much energy has been poured into trying to believe that animals were just animals. Anyone who suggested animals had emotions like humans do were anthropomorphizing them. Those who insisted an animal's actions were motivated by emotions or values were accused of an irrational sentimentality.

I suspect, however, that what scientists will begin to propose (and in fact already are beginning to propose) and determine is that people are not anthropomorphizing animals; we are simply recognizing (inadequately, to be sure) an emotional and moral component to animals that already was there, that is, in fact, animal.

I was thinking of this when I read this article at the Episcopal Cafe, which referred to an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Approximately 200, both human and dog, attended a memorial service for Ando, a member of the K-9 corps in Pittsburgh. "Ando, a German shepherd who joined the township department 2002, was diagnosed July 16 with hemangiosarcoma, a highly malignant canine cancer that attacks the blood vessels. The disease forced him to end a highly regarded crime-fighting career when he retired on July 25. Ando was euthanized Tuesday after a roughly one-month battle with the disease."

Check out that photo from the service. Breaks my heart, it does.

Also over the weekend, The Bark noted the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by promoting a documentary on the animal rescue efforts that were part of the disaster. The documentarian "estimates that half of the flood's victims chose to stay because of their pets." The documentary is called An American Opera: The Greatest Pet Rescue Ever, and it doesn't sound like a light-hearted romp.

The Rescue Party Tour with screenings will take place all over (can't find any in California yet, but I can't imagine they won't happen).

I guess I'm just glad people are allowed to feel things for animals. I know we also go overboard on this, but I'd say that beats callous disregard for "it's only an animal" any day of the week.