"Bring on the roasted potatoes!"

The foodie/wanna-be chef in me loves this.  LOVES this.  Some of it is because somebody out there is brilliant enough to turn Julia Child clips into a really rather catchy bit of electronica, which alone is worth the price of admission.  But, there's more to it than that.

I think a big part of my love for this is coming from the fact that it is a beautiful celebration of a woman whose life is a living testimony to how we can take the incredible gifts we're given by God and share them with the world.  She could have just celebrated being an amazing chef, ran restaurants, and made a fortune without giving a thing back to the world, but Julia Child chose instead to show everyone that, yes, you too can cook.  You don't have to be wealthy, or have two tons of free time, or a culinary degree to be a world-class chef.  You can eat amazing food at home; you can build community around a dinner table, no matter who you are or where you are.  That's the whole ethos of Julia Child - like the chef in Ratatouille (my favorite Pixar film...surprise surprise), "everyone can cook!"

And, isn't that what our gifts are for - to share with the world, to show others that they, too, have gifts that are useful for building the Body of Christ, building community, building a better world?  Would that we were all Julias, sharing what God's given us to build up others and leave the world better than we found it.

Besides, she helped the OSS (precursor to the CIA) during World War II, including helping on a project to develop shark repellant.  Really: Julia Child's Shark Repellant

If that doesn't make you a professional badass, then I don't know what does.

Pissing Against the Wall, or Why I Love the King James Bible

If you have taken the time to slog through that entire video, bravo - it's 4 and a half minutes of one of the best/worst sermons I've ever encountered.  Best in that it is memorable and invaluable as a source of comic relief; worst in all other regards.

However, it makes use of one of the more, shall we say, colorful examples of the King James Bible's brilliant usage of the English language...and I'm not being facetious when I say brilliant.  OK, "him that pisseth against the wall" is perhaps a smidge ridiculous, but the KJV is one of the three most important works in the history of the English language, right up with the works of Shakespeare and The Canterbury Tales.  That trio made the modern English language - it cannot be denied.

And...I love the King James.  There, I said it.  I am about to embark on a Ph.D. in New Testament, fully aware of the (in many instances) poor quality of the KJV as a translation of the original languages, fully aware of how its translators lived long before the wealth of early manuscripts that have been discovered in the last century and a half and thus had to make do with the Textus Receptus (which is a relatively poor version of the New Testament that strays significantly from what is likely to be the earlier, most original text)...and I get that.  I don't make extensive use of the KJV as a scholarly tool.  It is not the primary text I sit down with for my sermon prep.  But...I love it just the same.

There is a majesty and timelessness to the King James that no other translation of the scriptures in English possesses.  It is beautiful and poetic; much more than most modern, much more accurate translations, the King James Bible SOUNDS like holy scripture.  Perhaps that's because of several centuries of social conditioning to expect scripture to sound like the King James, but nonetheless, when I hear the King James, I hear the voice of centuries of faithful people joined with the words on the page.  Maybe it's the historian in me.

I mean, let's compare - the 23rd Psalm from KJV versus the 23rd Psalm from the NRSV (used in most ELCA congregations) and the CEB (the most recent, most intentionally modern translation).  For the record, I deeply appreciate all three of these translations.

KJV: 

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.  He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.  He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.  Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.  Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

NRSV:

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.  He makes me lie down in green pastures; he leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul. He leads me in right paths for his name’s sake.  Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff— they comfort me.  You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.   Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long.

CEB:

The Lord is my shepherd.  I lack nothing.  He lets me rest in grassy meadows; he leads me to restful waters; he keeps me alive.  He guides me in proper paths for the sake of his good name.  Even when I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no danger because you are with me.  Your rod and your staff— they protect me.  You set a table for me right in front of my enemies.  You bathe my head in oil; my cup is so full it spills over!  Yes, goodness and faithful love will pursue me all the days of my life, and I will live in the Lord’s house as long as I live.

See the difference?  Feel the difference?  The NRSV is much more accurate to the original text, and the CEB feels more like natural, 21st century North American spoken English...but the King James feels sacred and timeless, and there is NO contest as to which has more literary value.

All this said, I would never introduce the KJV as the primary text for Sunday worship.  NRSV or CEB all the way...I'd even contemplate the ESV over KJV because, even though I find the ESV's intentional lack of sensitivity to gendered language (which then renders certain parts of the text LESS accurate in contemporary English), it maintains a sense of the poetic nature of KJV while still being in modern English, and has used more recent presentations of the original Greek New Testament than the Textus Receptus.  KJV, for all its timeless beauty, is still not the translation which is closest to the original texts, and I value that for public proclamation.

But...think of what a poorer language English would without having been shaped by the KJV!   In an age where txtspeak is murdering the beautiful intricacies of English, I wish I could put a KJV and copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare in every single house and mandate that everyone must spend 15 minutes a day reading each of them.  As a family, at that...teach your children well.  

So, I invite you - join me in a crazy challenge.  Fifteen minutes a day with King James, starting at Genesis 1:1 and not stopping until Revelation 22:21.  Slogging through it.  Sticking with it.  Not caring about how long it takes, but just reveling in the joyful challenge of it, and celebrating when it comes to a glorious end.  Let's do this; let's grow our faith AND our depth of appreciation for the English language!

More Senselessness

Yesterday, I talked a little bit about the horrific shooting at the Sikh house of worship in Wisconsin.  I contended, maybe a little boldly, that racism and religious hatred is so widespread that the amount of public outrage over the massacre has been muted, especially in comparison to the movie theatre shooting in Colorado a few weeks ago.

Today, we have exhibit B that racism and religious hatred is on the wax in this country.  Dateline: Joplin, Missouri - the same community devastated by a huge tornado last year.  The town's mosque and Islamic community center was burned to the ground last night; this is the second fire to hit it in less than two months.  The first fire was confirmed arson thanks to video surveillance; the video cameras were destroyed in last night's fire, but arson is again suspected.  

This, of course, isn't the only mosque flap in recent memory.  Since 2010, a mosque just outside of Murfreesboro, Tennessee has been hit with legal challenge after legal challenge just to open its doors - it's set to do so.  In the meanwhile, they've been victims of all sorts of vandalism.  And then, of course, there's the whole "Ground Zero Mosque" debacle.

I am not Muslim.  I have no interest in becoming Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, Mormon, Pastafarian, Methodist, or anything other than what I already am.  But, even with my Lutheran identity firmly established, I still don't get why on earth we can't, as a nation and as Christian citizens of a nation which gives religious freedom to all its people, live and let live when it comes to the existence of non-Christian religious communities.  OK, we don't see eye-to-eye on plenty of key theological issues with Sikhs, Muslims, and others. But, if I have the right to go to my quirky little Lutheran church on the corner of Fullerton and St. Louis, then then why do we work so hard to deny neighbors of other faiths that same right?  

And why, dear Jesus, do we attack them?  Is this some sort of twisted notion of evangelism - if we burn their mosque, then they'll come to our church and find Jesus?  Can we not grasp the seemingly easy concept that not everyone with a turban is Muslim, and 99.9%+ of Muslims aren't terrorists, but are instead people like the ones next to you in your church pew who just want to make a living without having their place of worship turned into charred ruins because they don't believe that Jesus is their savior?  Have we decided that, somehow, we're God's new avenging angels and are called and entitled to burn the infidel?  Have we ever considered that the sort of attitude that undergirds the shooting in Wisconsin and the arson in Missouri are in no way, shape, or form different than the sort of attitude that drives groups like al-Qaeda?

I just don't get it.

Senseless

Details are starting to emerge about our latest mass murder, this time at a Sikh place of worship rather than in a movie theatre.  The shooter: former military, connections with white supremacist groups.  The victims: people of South Asian heritage (Punjabi, presumably) gathered for worship and a meal.

This is an act of violence every bit as pointless, stunning, and horrific as what happened in Colorado just a few weeks ago.  The body count is lower, but so much is the same - a gunman entered what is supposed to a perfectly safe space and killed innocent people.  In this case, we have a presumed motive - these were people of color murdered in cold blood by a man who seems to have believed that only white people authentically count as people, and that everyone else is inferior.  I don't know much else yet - if the gunman thought that Sikhs were "terrorists" simply because "all them A-rabs look the same," or what.  

I do know some things.  First, Sikhism is the 5th-largest religion in the world, and the average U.S. American had probably never heard of a Sikh prior to yesterday.  Almost nobody knows that their religion is monotheistic, that they were a popular reaction against the excesses and snobbery of the clerical classes of both the Hindu brahmins and the Muslim moguls which began to coalesce roughly concurrent with the Protestant Reformation in the West, that the center of their faith is a sacred book of poems about God which has been mostly set to music.  Their traditionally distinct appearance - beards, well-maintained long hair typically beneath a blue turban, silver bracelet - usually get them labeled in this nation as "Indian," "A-rab," or worse.  They are our neighbors, and we know nothing.  Of course, Islam is the 2nd-largest religion in the world, with Buddhism and Hinduism rounding out the top five (Christianity is on top in the numbers game)...and how much does the average person know about any of those, for that matter?  Other than that, of course, they're not white people religions.

I also know that the outpouring of grief and rage I've seen over this one in the world of social media has involved a conspicuous lack of grief and rage from conservative Christians.  For that matter, the number of people posting about this latest shooting has been almost nothing compared to the Colorado massacre.  Part of it is that the average person can more closely relate to going to the movies than going to worship at a non-Christian house of worship.  To a certain extent, the violation of the the movie theatre's safety is more immediately jarring, as at least houses of worship of all kinds have been targets in the past.  I get that.

But, I think there's more to it than just body count and the novelty of a mass murder at the movies.  I quite frankly think that most white Christians in this country are more disturbed when people who look like them are killed in a movie theatre than when non-Christian people of color are killed at worship.  I think subtle (or perhaps overt, for a minority of people) racism and religious exclusivism are at play here.  Again, I say - I think most of us in the church care a whole lot more about what happens to white, middle class, "God-fearing" people than to non-Christian people of color.  It doesn't matter that they were gathering for worship, much like how a Christian church would be gathering on a Sunday; they're not right enough with Jesus, and don't look like us, so they probably had it coming.  The shooting was  a senseless act of violence...but so is the sheer silence of white people of faith.  Every bit as senseless, and in its own way, every bit as violent.

One Big Damn Puzzler

It's the name of one of my absolute favorite novels - everybody should go to amazon.com now and buy a copy of One Big Damn Puzzler.  Do it.  NOW.

OK, now that you've bought it, and hopefully read the wonderfully funny, moving, and thought-provoking tale of cross-cultural experiences that makes one wonder about the nature of charity, justice, and civilization, we can take up that conversation.  Oh, wait, you just now ordered the book and it didn't instantly download into your brain?  Well, crap.

Ridiculousness aside, the book addresses just those themes, with the central question that lingers for me being perhaps one of incredible importance - what does it mean to be committed to justice in a cross-cultural context?  How do I, as a white U.S. American, authentically stand in solidarity with others in the world who have been wronged by the U.S. government or U.S. economic interests when those very people who have been wronged hold to a different idea of justice?  What if my idea of justice in fact poses a greater threat to their well-being than the initial injustice did?

In the novel, the people of the island have been victims of atrocities from a now-defunct U.S. military base - most notably, a rape and dozens of injuries from land mines.  A do-gooder lawyer from the U.S. comes to seek redress for the islanders, but he doesn't get that providing financial reparation for a society that uses yams as their de facto currency is likely to cause more harm than good...and it does.  The artificial limbs formerly used to replace mine-shattered legs are, by the end of the book, used to replace amputated limbs of the island's many diabetics, as the influx of cash and goods from the U.S. (like Coca-Cola and junk food) destroys the formerly healthy way of life on the island.

In its heart-breakingly funny way, the book is a cautionary tale for all of us who proudly bear the label liberal or progressive in this world, and who care about issues of international justice.  When working for justice, make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease itself - stand in solidarity, be a voice...but dear God, keep your eyes open and listen to the people.  There's no solidarity without authentic dialogue, and without solidarity, there's no justice.

Of Waffle Fries and Marriage Rights

So, I am really in the thick of the Chick-fil-A hulabaloo.  I worked for a summer at said fast food chain, selling chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.  Now, I'm a straight ally of the LGBTQ community living in Logan Square, the Chicago neighborhood that has now moved into the spotlight as one of our aldermen has promised to block the building of a new Chick-fil-A (the city's 2nd franchise) on Elston, just east of the Kennedy Expressway.  Alderman Moreno, and now Mayor Emanuel, are saying that they have no interest in allowing a franchise run by a family who flaunt their "Christian family values" and donate unapologetically to groups that work against gay marriage.  Mayor Tom Menino of Boston is also joining in, pledging to keep Chick-fil-A out of Boston and, in particular, off the Freedom Trail.

So, my two cents.  First, the Cathy family (who own Chick-fil-A) are most assuredly and unapologetically opposed to gay marriage.  And probably civil unions, adoption rights, partnership benefits, and God only knows how many other things when it comes to LGBTQ people.  This is, of course, defended as being traditional "family values," which is essentially the argument that Ozzie and Harriet had the only sort of acceptable family structure, and everyone else is sinning.  I should point out that the scriptures provide a wide variety of family models, most of which would be abhorrent to the average 21st century U.S. American of any religious background.  Lest we forget, things such as polygamy, concubinage, the seizure of women in war for forced marriage, and all kind of restrictions on women's rights are "biblical."  They don't jive nearly as well with the New Testament family codes...but then again, most arguments against homosexuality come from the Old Testament.  Life is complicated, and exploring this topic is not the principle focus of this entry.

All that said, I'm not shy about identifying myself as a straight ally who supports full rights, of every sort, for all people regardless of their sexual orientation.  I DON'T think a couple of cherry-picked verses that are ripped out of their historical context and aren't being properly interpreted through the Gospel ought to guide our convictions about whether or not LGBTQ folks are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.  I have no interest in giving my money to the Cathy family just so they can donate it to a cause I find abhorrent.  I won't spend a cent of my money at Chick-fil-A until I can rest assured that my money won't go toward the continued denial of basic freedoms to people who love people of the same gender.

However, I will confess that I have some serious issues with denying people permits to build their businesses because of disagreement over how the corporate management of the company donates their money.  On the one hand, I would love to see Chick-fil-A get shown up.  I would love not to have a Chick-fil-A in my neighborhood.  On the other, I do wonder about the First Amendment here, and object to political action like this in protest over the values and political donations of a given corporation when that corporation at least follows the laws and does not discriminate in its hiring practices or against clients.  Like I said, I find it abhorrent...but I really do wonder if the best way to address that is a permit denial.  It IS a limitation of freedom of speech; what will the nation look like if we start making all our business permit decisions based off how the politicians issuing them feel about the stated political beliefs of the business owner?  I really do think that's the wrong road to go down because it DOES limit freedom of speech.  I'd rather we mobilize and not give them a dime of our business.  That's MY freedom of speech in action.

This is Africa

This entry is not, in fact, a commentary on the atrociously hot weather we've seen in Chicago this summer.

No, I've had West Africa on the brain these last few days.  I recently read Whiteman by Tony D'Souza, which is a fictionalized account of the life of a U.S. American volunteer in northern Cote D'Ivoire during the beginning of the civil war that was going on while I also happened to living next door in Ghana.  The book, which is worth tracking down and reading, dwells some on the subject of belonging (he's the white man in an all-black village), loneliness (and the things which it drives us to do), and reconciling privilege (he can leave the violence) with belonging (but he doesn't know how to leave and go to a home that's not home anymore).

It's taken me, in my mind, back to my own four months (a comparative blink) in Ghana, and the places around the region my travels took me.  Mali has been especially on my mind lately.  Since it's gotten very little attention in the U.S. media, a brief recap of the past few months...

-Mali is a large West African nation, 2/3 of which is sparsely populated desert.  Most of the national population is black, sub-Saharan African - groups such as the Bambara, Malinke, and Dogon, with nomadic Peul populations, as well.  There is a significant Tuareg minority; these are a nomadic desert people who are ethnically and culturally more like the Berber people of North Africa...the average person from the West would describe them as being similar to Arab people.

-The Tuareg have always felt isolated and persecuted by the Malian government, which is dominated by the black population.  They've taken up arms in the past against the government in hopes of forming a separate state.

-In the winter, the Tuareg launched a new uprising - a much better armed one than in the past thanks to many Tuareg serving as mercenaries in Libya and obtaining arms left over from the conflict there.  The Malian military was being trounced.

-In the spring, some Malian military officers staged a coup, removing the long-serving (and democratically elected) president. They blamed him for the military failure, accusing him of not giving them adequate weapons and supplies to fight the Tuareg.  The African Union, and rest of the world, immediately condemned the coup and threatened the military government with total isolation and possible intervention if they didn't step down.  A provisional civilian government has since taken over, but with the specter of the military junta weighing heavily over them.

-In the meanwhile, the Tuareg effectively took over the northern half of the nation; much of their success came through allying themselves with militant Islamist groups interested in creating a Sharia-led Islamist state.  The international community refuses to recognize their new "nation," which is now racked with in-fighting between the Tuareg nationalists and Islamists.  However, the international community is reluctant to get involved, as the largest regional power, Nigeria, is beset with religious strife of its own and is afraid that fighting the Islamists will result in Nigeria's own Islamist militants declaring an all-out war on the government.

So, now you know the story.  I spent two weeks in Mali, roughly half of which was with the Tuareg in the yes-it's-a-real-place city of Timbuktu.  And...Timbuktu's disappearing.  Its new Islamist masters disapprove of the presence of tombs, shrines, and monuments to Muslims of other times and of other strands of Islam, so they're destroying them.  The Tuaregs who I stayed with in Timbuktu may very well be among the fighters.  One of the models of democracy in the region is now a shredded mess.

And...it's heartbreaking.  I love West Africa, and there is perhaps no harder thing to love in this world.  Every step forward seems paired with a step back...or two, or three.  Sometimes, it comes from internal problems; more often, it's the by-product of foreign meddling, colonialism by another name and with less accountability.  God, help us.