On September 30, 2020, I was asked to make a brief statement before a group of Christians about why I support the Illinois ‘Fair Tax’ Amendment. This is what I shared (adapted for print). Illinois currently has a “flat tax” income tax rate of 4.95% for all earners. The McDonald’s worker making minimum wage pays the same rate as the McDonald’s CEO who makes almost 400 times the average employee. The Illinois Fair Tax Amendment would increase the percentage for those who earn more than $250,000 annually, and decrease it for lower-income working individuals and families.

I am a person of faith, and because of my faith, I support the Fair Tax Amendment.  

I support the amendment because our current “flat rate” tax structure is unjust and is oppressive to low-income working families. I support the amendment because I serve a God that defends the poor and upholds the cause of the oppressed. I support the amendment because I believe God is pleased when we recognize economic disparities and treat those who have less with policies of compassion and justice…because that’s what God does. 

You heard me right. That’s what God does. God distinguishes between those who have more and those who have less. It is fair to say that God divides people into “the haves” and “the have-nots,” and God has different expectations for the haves.  It’s biblical.

It’s in the book of Leviticus.  Now I know that nobody reads Leviticus. The entire book is devoted to describing the different sacrifices that are required for various infractions of the law. We don’t make sacrifices, and as Christians, we often say, “we’re not under the law – we’re under grace.” So we don’t read it. That’s unfortunate, since Leviticus shows us a principle that has a direct bearing on the issue before us.

According to Leviticus 5:6, everyone is required to offer a female lamb or goat as a guilt offering.  But in the very next verse, God gave people without economic means options that fit with their economic status. Those who could not afford a lamb or goat were allowed to offer 2 doves or 2 pigeons instead.  And if even 2 pigeons were beyond one’s ability to pay, they could bring a “tenth of an ephah of flour. That’s about 9 cups.  God doesn’t have a “flat rate” sacrificial system.  For those who have more, more is required.  For those who have less, less is expected. This is not equal, but it is fair.

God makes a distinction between those who have the resources and those who don’t. Our current tax structure makes no distinctions. And because it does not, it is unfair.

If God is just and fair to the poor, then we, as the people of God, have an obligation to seek justice and equity for the poor. So I will vote “Yes” for the Amendment on my ballot this November 3. I will vote yes, because a progressive tax structure is faithful to the heart and justice of God. I encourage you vote “Yes” too.

In fourteen hundred and ninety two,
Columbus sailed the ocean blue…

I learned that little ditty in 1960’s grade school. It was taught in elementary school history without question: Christopher Columbus (aka ‘Cristoforo Columbo’ en Italiano and ‘Cristobál Colón’ en Español) was THE man who “discovered” America while searching for a shorter trade route from Europe to Asia on behalf of the Spanish monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand. We knew this man was important because on October 12, 1968, and every October 12 after that, the world stopped (or at least there was no mail delivery) in his honor.

But how in the world did a person who never set foot on North American soil become so embedded in our national story through statues, city names, and civic holidays? It’s a fascinating story of immigration, definitions of race and international politics. Read on!

Between 1880 and 1920, more than three million Italians had immigrated to the United States. Many Southern Italians and Sicilians arrived in New Orleans and helped dig the canals and work in the sugar cane fields. In Italy, northern Italians often looked down on Italians from the south as backward and uncivilized and racially suspicious due to their darker skin tone.

Upon arrival in New Orleans, the southern Italians and Sicilians tended to be lumped together with former slaves and treated with the same dehumanization. These Italians often lived in Black communities and were frequently referred to as “white n——rs.”

The racial tensions exploded in 1891, after popular New Orleans Chief of Police, David Hennessy, was murdered as he walked home from work. Nineteen Italian immigrants were rounded up and charged with the murder. After six of the men were acquitted of their charges by a jury, a mob numbering in the tens of thousands descended on the jail, demanding blood and accusing the Sicilian “mafia” of bribing the jury. Finally, a smaller group broke into the jail and went on a murderous spree. In the end, 11 Italians were killed and their bodies were desecrated by the mob. No one was charged with the crime.

The initial response to “America’s largest lynching” was generally celebratory. Even The New York Times dismissed the mob action, noting that the victims were “sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins.” However, the incident had international repercussions. The Italian government broke off diplomatic relations with the United States and there were rumors of war.

With the 400th Anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s voyage and the opening of the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1892 on the horizon, President Benjamin Harrison used the opportunity to ease tensions with the Italian government by asking Congress for legislation to protect foreign nationals from mob violence, by giving the families of the victims a monetary settlement and by declaring that October 12, 1892, would be a “one-time national holiday” in honor of Italian explorer Christopher Columbus. President Harrison’s declaration gave Italian-Americans the opportunity to insert themselves into the story of America by casting Christopher Columbus as the “first Italian immigrant” to the Americas and a symbol of Italian creativity, determination and religious devotion.

New York Times writer and author Brent Staples refers to the New Orleans lynching and the subsequent acts of President Harrison as the moment that “Italians became White.” This explains why there is such objection of the removal of statues of Columbus within much of the Italian-American community. Four hundred years after Columbus sailed the ocean blue, he posthumously gave Italians access to the privileges of whiteness in America. To remove Columbus from his pedestal in the American story (even if it isn’t “true”) is to erase Italian-American progress and put them at risk again for a return to racial inferiority.

As much as Italian Americans should be fully embraced as equal citizens in the American democratic experiment, they should not need a statue of Christopher Columbus (or a monument to fascist Italo Balbo) to justify it. There are plenty of other Italians that better exemplify creativity, determination and religious devotion.

At the same time, we are in a moment to acknowledge Columbus’s complicated legacy.  For many other marginalized groups, Christopher Columbus has been and continues to be a symbol of the destruction of indigenous cultures throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America. Thanks to Columbus’ failed voyage to Asia, millions of people suffered. The conquistadors didn’t just bring Christianity; they brought disease, enslavement and exploitation. It is this legacy that has been erased from history.

It’s time to tell the honest truth about Christopher Columbus who did not “discover” America, but simply revealed it to the Europeans so they could come again and again and rape it for profit. It is time to remove the statues of Christopher Columbus (and other questionable historical figures) and place them in a new “Museum of Distorted History” so their stories can be told in a broader historical context.

It is also time to find new symbols that we can hold up to affirm the value and humanity of everyone. As a person of Christian faith, that symbol is the cross of a middle-eastern prophet who crossed the accepted social boundaries and showed us what love really looks like.

“I’m not racist.”

I hear that all the time. I’ve even said it about myself at one time or another. It’s the “go-to” response to the question, “Are you racist?”  But it’s not the right answer.  It’s the wrong answer because it’s not the right question.

Mike Novotny writes in his devotional “Race Grace Justice Jesus,” “I believe it’s a mistake to make racism a yes/no question.”  He adds, “We don’t do that with other [character traits].  Are you proud – yes or no?  Patient – yes or no? Selfless – yes or no? We recognize that pride and impatience and selfishness are sins we sometimes commit but are trying, with the Holy Spirit’s help, to resist.”  He then suggests that we a different question: “How racist are you?”

While I don’t agree with Mike on a lot of topics, I appreciated how he framed the question about racism because it recognizes that from birth we have been raised in a culture where race is a fundamental factor in the way we understand each other in the social structure.  The idea of race and the hierarchy of skin color is so deeply embedded in us that it is impossible not to be racist even if we object and try to deny it.  Racism is so pervasive that people (and by people, I mean “white people”) don’t even see it. People of color see it all the time. It really is always about race because race is the foundation upon which our society is built.

We are all racist. We are all racialized.  And again, by “we” I mean “white people.” Some of us are more overtly racist than others. Some literally wear their racism on their sleeves (or their flags) which gives the rest of us plausible deniability. Yet, we are all guilty of participating in and benefiting from the structures and institutions that were built on a racialized foundation. And most of us are guilty of micro-aggressions and routinely assessing people on the basis of internalized racial stereotypes and biases.

If we can finally admit that we are racist because we have been marinated in race all of our lives, we can begin to deal with it and ultimately be free of its distorting influence.

The apostle Peter was finally able to see his internalized racism when God confronted him with a sheet full of unclean animals and a family of Spirit-filled Gentiles (surprise!). (Acts 10:34-35).  Peter confessed that he needed to change his understanding of God and begin to fully accept those who were different from himself. (Acts 10:28).  Unfortunately, like the chicken pox virus that remains inside our bodies and resurfaces in other forms, Peter was so infected by racism that it later resurfaced and he fell back into old patterns of racialized behavior (see Galatians 2:11ff).

I have to confess that I’m more like Peter than I would like to admit.  I get confronted. I jump forward, but then I slide back into “default” thought and behavioral patterns. I get confronted again, and I jump forward a bit further. The more I am confronted with my internalized racism, the more likely I am able to see it’s hold upon me and resist it.

Am I a racist? The answer will always be “Yes.”  How racist am I?  The answer is “I’m working on it daily so racism’s grip on me will loosened. When I’m confronted with it – lovingly or otherwise – I humbly accept the rebuke and get back on track. When I sense it rising within myself, I renounce it and repent. When I fall back into old patterns, I hope someone will call me on it, and I will hear them out.  When I see how racism operates in the world around me and how it is embedded into systems and institutions, I reject it and work to dismantle it.”

May the Holy Spirit push us forward until all the walls fall down and the sun of justice shines fully upon us.

The song, ‘America the Beautiful’, was sung by Beyonce at Barak Obama’s first inaugural event. It is a beautiful, stirring and moving rendition in a moment of great hope for our nation. It would seem that the prayer for brotherhood had finally been answered.

Unfortunately, that moment seems eons ago and we are faced with the realities of today. Interestingly, the song was not originally written as the patriotic hymn we know it as.  The author, Katherine Lee Bates, actually wrote it as a critique of the nation and a call to be better. She once wrote to friends that unless “we are willing to crown our greatness with goodness and our bounty with brotherhood, our America may fail as other nations who have been “great” but not “good.”

While the words acknowledge the beauty and inspiration of America in lines like “O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, ” America’s beauty was only skin deep. In Bates’ view, America was not living up to its ideals. As a Christian socialist, she watched as the robber barons of capitalism crushed the labor movement with the help of the government. As a feminist, she watched as women were denied the right to vote.  As an advocate for social justice, she grieved the end of Jubilee Reconstruction and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the former Confederacy. Her refrains are just as relevant today.

We are familiar with the first refrain:

“America! America! God shed his grace on thee, And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.” 

But she also wrote these refrains:

America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!

and…

America! America! God shed His grace on thee
‘til selfish gain no longer stain the banner of the free!

and…
America! America! God shed His grace on thee
’til nobler men keep once again thy year of jubilee!

Love and grief; Appreciation and prayer. America will only be great when it is good. We have a long way to go.  So let us confess, repent, and pray for the healing of our nation.

The state of Oregon has fewer African Americans than any other state–only 2% of the population.  I’ve often wondered why.  Is it the climate? Is it the distance from the traditional south and family roots? Yesterday, I discovered the real reason. It was by design.  From the beginning, Oregon was intended to settled by white people FOR white people.

In 1844, the provisional government of Oregon Country (as it was known prior to statehood) passed what became known as the “Peter Burnett Lash Law” which expelled all people of color from the region or face up to 39 “lashes”. The law was quickly repealed, but exclusion laws continued to be passed. (On a side note, Peter Burnett became the first elected governor of California in 1849.)

In 1850, under the Oregon Land Donation Act only white settlers were allowed to receive 650 acres of land from the government. Blacks and “Mulattos” were excluded.  In 1851, Jacob Vanderpool, was expelled from the territory after a neighbor reported him for the crime of being black.

When Oregon Country sought statehood in 1859, its state constitution included this: “No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the State, or employ or harbor them therein.” It wasn’t removed from the constitution until 1922, ironically the same year that Oregon elected Water Pierce as Governor. Water Pierce was a member of the KKK.

Initially, Oregon ratified the 14th Amendment (recognizing the citizenship of anyone born in the US including former slaves) in 1866, but rescinded it 2 years later. (It was re-ratified in 1973!) The state refused to ratify the 15th Amendment of the US Constitution (giving black men the right to vote). Oregon finally ratified the 15th Amendment in 1959.

From the beginning, Oregon was intended to be a “whites only” state. Racism is at the core of the state’s DNA.  It has always been (and still is) a state that is hostile toward people of color. So much for Oregon progressivism!

Oregon may have some of the most blatant examples, but you can find the same exclusionary policies and practices in just about every state as well as at the national level.  The more I learn about the systemic racism of this nation, it has become more and more difficult for me to say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem (or other patriotic hymn like “God bless America”) or celebrate national holidays.  Our foundational values are antithetical to the values of my faith and my commitment to Christ–where status, ethnicity, gender are moot.  Our policies reflect our sin. Confession is needed. Repentance is required. Otherwise, we will continue to repeat the sins of our fathers.

For more information on Exclusion laws, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws

Swedish teen, 16 year-old Greta Thunberg, stood before the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and said, “Our house is on fire!” She spoke to the rich and powerful about the price tag of unfettered growth on the environment and on future generations and the disastrous implications of choosing to nothing in the face of climate change.  She said, “I don’t want your hope. I do not want you to be hopeful.  I want you to panic!  I want you to feel the fear I feel every day…  I want you to act as if the house was on fire, because it is!”

For generations, we have lived under the assumption that “individual freedom” gives a person (or a corporation) the right to do whatever they want irregardless of the impact of their actions.  Our founding fathers held the “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as essential to the success of the American experiment.  American individualism at its foundation rejects limitation, regulation, and interference while at the same time rejecting responsibility and culpability.  Individualism gives us the luxury of not caring about the conditions of others – even when our actions have created those conditions. Individualism gives us the freedom from consequences.  We simply shift the burden to others. It is “their problem.”

Greta Thunberg prophetically reminds us all that every individual act has corporate ramifications; and that individual rights must give way to collective interests if we are to survive.  In the end libertarian beliefs and laissez-faire attitudes and policies lead to social destruction.

We have lived by the creed of Cain, excusing ourselves of responsibility of caring in the name of “individual freedom.”  “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain asked in response to God’s question about the whereabouts of Abel.  Cain’s question is actually a statement. “My brother’s whereabouts or condition is of no concern to me. I have no responsibility in regard to him. His circumstances are not my problem.” Beneath the statement is a deeper issue of the heart: Disconnection.  The more disconnected from others we understand ourselves, the more we will pursue self-interest without considering the consequences to the world and the generations who will come after us.

The apostle John wrote, “From the beginning, you’ve heard this message: Love one another. Do no be like Cain…”  (1 John 3:11-12).  Living as if we are independent from one another – as if we have no mutual interest or interdependency – is to live like Cain in ignorance and sin.

Are we the keepers of our brothers and sisters?  The answer is, “Yes!”

 

“Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

As I continue on my Lenten “Fast for Community,” I continue to be drawn back to this statement from Philippians 2:4 (NRSV).  Self-interest is always a part of our MO in making decisions, forming opinions, and taking action. We ask ourselves continually, “how will this benefit me and impact my quality of life?”  It is a powerful question that determines our positions on almost every social and political concern.  We vote our self-interest. We advocate our self-interest. We defend our self-interest.

Pursuit of self-interest is evidence that we love ourselves. Self-love has gotten a bad rap – especially among Christians.  But love of self is never condemned by Jesus. In fact, it is normal and healthy. Jesus’ command to love our neighbor includes the proviso, “as yourself.” Self-love (and self-interest) becomes the standard to be used to dictate our actions toward others. The question for followers of Jesus is not, “how do I eliminate self-interest?” but “how broad is my circle of self interest?”  Does my circle extend to the “other?”

We will easily extend our circle of self-interest to include our children and grandchildren. We will also consider the interests of our close friends and extended family. We may create additional circles of self-interest based on our gender, our race, our class, our affiliations.  But our circles have boundaries. The lines are drawn and redrawn, but, in the end, “others” always end up separated from the “self” (and those we include as part of the “self”).  And we will usually choose to preserve and protect the interests of the “self”  at the expense of the interests of the “others.”

I believe Jesus challenges us to rethink the meaning of “self.”  The old circles are not big enough. “Self” must go beyond the traditional tribal boundaries. I believe the circle must also extend through time to include next generations.  In the phraseology of Paul, “we are members of one another” whether male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile (or any other tribal delineation); whether present or future. It is in our self-interest to pursue the interests of the “other” because we are indeed “one in Christ.”

But doesn’t that mean that our own interests will be sacrificed?  Doesn’t that mean that my own needs will go unmet and that my own quality of life will be at risk? Fear is at the core of our circle. We are afraid that in giving up pursuit of “self-interest” that the “self” will not just be denied – it will be destroyed! Despite our deeply felt fear, the opposite is actually true.  We will not be destroyed. We will not lose, we will gain. Self-interest and the interests of others are not in conflict, but are inextricably linked.  What is beneficial for the “other” is actually beneficial for the “self.”  In pursuing the common good, I am ultimately guaranteeing my own good now and into the future.

My fast continues.

When pastors become CEOs, evangelism becomes “marketing” and disciples become consumers, collapse is inevitable. The recent implosion of Willow Creek Church and Harvest Bible Chapel has confirmed to me that the mega-church model is not (and has never been) sustainable.

Once you have an auditorium that seats multiple thousands and a staff of hundreds, the emphasis shifts from authentic ministry to getting and keeping butts in the pews. Worship must, by necessity, become customer service and must focus on the desires and preferences of the worshipper rather than the praise of the One who alone is worthy.

Over the past 50 years, the church has increasing turned to Madison Avenue for direction and has adopted the structures and philosophies of corporate America. We have bought into the beliefs that “Bigger is better” and that growth is equal to health. We have studied community demographics and have tailored our methods and our message to reach our selected target audience. We have aspired to “success” and evaluated ourselves using the formulas of business—market share and financial gain.

We have substituted what is right with what works. We have replaced following Jesus’ teachings with following a charismatic leader. We have preached comfort without a cross. We have buried Jesus beneath layers of satin and silk. We have fed the flock junk food in slick packaging.  The Church has gained the world, but has lost its core values in the process.

If the church (of any size) is going to remain faithful to its calling, we must resist the temptation of spectacle (jumping from the steeple?) and gaining prominence via Satan’s machinations. Instead, we must fix our eyes on Jesus, our true example. By corporate standards, Jesus was an absolute failure, choosing the wrong target demographic (solidarity with blue collar workers and social outcasts is not a wise financially plan), the wrong strategy (you don’t offend just about everybody that could potentially support your ministry), the wrong methods (why would anyone make participation in the mission so costly that no one will want to join?), and the wrong message (“the last shall be first and the first last” is suicide if you want to reach the 1%).

By becoming an extension of Madison Avenue, the church has departed from Jesus’ Way and gotten lost. Now, the church is being sifted and shifted—a work of the Spirit, I believe. God is showing us it is time for repentance and a return to the narrow way of Jesus’ mission—announce good news to the poor, free the captive, release the oppressed, open the eyes of the blind, heal the injured.  The Church may not gain the appearance of “success”, but it will certainly be stronger and healthier.