Use Me Instead

There is something powerful happening with social media right now.  

In response to the atrocity of the North Miami Beach police department, using the mugshots of young black men as target practice for their snipers, some ELCA clergy organized and started a movement.  Including photos of ourselves in clerical collars with the hashtag, #usemeinstead, on social media.  And we are mailing our pictures to the North Miami Beach PD.  And it has expanded to include clergy of other faiths and other people who are interested in the cause.

But I am so angry that this is even a thing. I cannot believe that police officers are using pictures of actual human beings to shoot for target practice.  In the forehead. This is unconscionable.  I cannot believe, literally, I cannot believe, that this was agreed upon as an acceptable practice by a police department.

It is unconscionable to look into the face of another human being and shoot them between the eyes for sport.  And yet, it is happening to our African American brothers in Florida. It happens every day in our country when the crime is "being black" and someone in a position of privilege is wielding a weapon or the force of the law over someone else.  

I will never know what it is like to be a person of color. As a white, middle class woman with privilege as a result of my social location, I damn well better be listening to my brothers and sisters of color.  And praying alongside and marching alongside for cultural change.  Racism is alive and well in our world. As a member of the clergy, I believe it is my sacred task to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God" and this means being willing to be on the front lines for justice and peace in this world. It means living into an incarnational understanding of what it is to be in relationship with God and God's people.

This movement is about clergy and others symbolically putting their bodies between bullets and black bodies. Because of my privilege, both in having white skin and in being a clergy person, I know that I am not likely to be shot.  It is because of my white privilege that I can afford to take this bold stance.

But in a country that dehumanizes and criminalizes based on the color of one's skin, it is far too easy to shoot if the person on the other side of the gun doesn't look like you. It is harder to look out and see yourself in that person.  So maybe if these cops are using white pastors, priests, rabbis, monks and nuns for target practice, they will realize that they are practicing shooting humans. That somehow, those people in positions of power who dehumanize and criminalize black bodies will make the connection that there is a person with a beating heart and a soul and a spirit. And then not fucking shoot them between the eyes.

Kyrie Eleison. Lord have mercy on us all.

"Who is My Neighbor?"

"The Good Samaritan" by He Qi.  (Posted by Patheos 7/2/13)

This past Sunday I had the opportunity to preach extemporaneously at my congregation here in St. Paul, Humble Walk Lutheran Church.  In the month of July we are gathering in the park and our liturgy is more informal and  we join in a potluck together.

The lectionary text (for more about what a lectionary is click here) for this past Sunday was the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Luke 10:25-37

This is the most frequently retold parable and is deeply culturally ingrained.  We talk about being a "good samaritan" and we have "Good Samaritan Laws."

We usually hear it preached or re-told in a certain way.  Usually it is something along the lines of, "When you see someone hurt by the side of the road, you should find it in your heart to help them.  Be like the Good Samaritan, do not be like the Priest or the Levite."  And we like to imagine ourselves right into this specific parable as the Good Samaritan.

But the fact of the matter is that we are not the Good Samaritan.  A Samaritan at the time was part of a very reviled and marginalized group.  They would have been instantly recognizable for their style of dress.  Any self-respecting person would not have accepted help from them. But we have essentially mythologized this character of the "good samaritan" and seem to have forgotten that this was a very real person from a very real social class.  At my text study last Wednesday we tried to come up with modern day comparisons for the Good Samaritan.  We talked about witnessed someone in Islamic dress or the Hijab.  We talked about encountering someone on the street who appeared to be homeless and mentally ill.  We talked about encountering someone who is of a different race.

Then the George Zimmerman verdict happened on Saturday night.  For those of you who do not know, George Zimmerman  is a man who was recently put to trial for shooting and killing an unarmed African American teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida in February 2012.  George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury on Saturday amid much public outcry.  Some people are proclaiming triumphantly that justice was done because George Zimmerman used his own gun to shoot someone he found threatening.  More people are crying out in lament that this misguided neighborhood volunteer shot and killed a teenager who was walking home from the convenience store carrying only Skittles.  No gun.  We will never really know what happened because George Zimmerman did not testify and Trayvon Martin is dead.

In liturgy on Sunday night, one of the questions that I asked small groups to reflect on was "Who would you cross the street to avoid?"

Some of the answers I received (these are multi-generational small groups): 

a bully, someone who looks different from me, someone who is asking me for money, someone who smells bad, someone with a weapon, etc.  

All this felt terribly poignant in the face of this latest news on race relations in the United States.  I am part of a privileged group.  I will never understand what it is like to be a racial minority.  And as I read the Gospel, as it talked about the priest and levite passing by the wounded and beaten man on the side of the road, I wondered how often we are actually those people, passing by our neighbors in need.  And all I could think about was a mortally wounded black teenager in Florida.

Who is my neighbor?  Why?  Is it only someone who looks like me?

And how are we the wounded man and in need of help?  Would we be willing to accept help from someone who is so different from us?  We generally only break down our strict cultural delineations when it's life or death.  Natural disasters, communal grieving, etc.  I am not an expert on racial matters.  But all I know is that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are both my neighbors.  It's easy to want to care for the wounded.  I find it a little more difficult to want to care about George Zimmerman.  But no one won with this verdict.  We all lost.  My pastor, Nadia Bolz-Weber, laments the place where we find ourselves with violence and guns in A Lamentation of Sorts for Sunday July 14 (A Day after the George Zimmerman verdict).

Who is my neighbor?  I have no clue.

Clergy represent at the Minnesota Capital

Credit City Pages for photograph

Credit Brooke Ross for photograph

Love is the Law

Credit Minneapolis Star Tribune

Yesterday I spent most of the day at the Minnesota capital building.  What an incredible time to be a part of history.  We sang songs and chanted while we waited for the legislature to vote.  The picture at left is the crowded rotunda where the energy was electric.  There were monitors in the hallway where the debate was being livestreamed, but there were so many people that it was impossible to see.  I was getting my news from twitter and from friends who were listening to the radio outside the building.  God bless Minnesota Public Radio and The Current 89.3 who broadcast the entire debate.  I was in a group of eight clergywomen, all wearing our collars.  It was surreal.  It was also apparently a spectacle because a ton of people requested to take our picture.  I will search around the interwebs  and attempt to find some of the professional photographs taken of us.  In the midst of all the jubilation as we waited for the vote to be tabulated, I found myself unexpectedly

My friend Emmy and I in the Rotunda

saddened by the those who were opposing the bill.  The energy was positive, and everyone was on their best behavior.  There were no confrontations at all.  But it was sad to witness these people who were quietly holding pink signs saying, "Vote No" in the midst of a loud crowd waving orange signs and rainbows and loud singing and chanting. It was like watching the tide of history change before our very eyes, and they were afraid. They were being faithful to their own beliefs, just as those of us representing clergy and people of faith were being faithful to our convictions of faith.  I believe that God is always on the side of love.  I do think it is a testament to Minnesota that there was no ugliness yesterday at the capital.  Nothing but positive energy.  What a time to be living in.  And when I have children some day, I can tell them that I was present in the state capital on the day that history was made in Minnesota, when we became the 12th state to legalize marriage for all people.  What an incredible day! 

My vantage point for the entire afternoon

As soon as the vote was announced and the bill's sponsor's spoke to a roaring crowd in the rotunda, the radio station The Current played "Love is the Law" which has been the theme song for this entire adventure.  The YouTube video link below is from the Minnesota band that sings this song.  

Today at 5:00pm on the capital steps, the governor of Minnesota will sign Marriage Equality into law, followed by a huge party with local bands.  If you are in Minnesota, this is not to be missed.  

Thanks for being on the right side of history, Minnesota!  

Wabasha St Bridge has been honorarily named
"Freedom to Marry" bridge this week

History was made today

There is so much that I want to reflect upon from my experience today in the capital, so that is coming.  But tonight, I go to bed knowing that history was made today in the Minnesota capital.

Prayer Vigil for the Freedom to Marry in Minnesota

start of a prayer vigil at Christ Lutheran on Capital Hill St Paul, MN
Credit C. Scharen for picture

 On Wednesday evening I was part of a prayer vigil held at Christ Lutheran on Capital Hill in support of the freedom to marry in Minnesota in advance of House of Representatives vote on Thursday afternoon.

Credit A. Hanson

We wrote names onto paper hearts of those who we wished would have the freedom to marry or who have inspired us.  Then the group (many hundreds of people) filed over to the steps of the capital to lay our hearts down on the stone steps so that they would be waiting for legislators when they arrived on Thursday morning.

Credit S. Suemnig

Credibility of Information

A. Hanson
Paris 2009

For my Gospel and Global Media Culture class this week we were asked to reflect on credibility of information with regards to authority, authenticity, and agency.  We used the case study of criminal justice and how it has been portrayed in the media.

My undergraduate degree is in Communications, so I approach pretty much all mass communication with a hermeneutic of suspicion.  I am always thinking about the source of a message and the intended outcome of the message.  Communications do not happen in a vacuum and they cause things to happen.  The easiest examples of this are advertisements.  In particular, look at those for prescription drugs.  

It becomes a little more insidious when we look at propaganda campaigns.  Propaganda is a dirty word to some people, but I am using it in its most genuine sense right now, the presenting of only one side of an issue in order to gain support for a certain viewpoint.  One of my favorite examples of this that I studied during my undergraduate years was the documentary, Atomic Cafe, which is a collection of film clips produced by the US government to assure citizens that the atomic bomb was not a threat to them and to quell some of the hysteria around it.  The documentary is offered without much commentary from the filmmakers, but archival footage from the government is interspersed with coverage of the actual effects of the nuclear arms race on humanity. It is a fantastic film.  I highly recommend it.  But I digress.

 For our case study this week, criminal justice, I am going to posit that the United States is engaged in propaganda.  As a nation we like to use military terms to show that we are really serious about something, "War on Terror", "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs."  Our country is one that likes nothing more than to rally around a cause, particularly one with patriotic overtones, and be righteously indignant about it.  The War on Drugs was said to have started with Richard Nixon in 1971, who was concerned by drug use among returning Vietnam war vets.  Of course substance abuse is a major issue and no one is going to argue that. It destroys lives and communities.  Drug use brings catastrophic damage to communities, including property crime and violent crime such as rape and murder.

But where we went wrong was in our own telling of this story.  Drugs and crime are systemic problems, rooted in racism, inequality with regards to healthcare and education, and generational poverty.  Locking up offenders for drug offenses is merely putting a bandaid on an arterial bleed.  Yet as a nation we are locked into the idea of "progress at any cost" and getting "tough on crime" fits into the mythology that we tell ourselves.  If we get one low-level drug dealer or gang kid off the streets and into jail, we feel like we have done something great.

And the media tells this story over and over again.  Which is why we need to be critical about the places from where our information comes.  Who is putting it out there and why?  And where is the money coming from?  And in a context collapse such as with the advent of social media, we need to be ever more careful about what Rheingold calls the "echo chamber effect" in his Crap Detector Chapter in Net Smart or repeating only that which agrees with our own personal convictions.  We want to believe that our world is getting better and safer and more prosperous.  So we repeat only those things that affirm that.  We want our communities to be safe, so we look at what might contribute to that and getting offenders off the streets seems to fit with that. So we repeated half-hearted success stories to convince ourselves that something is really improving.

The Charlie Rose Interview on Incarceration tells a different story.  Not only is mass incarceration (incarceration as social control rather than criminal justice) not effective, the problem is FAR bigger than we ever could have imagined.  There is an entire industry built up around prisons (privatization) and systematic racism is rampant.  Our propaganda is all lies.

So what do we do as people of faith?  We speak truth to power just as we have been called to do all along.  The ELCA draft Social Statement on Criminal Justice (set to be voted upon at the churchwide assembly in August 2013) outlines some moves forward.  It outlines the problem and calls Christians to "confess that we, as individuals and in our common life together, have fallen short in responding to criminal justice--both in respond to crime's harm and to problems in the justice system."  It outlines four responses, hearing cries of injustice, showing hospitality, offering accompaniment and engaging in advocacy.  It calls to renewed ministry on behalf victims and their families, the incarcerated and their families, affected communities and those who work in the system.

Because Jesus says it best in Matthew 25:36, "I was naked and you gave me clothing. I was sick and you took care of me.  I was in prison and you visited me."

God is among the least of us.  Meaning God is most surely present with those in prison.  The second that we start drawing lines between ourselves and the other, God is always on the side of the other.

Digital Divide

For this week's reflection in my Gospel and Global Media Culture class we were asked to reflect on the key question:

"How can communities of faiths draw on denominational/theological statements to advocate for easing or even erasing digital divides?"  

This bears breaking down a bit further for clarification.  What is a digital divide?  A digital divide is best defined by Susan Crawford as she talks about her book Captive Audience, which refers to the chasm that exists between those who can afford to purchase access to the internet and the devices needed to access it, and those who cannot.   Crawford remarks that this is an issue of justice, because so much of our economy revolves around being connected via the web.  Job applications, applications for benefits, etc, require one be connected.  And this is not just about getting onto social networks, online shopping, and catching up on cat videos. This is the very engine that powers our economy and is the thing on which self-sufficiency is built.

To break this down even further, I would like to share some of my personal experiences from my past work in human services.  In order to get food stamps or other benefits, you can only apply online.  Okay.  You do not have a computer at home.  You go to the library.  In order to use public computers you must have a library card, which probably requires that you prove your address with a utilities bill or get a statement from your case manager that states that you are homeless.  If you don't have an ID card, you won't necessarily be able to get a library card either.  At any rate, you won't be able to get onto the computer that day.  If you manage to get that information you go back to the library and find that you can sign up for a one hour time slot.  But there are several people ahead of you and the wait is three hours.  In your one hour time slot you start an application, but since you don't know much about computers, it is pretty difficult to accomplish anything.  You leave vowing to come back the next day.  Except you don't have any bus fare.  Or childcare.  In order to get assistance with your utilities and stay in your home, you have to call at exactly the right time, which is 9:00am.  Except you have an appointment at the food bank this morning which you have waited for two weeks to receive and can't stay near your home phone (which is funded by a grant from your city as an emergency-only service). You don't have a cell phone because you cannot afford one.    So you have to make the difficult decision of feeding your family right now or getting help with your gas bill.  These are just two examples of things I encountered over and over again.

Your sense of digital divide is further exacerbated when you try and apply for jobs or even if you are offered a job, you must have computer skills.  Maybe you have been incarcerated and have very few computer skills.  Maybe you are a senior citizen with little reason or desire to use computers, but now that you are facing unemployment and debt in what should be your retirement years, you have to learn in order to continue working.  Maybe English is not your first language.  Maybe mental illness, post-traumatic stress, or other health concerns cause you anxiety about being online.  Even if you have a laptop, computer skills, and the desire to get online, most places that advertise "free wi-fi" are coffee shops and you must actually purchase something while you are there.  So if you cannot afford your own access at home, you still have to pay for it somewhere.  I agree with Crawford, access to the internet is not a luxury.  It is a necessity and it is an issue of social justice.

There are many excellent non-profit organizations providing computer access and computer skills classes, I used to work for one, Denver Urban Ministries, teaching computer classes and job skills.  I do not think it is the responsibility of faith communities to duplicate services already being offered elsewhere.  I do think the answer for communities of faith is to direct their resources (financial and volunteer) towards organizations who are already doing excellent work.

But I think it is the responsibility of communities of faith to look at their stated convictions and act accordingly with their time, talents, and treasure.  At the very minimum, this means setting aside the free-market mentality that dominates our culture and realizing our responsibilities to one another in the interconnected body of Christ.

 In my research, I discovered two social statements from the ELCA that could be applicable here.  Both are a little dated, particularly with as quickly as our wired world progresses.  The statement on Economic Life: Sufficient and Sustainable Livelihood for All (1999) recognizes that increased prosperity for some has the flip side of increased misery for more vulnerable people.  It also acknowledges that not all benefit from capitalism, and boldly states, "we affirm that God promises a world where there is enough for everyone, if we would only learn how to use and share what God has given for the sake of all."

The other social statement from the ELCA that applies is the statement on Education (2007) which advocates for equal and quality access to education for all people as it relates to the command to serve out one's vocation.  To the glory of God we are to fulfill our role in the priesthood of all believers, and education allows for this to be actualized.  This statement makes a commitment to ensuring high-quality education for all children as a justice issue.

All that is to say that the problem of digital divide is systematic and complex.  And I am not at all convinced that churches are poised to take the lead in lessening or erasing it when we are still having hotheaded debates about whether or not the church newsletter should be electronic and if churches should have an account on Facebook and if the pastor has a twitter account.  The ELCA has already made some powerful statements about social justice, but I fear that we are too entrenched in our own fears about technology to effect any real change on a level of justice.

Any thoughts?

Hope

A. Hanson 2009

Last thursday, I posted about my sadness with regards to how the United Methodist Church decided to legislate that homosexuality was not compatible with Christian teachings.  Yesterday the state of North Carolina passed an amendment to their constitution that defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.  What strikes me as ironic is that the same people who are demanding a "smaller" government with regards to fiscal and social policy, are demanding that the government legislate love and marriage and commitment.

Also last thursday evening I learned that a civil unions bill made it out of a Colorado House of Representatives committee, and that it would go before Appropriations, and potentially be taken before the entire House.  Yesterday was that day.  By 4pm the bill had made it out of Appropriations and was to be debated by the House.  Yesterday was the last day of the legislative session in which bills could be debated.  In a moment of juvenile partisan politicking, the House Majority leader, Frank McNulty, decided to lead a filibuster for several hours which prevented the bill from even making it onto the floor.  The session closed amid insults and mudslinging from both sides.  Not only did this bill not make it through debate, but the filibuster took down 37 other bills too.  Many of my friends this morning were sad and my heart breaks for them.  The government attempts to tell them that their love is invalid.  Inferior.   At a morning coffee break with a group of friends from church, we were discussing this and how angry it makes us.  There are no words to take away how much this hurts people that we care about.  We could not comfort our friend in such pain this morning.

 But this afternoon Obama came out in support of gay marriage.  He is the first sitting President to do so.  And all I have to say is that it is about time.  Vice President Biden came out a few days ago in support of gay marriage.  This is really important.  I believe that the tides have changed, and while painfully slow, progress is being made.  The hateful vitriolic criticism is the dying gasp of the social conservatives.  Change is coming far too slowly, but it is coming. There is hope.  A tiny flickering little bit of hope.  And later on today, our governor called for a special session to debate the civil unions bill.  Light flickers in the darkness.

The problem is not about who loves whom.  It is about hate.   And there is so far to go.  As for me, I just keep praying that God will help me love the people with whom I disagree so deeply and that in turn, those who direct such hate towards my GLBTQ friends might soften their hearts a little too.  Then maybe we can meet in the middle and have a conversation.

"Outside ideas of right and wrong there is a field.  I will meet you there." -Rumi-