The Eighth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
What does this mean?
We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret everything they do in the best possible light.

I don't know about you, but I am more ready for this election season to be over than any I've ever experienced.

Eighteen months of campaigning. Eighteen months sorting fact from fiction. Eighteen months of partisanship, obstruction, gaslighting, and paranoia. In recent weeks the veneer of substantive political discernment has been ripped away completely, revealing a sordid game of lurid sexual misbehavior and assault (fictional and actual), an almost complete disregard for facts or the rule of law, hacked emails, torched campaign facilities, graffitied mosques, and invective that buries itself so far beneath what we should expect from our elected leaders that we'll need to look up to even see what disappointing public discourse looks like.

Here's the thing, though: we've taught our politicians that this sort of campaigning works. We have elected leaders who have capitalized on polarization, fear-mongering, and scapegoating to get themselves elected, only to discover they cannot work with fellow elected leaders who used the same tactics but don't have the capacity to set them aside once the campaign is over and the work of governance begins.

Thankfully, Brother Martin gives us a way out of this festering swamp of half-truths and character assassinations - if we have the courage to choose the hard path of truth-telling and fair listening instead of the easy slide back into mudslinging and obstructionism. Famous for his invective, it seems as though Luther was the last one who should have written about bearing false witness, but in his definition of the 8th Commandment Luther lays out a vision of a community we would be fortunate to call home. To be sure, politics in Luther's time didn't resemble the modern nation-state. Luther wrote his Small Catechism for households to learn how to deal with each other - the concept of representative democracy wouldn't be put into play in the U.S. for another two centuries. Yet Luther's Germany was experiencing a political revolution in addition to a spiritual reformation. Without the support of princes willing to defy the emperor and the pope, Luther would have been executed long before any sort of transformation was able to take hold. Luther himself spoke bluntly to princes and commoners alike: he admonished the peasants when they rebelled against their feudal lords, but also criticized the lords when they violently put down the Peasants' Rebellion of 1524-1525. One of the most under-appreciated aspects of Luther's work was his willingness to debate, to question himself, to convince and be convinced by means of disputation, and to acknowledge his own shortcomings as well as the admirable qualities of his friends and opponents.

When I meet with couples for counseling prior to marriage, we always spend time in an exercise called "Active Listening and Assertive Speaking". In the exercise, each partner takes three opportunities to state a desire they have for the relationship, using "I" language and avoiding "you" language ("I feel frustrated when the kitchen is a mess" instead of "You never clean the kitchen"). When each partner has stated their desire, the other partner is asked to repeat the statement back in their own language, in such a way that it is clear they have understood what their partner is saying. I remind each couple that in many instances we listen defensively, looking for excuses and opportunities for denial. Active Listening involves listening to understand, not defend. It doesn't even involve listening to agree - the point of the exercise is to remind each partner that part of bearing true witness in their relationship is to see things from their partner's point of view and understand why they may feel the way they feel.

Imagine how our politics would change if we approached the election season with that same mindset! Disagreements are bound to happen, but what a better democracy we might have if our candidates could say, "My opponent X is right to note that this issue is a problem for us. My opponent has attempted to address this issue by doing _____, and while I don't think it worked, I am grateful for my opponent's work on it. Here's what I think we should do to address it: listen well and then you the voters should vote for what you think is the best solution for all Americans."

There are anecdotal tales of presidents, legislators, and staffers regularly crossing the aisle and meeting together to actually achieve the hard work of governing in such a way that the maximum benefit for the most people could be achieved. This sort of work is impossible in an environment dedicated to seeing the worst in those who disagree with you. I hope and pray we will learn from this election and turn toward a better way in the future, and to that end I am rededicating myself to discuss issues instead of people as much as I can. I hope you'll join me in that effort.

Yours in Christ,
Pastor Scott

An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee

I get it. It's rough as we approach what could be a disappointing midterm election. Between recurring gun massacres and our national apathy toward violence, an unhealthy obsession with denying whatever President Obama proposes regardless of merit, and the endless assault on a duly passed piece of health care legislation, you're feeling the strain. I am, too.

But your recent emails have gone too far. I'm not a Democrat because I don't like John Boehner - he seems a decent guy who just doesn't see things the way I do. I'm not a Democrat because I want Republicans to lose (okay, maybe Steve King, but I bet there's plenty of Republicans who feel the same way). I'm not a Democrat because I like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, even though I do. I'm a Democrat because I believe our vision for the future of the country is a good one, and I'm willing to vote for that vision. I vote for ideas and for policies, not for people - and not against them, either.

Sending me an email saying "If we sit this out, these guys win" is not the way to get me to pitch in another $5. Any politics or policy founded in fear is going to fail miserably. Tell me what we're doing FOR the country and I'll support it. I don't have to be afraid of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan or Scott Walker to believe that their policies will continue to widen the gap between the plutocrats and the rest of us. I know that just by listening to them and using my head. I also know that even when I disagree with people of other parties, it's more than likely they will bring perspective to my own beliefs and help me see things in a different light. Single-party rule is tyranny regardless of which party is ruling.

Enough of the scare emails. Enough of the polarity. Enough of the attempt to target people for defeat. That's the sort of anxiety-riddled jingoism that caters to the lowest common denominator and debases the entire country. Plenty of people are already playing this game and exploiting it to fill their pockets. We have to be better than this. We used to be better than this. Let's be better than this again.

Universal Health Care: Let's Be Honest, Shall We?

Yesterday's mail edition of Newsweek featured this cover article by Sen. Edward Kennedy. If you're not a subscriber, it's worth a look anyway.

Our elected officials are engaged in a very acrimonious debate on health care, health insurance and the future of American medicine at the moment. President Obama wants something on the table prior to the August recess, while some are suggesting we shouldn't rush things.

For me, one troubling aspect of the entire debate is the way terms get thrown around with little care for how they are defined. The words "medical," "care," "health" and "insurance" seem to be interchangeable, while they actually describe very different things depending on how they are paired and how they are used. "Health Care" and "Health Insurance" are two very different things: the first describes an actual interaction with a medical professional, while the second describes a company or government program whereby the professional is guaranteed compensation for services provided, and the patient generally bears a portion of the cost in addition to a base premium surrendered monthly, quarterly or annually. You can see the problem when the two start getting tossed around as if they are the same thing.

In a professional sense, I'm fairly un-qualified to weigh in on this issue. I'm certainly not a businessman, nor am I a health care professional. What little mental health care I'm qualified to provide falls under the umbrella of spiritual care: the nano-second I sense that we might be drifting into illness, I refer to a qualified professional, as I am NOT a mental health counselor. In an ethical sense, however, we are all qualified to weigh in, as we, the American people, are the ones who are and will be affected by the ongoing discussion of medicine in America. And I dare say that those of us who serve in the pastoral office are called to be advocates when we feel ethically driven toward a certain point of view.

So, it seems to me that as a country we have one basic choice in front of us. The time has come for a decision about medicine in America: is it primarily a for-profit business or a social service? We are rapidly approaching the point when we will no longer be allowed to waffle between the two extremes, and for me, at least, the decision is obvious: medical care is a social service that must be guaranteed to all Americans. Period.

I'm not saying this is going to be easy. But when an estimated 47 million people can't get medical care for real illness and medical problems, easy has long since left the barn. To my mind, we have an ethical imperative to guarantee reasonable access to affordable medical services, and I, for one, am willing to do my part to see that it happens.

Taxes will need to be raised. That's a given. Medical profits will be cut. Also a given. Insurance companies may find themselves competing against the government. Some insurance companies might go bankrupt. We'll need to transition out of employer-based insurance, which was a bad idea from the start and has only become worse with time. All of these are real repercussions of shifting the model from profit-bearing to service-providing, and it might be bad before it gets better.

But the alternative is worse, in my opinion. Some estimate that 55 million Americans will be without health insurance in the very near future if we do nothing. That, to me, is an unconscionably high percentage of the American population with no hope of cure when illness strikes. That's 55 million Americans who can't get their infant daughters to the doctor when they have an ear infection, like our Alanna had last month. That's 55 million Americans who can't find respite from back pain, as I have this summer. That's 55 million Americans who can't escape the clutches of depression, as I have over the past three years. Can we really think this is the better solution?

The total cost of the medical care required for the births of our daughters, Ainsley and Alanna, was in the neighborhood of $32,000. That's approximately 90% of my yearly cash salary. Health insurance covered most of the cost for us - what are the options for mothers who don't have insurance?

The time has come for a renovation of American medicine. No renovation comes without sacrifice, struggle, and moments when the damage done seems to outweigh the possible end result. But the present situation is a house of cards teetering on the verge of collapse. We have an ethical and moral imperative to do better for our society - let's speak the truth and get it done.

Grace & peace,
Scott

Some Light Summer Reading?

Every once in a while you get the chance to read a book that surprises you by how much it kicks your ass. I started one this week: Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation by Rodney Clapp. (Click on the picture of the book for a link to Amazon.) Here's just one example of the can of whupp-ass Clapp brings to the subject:

"Technologically enamored, plutocratic proponents of nationhood like to envision America as an invulnerable, innocent behemoth, able to overcome any and all limitations. Ronald Reagan represented this bizarrely inflated, wildly optimistic Americanism with his 1987 comment that, 'The calendar can't measure America because we are meant to be an endless experiment in freedom, with no limit to our reaches, no boundaries to what we can do, no end point to our hopes.' This blatantly theological statement denies creatureliness and casts America in godlike terms. It makes the nation an entity without limits, infinite in power and reach, eternal in its endurance. Such attitudes have real-world consequences. They lie behind American attempts
to control political affairs in societies across the globe, as well as a willful
eagerness to dismiss the ecological damages and costs of our extravagantly
consumeristic way of life. They imagine there will always be another
technological fix, that the powerful and wealthy, at least, will be able to take
care of themselves, and that human progress will continue indefinitely, if not
forever. All these are strange, incongrous attitudes for what fashions
itself as 'conservatism.' They are also rather infantile attitudes - the
expectation of the infant that all else exists to serve its needs, that any
limits set before it are only to be overcome by protest and ingenuity, that
frustration is never to be endured but always removed by eliminating its
sources. Such attitudes form citizens fit to live in a democracy for moral
infants and adolescents, rather than a democracy for grown-ups."

Sometimes you read the book - and sometimes the book reads you. Nice to get the chance to do a little 'light reading' while vacationing in Nebraska. As you were.

Grace & peace,
Scott

Somebody Had To Say It

I like Claire McCaskill's take on the present financial crisis and the use of TARP funds to pay executive bonuses in excess of $18 BILLION. "Idiots" is one word a person could use. "Criminals," unfortunately, is not a word you can use at the moment, but it seems like something about this mess ought to be against the law.

When an executive spends $1.2 million redecorating his office while his company is circling the drain (said decorations including "an $87,000 'area rug,' $28,000 for curtains, a $68,000 credenza and ... a $1,400 wastebasket," according to CNN's Campbell Brown), it is made perfectly clear that the executive class in the USA has largely lost the ability to police itself and must be reined in through other means.

I like the idea of capping all salaries at $400,000 per year, though I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that this bill will even make it out of committee. And no, this isn't about jealousy (okay, well, maybe a little of it is). It's about the good of the entire society. It's about the growing gap between labor wages and corporate wages. It's about 2% of the population holding a vast majority of the capital. It's about our lack of public will to eliminate poverty, hunger and lack of access to proper medical care, and people with the means to contribute the most lavishing themselves while children freeze to death on our streets this time of year.

In the Old Testament, care for the dispossessed and the lowest classes was one of the measures by which God judged the faithfulness of the people. Just so we're clear, that didn't cease to matter after the resurrection, folks - we still need to take care of each other, and if it takes handcuffs and prison time to bring certain portions of our population into line, so be it.

Thursday Thinking

First things first: this picture makes me feel very happy:

Yeah, that's right: Pelini is BACK, and this time, he's in charge of the whole damn thing. I'm REALLY excited for this fall!

I was supposed to drive north to Cedar Falls, IA to meet one of my Iowa Lutheran campus ministry colleagues today. But it has snowed a couple of inches and the roads are a mess, so I elected to stay home and stay safe. Bummer, though: I was really looking forward to lunch with my colleague, and also the alone time in the car, which I dearly love. But I'll have all the alone time I could want next week traveling to Nashville for the national campus ministry gathering, so I'm going to be okay.

Since I'm staying home, I'm going to try to write this week's sermon this afternoon - I'm sitting at the coffee house as we speak, getting ready to start writing. But I wanted to share this post from Dan Clendenin on this week's gospel and the fifth anniversary of the beginning of our war against Iraq. I'll admit I was in favor of the war when it started: I believed the Bush administration's claims regarding the risk of WMD, and I had always thought that not invading Baghdad in 1991 was a huge mistake. Today, I'm horrified by the lies and half-truths used by the Bush administration to justify this unjust war, and I'm sickened to think of the damage we have inflicted upon the people of Iraq, even though I do believe the driving intent behind this war was beneficial. But most of all, I'm convinced that we are never going to change as a nation until concerned people take upon themselves the burden of opposing those who would shoot first and ensure civilian, non-combatant safety later. As Clendenin asks,

"What might our world look like today if the United States, in a preemptive and unilateral decision, purely from motives of self-interest and international security, had invested $500 billion in the Muslim world for health care and hospitals, schools and electricity, micro-enterprise and cultural institutions? Or spent the money on our own citizens to help those with no health insurance, fund social security, develop new sources of renewable energy, invest in schools and education, or retrain workers displaced by a fiercely competitive global economy?"

I'm aware that some of you will disagree - that's your right and I wouldn't take it from you. I'm also aware that, now that we're there, we do have a responsibility to the people of Iraq to continue working toward building a secure, just replacement to the regime we so recklessly toppled. And in no way, shape or form do I want to denigrate the men and women whose lives are on the line, for their sacrifice is indeed noble and should never, ever be slighted. But we cannot allow the men and women who were so wrong about this misguided campaign to lead us down this path again: there must be a better way, and next time we must invest the time and energy to find it, peacefully, before the shooting starts.

Here's one paragraph of my sermon I've already completed:

When Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.", he did so with a body that still bore the scars of the crucifixion, a body that will always bear the scars of the crucifixion. Even after the resurrection, the scars still remain. To be sent as a Christian is to know that the world will not be kind to those who insist upon the way of peace, forgiveness and service to one's neighbor - and you are being sent in that way this morning. Never, ever think that your faith allows you the luxury of safety in this world - Jesus called his disciples to follow him to death, and he calls you to the same. But within that call is great mercy, for the Father who knows the danger we face also raised Jesus to show us who has the final word, and guess what? The final word does not belong to the powers of war, violence and death, but to the Creator, the Word through which it Created, and the Spirit which has now been given to you through the resurrection of Christ. The scars still remain, but they are healed and a thing of the past - so will be war, violence and death in the day of Christ that will one day come.

Peace be with you all.
From snowy Ames,
Scott

Huh...Really?

Ross provided this link for a quiz about which candidate best reflects my opinions. Now, I've been an Obama supporter for quite a while, mostly since listening to The Audacity of Hope and remembering how his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention seemed far more presidential (and no, I don't know how to define that any better than, well, presidential) than even Senator Kerry. Surprisingly, though, it seems I am most closely aligned with Dennis Kucinich. Huh? Really?

Ross asked the question about what it would be like if we, as a nation, voted our minds rather than the spin. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to do that at the moment, at least in the presidential election, because the candidates are selected by fund-raising ability rather than the quality of their ideas. There is precious little nuance in the American political system today, and unfortunately those of us who would prefer the chance to think more independently about it get hammered about throwing our votes away. In the 2006 election for Governor here in Minnesota, I voted for the person I felt was best qualified to hold the office: Peter Hutchinson, the Independence Party candidate. He seemed best able to think clearly about the challenges and opportunities facing us as a state in the future. No, I never once considered it as a "throwaway" vote: why would I even do such a thing? But, unfortunately, those of us who supported a candidate in whom we believed got blamed for "losing" the election for the Democratic candidate. I don't have any regrets. I wish we could get out of this polarizing and ultimately regressive state of things and try and find a way to govern ourselves without the brinksmanship that currently dominates American politics.

Anyway, take the quiz: I'd be interested to see if you think your result makes sense. All parties welcome - no political proselytizing from me, I promise!

This Week's Entry from the "You've Got to be F%#!ing Kidding Me!" Department

Christian protestors interrupted a Hindu prayer in the Senate last week. *sigh* Nice to see how far we've come, no?

Andy Borowitz: El Libbre!

Like many in this country, I was horrified and disgusted by the commutation of I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence by "President" George W. Bush. LutherPunk put it best when he wrote, "Yet another reason I have zero respect for that pathetic waste of flesh sitting in the oval office." Perhaps I wouldn't have chosen such strong words - but perhaps I'm also less courageous than my rockabilly friend in the South.

Whatever. The best response to these things is often humor: here's a great one.