Poverty Part 1 - Invite the Misfits

We live in the richest nation in the history of the world, with choices, comforts and luxuries that go far beyond the dreams of most people in the world. Yet the truth is, every morning in America 37 million people wake up in poverty, including 13 million children. There are 47 million people without health insurance and 13 1/2 million people are called "food insecure," meaning they live with the constant difficulty of finding enough food for all their family members. These numbers must become more than just statistics to us, because poverty is a horrific tragedy, which we as people of faith are called to work tirelessly to overcome. We must make poverty personal.

Why should it be personal and not just statistics? Because ultimately what's killing people across the globe isn't malnutrition or malaria, but indifference and apathy, which arises out of our lack of relationship, and our inexperience in walking and engaging in poor communities. I can hear people now, It's tragic over there in Africa, it really is, but we've got our own problems that we have to solve first, high gas prices, a slumping economy, the threat of terrorism, my in-laws (not mine, they're great), those damn Hispanics taking our jobs (does your skin crawl when you hear that? Mine too). But I can tell you, with the deepest of convictions--nobody who has talked to Steve Cook and Scott Hofert about their trip to Malawi last month, or seen the pictures of them holding the hands of a starving African child could ever be dismissive or indifferent about the desperation across the globe. Sitting in 1-hour rush hour traffic won't seem so bad, having to wait an hour to eat dinner at the Olive Garden just isn't that big of a deal anymore.

I think the best example of how we should approach the poor and overcoming poverty is illustrated in a dinner Jesus has with some Religious leaders (I call these guys the Religious Right). He really flips things upside down as usual. In Luke 14: "One time when Jesus went for a meal with the Religious leaders, noticing how each tried to elbow into the place of honor,he said, The next time you put on a dinner, don't just invite your friends and family and rich neighbors, the kind of people who will return the favor, invite some people who never get invited out, the misfits from the wrong side of the tracks, the poor, crippled, the lame and the blind. You'll be - and experience - a blessing. They won't be able to return the favor, but oh how it will be returned at the resurrection of God's people."

Do you notice how Jesus didn't tell us to question why they are poor or crippled, what country they originated from, or if their conditions are the result of bad choices and irresponsibility. No, he commanded us to invite the dissolute to the welcome table with no conditions. Most biblical narratives about overcoming poverty have to do with inclusion and bringing people into community and relationship. Why? Because God understands that apathy and indifference is what allows poverty to persist, not the lack of food, water or medicine. Think about it, God wants us to get to know the poor and crippled, who they are, and what's going on in their lives. This will lay the foundation for a new community in which everyone gets changed. It will change our understanding of who poor people are, what they need, and how the rest of us need to change including our values and our systems. Jim Wallis sums this up in his book, The Great Awakening, "Lack of relationship leads to lack of understanding, which creates stereotypes, myths, excuses and passivity."

This has always been hard for me. But I stepped out of my box a couple months ago. I was in Raleigh eating Sushi with some of my friends. We left the restaurant to head over to a neighboring bar and outside there was an older African-American gentleman who was asking patrons for some money so he could get a hotel for the night. My initial response was to rush past him to avoid the annoying solicitation. But I stopped and I met Calvin. I asked him where he was from and about how his day was going. He told me he was waiting to get his pay check the next day and was only $32 short to pay for a night in the hotel. I told him I didn't have any cash on me, but I would be thinking about him. I asked him where he was from and told him I hoped he could find a place to stay that night. I told him I really enjoyed speaking with him. Calvin looked at me with just a little bit more dignity in his eyes and said he really appreciates that I took the time to talk to him. Calvin could tell I wasn't judging him. I didn't assume he was less of a person just because I had just enjoyed a big meal and drinks while he suffered outside in the cold waiting for his next pay check. I believe this was much more empowering than just giving him money. I really believe I made Calvin's night a little bit better. To just ignore and judge him is cruel abandonment (the conservative way), to give him money is only making Calvin more dependent and vitually maintaining poverty (the liberal way). We need a third way - Relationship. On a much larger scale, one person at at time, this could really change lives.

TGIF - A Mental Health Break

No politics, religion, or election news. Just some K.D. Lang singing Leonard Cohen's astonishing "Halleluja."

Berryhill Elementary School

http://www.charlotte.com/408/story/631717.html

Here is a link to a story in the Charlotte Observer about Jess' school - Berryhill Elementary. I'm so proud of Jess and the work that her school does for high-risk students living in poverty. The teachers there are so dedictated and go beyond the call of duty to perform services for a part of Charlotte that is underserved in so many ways. If you come across a teacher in your daily walk, please take the time to thank them for their tireless work in making our society a better place to live.

Gay Rights - Separate but Equal?

I've been wanting to write about this topic for a while and have finally found the words to convey my feelings:

Last week the California Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, making California the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. The court held that “an individual’s sexual orientation, like a person’s race or gender, does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” This was a good day for American Democracy and for the dignity of millions of American citizens. Right now same-sex couples are denied 1,138 rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples (according to US Govt Accountability Office). A recent Gallup Poll found that the country is split 47% / 47% on whether homosexual relationships are morally acceptable, with high unacceptable numbers coming from the South and from older Americans. But, indeed the California Supreme Court is no stranger to moving ahead of public sentiment. In 1947 the court became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws, recognizing that interracial bans on marriage violated the 14thAmendment of the Constitution.

Some argue that civil unions will provide same-sex couples with the same rights as heterosexual marriages, but that marriage is a sacred union and should be reserved for one man and one woman. Sounds a lot like the separate but equal argument to me. Haven't we already settled that debate. For me the principle of equal rights is ensuring the dignity of same-sex relationships are respected and the meaning of their deepest emotions are valued on the same level as heterosexual marriages. I believe the US Constitution requires and guarantees this level of equality. Simply providing same-sex couples with the rights afforded under civil unions creates a second class citizenry. When African-Americans refused to sit at the back of the bus in the Jim Crow South, it wasn't because walking a few extra steps was a material deprivation, but because it said to the world that they were second-class citizens. A law that denies a group of citizens equal access to a public institution serves no other purpose than to declare that group to be lesser. And this is why it is nonsense to say same-sex couples can enjoy equality before the law while they are barred from taking their place in one of the most fundamental institutions in American life--Marriage. An institution recognized and certified by the State, as well as the church.

Obviously the Religious Right has trumpeted their strong opposition to a homosexual relations, claiming God ordained marriage to be between a man and a women, and to allow gay marriage, or even civil unions between homosexual partners, is to encourage willful disobedience to God's will. While I acknowledge their full right to hold this belief, and for some churches to not accept same-sex couples, I do not share this view with the Religious Right. I believe strongly that God is present in the relationships of committed same-sex couples, and has blessed their relationship with the same love, opportunities and promises he bestows upon my relationship with my wife. Some of my Christian friends question this view. However, my reassurance is not shaken by old Hebrew scripture, but reconfirmed by the image of God's love in the faces, hearts and life commitments of the same-sex relationships I have witnessed within my core group of friends and family members.

Most same-sex couples, especially those of faith, desire to be married for the same reason as heterosexuals: to make a commitment with the one they love in front of their God, family, friends and faith community, and to enter into a relationship recognized, ordained and blessed by their God. If they find a faith community that agrees their relationship is blessed by God, the State should not deny that fundamental right.

Obama's fictional "White Problem" & Republican's Real "Bush" Problem

There are two stories that emerged from last night's elections. First, Obama was defeated substantially in West Virginia where few considered to be a battleground state until Clinton declared it so last week. And secondly, the Republicans lost a third-straight special congressional election, this time in MS-01, a solid GOP seat where Bush received 62% of the vote in 2004. What is the more significant news story? The former was expected and does nothing to change the delegate math or narrative, but the latter is disastrous news for Republicans looking to prevent another November election night sweep that occurred in 2006 when Democrats gained 31 house seats and Republicans picked up none. Until Bush is out of office, this trend will continue. So while Obama still has some work to do with rural Appalachia white voters, the Republican Party’s poor brand and its voters’ lack of enthusiasm right now tell us a WHOLE lot more about the overall political climate than last night’s West Virginia results do. Republicans have a Bush problem they can't seem to shake. Possibly because their policies continue on the same destructive, obstructive, counter-productive path.

Speaking of rural Appalachia white voters, Obama hasn't exactly been winning over the hearts and minds of white Democrats in West Virginia and the rest of Appalachia. But this doesn't signify that Obama has a "race problem" and can not attract white voters. Instead of looking at the exit polls, we need to start looking at the results from the primaries and caucus for an idea of where Obama's strengths and challenges lie, specifically the significant white support he received in rural Idaho, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, North Dakota, and suburban Colorado and Wisconsin. Obama doesn't have a white working class problem, he has a white rural Appalachia problem. And that problem may just be that Clinton enjoys strong support in this region. Until the campaign turned more contentious over the last few months, most Clinton voters, according to the polls, were fine with supporting Obama. I don't think recent polls that show Clinton supporters unwilling to support Obama are a good indicator of how they will vote in November. One thing for sure is that Obama's appeal is not limited to African-Americans and higher-income, highly-educated whites. To illustrate this point, I ran across these really cool pre-West Virginia maps, which highlight the counties where each candidate has won with 65%+ of the vote. Obama on the left and Clinton on the right:










It would be great if pundits and politicos would recognize and acknowledge that race doesn't appear to have been much of a hindrance for Obama in the Democratic primaries, except, it appears, in Appalachia and in some regions where descendants of Appalachian migrants settled, such as the Ozarks (Clinton home state) and Oklahoma. Obama doesn't appear to have much of a problem with white voters. But it seems quite likely Appalachia has a bit of an Obama problem.

What will prove to be very intriguing is how the recent Edwards endorsement and eventual Clinton endorsement will help to ease this voter disconnect. I'll tackle in future posts what this will mean in individual states come the McCain vs. Obama general election.

Burma - A Race Against Time

I've been trying to follow the devastating situation in Myanmar (Burma), a country of about 55 million people located in southeast Asia between India, China and Thailand. As most know, on May 3, 2008, the powerful Cyclone Nargis struck the densely populated, rice-farming, Irrawaddy delta. The storm flooded nearly 2000 villages, with recent reports suggesting 120,000 people are dead or missing with 1.7 million people displaced. The U.N. estimates that more than 1 million people are homeless and thousands of children left orphaned.

The Burmese are used to bad news. The person who should be their prime minister, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning, pro-democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under house detention or in prison off and on for 18 years. The brutal 500,000 soldier military junta has repeatedly proved that it has no intention of relaxing its iron-fisted rule, ruling their people by fear, denying a whole nation its most basic human rights. The people of Burma overwhelmingly rejected military rule yet the military continues to refuse to transfer power to Burma's democratically elected leaders.

The junta generals are so corrupt and hell-bent on keeping the country on lock-down, that they didn't even have an early-warning system in place to warn the citizens of the impending storm. I read an AFP news article in which Indian Meteorological Department spokesman B.P. Yadav said his department had warned the Burmese authorities of the coming cyclone. According to Yadav, "Forty-eight hours before Nargis struck, we indicated its point of crossing [landfall], its severity and all related issues to Myanmarese agencies."

Of course the horror of this situation does not end there. Not only did the criminal junta fail to warn the citizens of the approaching storm, but we have seen the regime continue their corrupt behavior, approving only $5 million for aid, even though the government receives 2.7 billion a year from oil revenue.

Perhaps the most disconcerting news for the millions struggling in the area is the obstruction by the regime, which continues to hamper the relief effort by delaying visas for aid workers. A delay motivated by the regimes intent to keep its people from coming into contact with foreign workers. However, time is of the essence, early estimates indicate 20% of children in the delta region are suffering from diarrhea. There were reports of families wading through water searching for loved ones amongst the corpses, further spreading disease. The regime must stop blocking the relief effort, 1.7 million people in flooded areas are having to cope with this disaster alone. Millions of dollars have already been pledged for relief if only it can be delivered directly to those who need it. That, it seems clear, will take some blend of cajoling of and pressure on the junta to save their own people. The international community cannot stand by and let this happen. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon must go to Burma and insist that aid teams have unrestricted access immediately.

Two good sites to visit for information about the situation are Democratic Voice on Burma and Campaigning for Human Rights and Democracy in Burma. The latter contains a short list of organizations accepting donations for cyclone relief.

People sit at the flooded roadside, four days after the devastating cyclone Nargis, at the outskirts of the capital Yangon, Myanmar

Behold The End is Near

Don't worry the title does not represent a post predicting the end of the world and the return of Jesus. I'm of course talking about the Democratic nomination.


Ever since Obama's 11-state run in February and Clinton's failure to make up any significant ground during the VT, OH, TX, RI (VOTR) primaries on March 3, many of us have argued that the delegate math made Obama's lead insurmountable. Clinton was unable to win over any of Obama's demographic support and failed to put together the mounting victories she needed to match Obama's February winning streak and convince super delegates that Obama was unelectable. Despite the reality of the math, it took a while for this point to penetrate the national media. Math is rather boring compared to the drama of "the candidate on the ropes," "comeback kid," "Obama's failure to issue a knock out blow" and of course the zany, sidekick character played by a fiery, unpredictable, wacky Rev. Wright. Nevertheless, Tuesday's results made it clear that Clinton's run for the nomination is coming to an end. The reality of the math has penetrated the national media narrative as never before. As Tim Russert said early Wednesday morning as the results came in, "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be." A very bold statement from the national news media.

Fundamentally, nothing has really changed. The delegate lead and popular vote margin are basically the same as before Pennsylvania and neither Obama nor Clinton made any movement with regards to ciphering base support from each other. Nonetheless, the campaign is coming to and end because not only is the math against Clinton, but the opportunity for her to shift the momentum and change the game has ended. Clinton is faced with a scenario where she would have to win 75% of the remaining pledged and super delegates, and this is true only if the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated in her favor. Clinton just isn't going to put together a string of victories like that. She can't overtake Obama's lead unless there is a mammoth scandal or breakdown in the Obama campaign that causes all the super delegates to deflect and support Clinton. To use an annoying football analogy, Clinton had the ball, down by 10, with 2-minutes left, but failed to make a series of completions to remain in the game. Tuesday night the ball was turned over on downs and Obama simply has to take a knee and let the clock run out to end the game. (That was an awesome sports analogy).

So here is what I hope to see moving forward:

Clinton certainly has no obligation to drop out. In fact a gracious exit on her part, rather than a forced exit by super delegates before the primary season ends is preferred. Clinton is still up big in West Virginia and Kentucky, and to avoid the awkwardness of Obama losing a state despite being the sole candidate and presumptive nominee, it is probably best for the party if Clinton stays in the race until Obama has officially won the nomination. However, Clinton and her strategist must come to the reality that Obama's nomination is inevitable and discontinue all negative attacks against Obama. The Clinton campaign must change their tone towards attacking McCain and finding a way to convince her base support that Obama is capable of leading this nation. Clinton can play a huge role in coalescing the party behind Obama.

The Obama campaign needs to shift gears and focus on putting together their general election strategy and operation. One of the greatest benefits of the long, drawn out fight for the nomination was the great ground organizations laid in states like Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana. Over 1.25 Million Indianans voted Tuesday for Clinton or Obama in the Democratic Primary. In 2004, John Kerry received only 969,000 votes in Indiana...in the general election. Anyone who thinks Democrats are not fired up about taking back the White House, simply isn't paying attention. The long, drawn-out, spirited race for the Democratic nomination has helped get voters mobilized in states typically not involved in the nomination process. This will pay dividends in November in swing states.

Obama must start focusing on defining McCain. Ever since Texas and Ohio, Obama has not been successful in defining and setting the tone of the campaign. He has had to respond to attacks about his patriotism, religion, pastor, electability, and experience. Politics 101 - You can't win elections unless you successfully define your opponent. The Obama campaign and progressive organizations need to make a concerted effort to change the tone of the debate, so its not about responding to attacks on Obama's character, values and experience, but focus on his message of change and hope and defining McCain as 4-more years, a continuation of Bush policies, specifically with regards to his support of the Iraq war, economic ignorance and failure to tackle hard issues like health care, education and the environment. That is the formula for victory in November.

God's Party

I read something pretty cool this weekend that I wanted to share with everyone. Here's my attempt to summarize:

Jesus often compared the Kingdom of God to parties, feasts and banquets - a street party to which everybody is invited. I believe God invites people to leave their workaholism and rate race, loneliness and isolation and come to a party, to leave their exclusive parties and join inclusive parties celebrating goodness and love of God. To stop fighting or complaining or hating or competing and join a party. I came across a true story told by Tony Campolo that I think illustrates the inclusivity of God's Party.

Tony was in another time zone and couldn't sleep, so well after midnight he wandered down to a doughnut shop where, it turned out, local hookers also came at the end of a night of turning tricks. There he overheard a conversation between two hookers. One named Agnes, said, "You know what? Tomorrow is my birthday. I'm gonna be 39." Her friend said "So what d'ya want from me, a birthday party? Huh? You want me to get a cake and sing happy birthday to you?" Agnes replied, "Aw, come on, why do you have to be so mean? I'm just saying its my birthday. I don't want anything from you. I mean, why should I have a birthday party? I've never had a birthday party in my whole life. Why should I have one now?"

When they left, Tony got an idea. He asked the shop owner if Agnes came in every night, and when he replied that she did, Tony invited him into a surprise birthday for Agnes. The shop owner's wife even got involved. Together they arranged for a cake, candles and typical party decorations for Agnes, who was, to Tony a complete stranger, and to the shop owner, just another patron. The next night when she came in, they shouted, "Surprise," and Agnes couldn't believe her eyes. The doughnut shop patrons sang, and she began to cry so hard she could barely blow out the candles. When the time came to cut the cake, she asked if they'd mind if she didn't cut it, if she could bring it home--just to keep it for a while and savor the moment. So she left, carrying her cake like a treasure.

Tony led the guests in a prayer for Agnes, after which the shop owner told Tony he didn't realize Tony was a preacher. He asked what kind of church Tony came from, and Tony replied, "I belong to a church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes at 3:30 in the morning." The shop owner said, "No you don't. There ain't no church like that."

I feel fortunate that Watershed is a church like that.

What are our attitudes towards those that have made bad decisions in life. Are we inclusive with our acts of kindness, or are these acts conditional upon what choices people have made that are in need?