The Sword's Double Edge ...

President Barrack Obama is articulate. He thinks rationally and expresses himself clearly. That is an important (and welcome) quality in a leader. In and of itself, however, that does not guarantee he is right.

I recall watching a friend of mine take a needle, light a match and hold the needle to it until it turned red. Then he proceeded to use the hot needle to puncture his thumbnail. He screamed in agony. It did not take him long to recover, and upon doing so he turned and gestured for me to take the needle and the matches. "Hey, Demers, why don't you try it!"

On September 11, 2001, America was victimized. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives that day. As President Obama acknowledged in his speech Tuesday evening, the world was galvanized, unified. Victims don't have to explain; but avengers do. When victims act like oppressors they quickly lose any moral capital they might have had. That's the paradox - that's the Biblical irony. Like it or not, that's the situation we have put ourselves in. I had hoped this president would have the moral fortitude to lead this great country of ours toward a new definition of "strength". I agree with Bob Herbert's November 30 column in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?em) - President Obama has chosen the politically easier path.
When I declined my friend's invitation to stick a hot needle through my thumbnail, he derided me: "What's the matter ... Are you chicken?"
Well, yes. In a manner of speaking. But I also like to think I was smart. Had I imitated his ridiculous behavior at that level, would he have expected me to incrementally follow him in an escalating series of masochistic manoeuvers? The judgment was on those who lashed out at us on 9/11. They were the real losers; not us. But I can't help but suspect they knew exactly what they were doing. The heinous deed was actually a dare. They cut off their arm with a sword, and they must have known we would not be bested - we would take up the sword as well. And in convincing ourselves we were lashing out at them, we have sliced and diced our own "moral capital" to the point where it is difficult for our enemies to find any trace of it anymore. Indeed, President Obama's eloquence notwithstanding, I'm having trouble locating it as well.

What They Told Us ...

At a conversation with people from their early-twenties to their mid-sixties, one of the most striking comments that was made - and one that nearly everyone present agreed with - was: "You have to be brave to walk into a church!"

The coming together was the result of some younger folks expressing a disconnect when they came to church on Sunday morning. When a "Home Group" of 50+ year-olds heard this, their first reaction was defensive. "How can this be?" "We love having them in church!" "Several of them are members of our Board of Trustees, or serve as ushers ..." "We have gone out of our way to make them feel welcome!" All true enough, but those realities did not alter the fact that some in our midst felt a "disconnect". So we decided to have supper together ... and talk.

There are some similarities. For example, it's not only the "young" who have to be brave; there are plenty of 50+ year-olds for whom walking into a church is a risk. The risks include the judgment of others, facing a whole host of assumptions people are making about us; and of course, there is the "style" - how we are "worshiping" (What does that word even mean - 'Worshiping'?).

Some of the things we have read in the research being done on young people and church bore themselves out. For example, it was noted that people in their 50s tend to "go" to church. People in their 20s just do it - they do church. This is not to say that older folks are not engaged in mission or acts of mercy and service. It is to say that younger people can do those things absent any felt need to attend a large gathering on a Sunday morning (or any other morning ...).

An interesting observation: Most everyone present 50+ were brought to church by their parents when they were younger. Most of the people in our youth program (teenagers) come from families where parents don't attend church, and in some cases the parents are antagonistic toward the church.

The key word, perhaps, is this: For the younger people "church" is organic rather than institutional. "Organic Spirituality" rather than "Religious Belief" - that's the paradigmatic disconnect that we are experiencing.

Another question arose from a 50+ year old: If the church is a barrier to people, what will be the point of entrance for those seeking to grow spiritually?

With relation to the Sunday Morning "experience", there are two facets - the Structural aspect ... that is, how the worship experience is scripted; and the Group Dynamic aspect ... that is, what kind of mindset people are in, how they feel about themselves and the people around them. It was noted that some people don't come to church because of who is already there.

The question: What's next? We did not arrive at a specific answer ... but I do believe there is a stronger commitment to know each other better. We acknowledge this project is essentially about God's expressed love for us through Jesus. It is essentially about our love for each other and our neighbor.

With regard to "worship" ... this coming Sunday is the First Sunday of Advent - the Christian "New Year" ... and I have an idea. I do have an idea ...

Fulcrum between Competing Priorities …

What does it take to hold one’s own when all about you “are losing theirs (head) and blaming it on you”? In politics it seems as if the “happy medium” is elusive at best, and perhaps impossible to achieve. What is the right answer with regard to Health Care? Most of the Democrats think they have it, but none of the Republicans agree – except one member of the House of Representatives (Rep. Joe Cao - R-Louisiana). There seems to be no middle ground between the competing priorities.

It wasn’t health care, however, that caught my eye today, but a word about Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. And the “word” was from David Brooks in the November 19 edition of the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp). To his – and apparently everyone else’s – surprise, Secretary Geithner’s plan to stabilize the financial system seems to be working. Brooks refers to an earlier Wall Street Journal poll of 49 economists, each asked for their opinion of Geithner; each gave him an “F”.

“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you …” We can forgive Kipling his sexism for the moment. The point Brooks was making had to do with the fact that Secretary Geithner was criticized with equal vehemence from both right and left. No one believed he could do it. The secretary “uses the word ‘balance’ a lot. He talks about finding the right balance point between competing priorities.” And if David Brooks is correct, the reason Secretary Geithner has been successful thus far is because he is “context-sensitive”. “He’s less defined by any preset political doctrine than by the situation he happens to find himself in”, says Brooks.

As a Christian I have an inbred distrust of “balance” because it smacks of being “lukewarm”. (Revelation 3:14ff.) And we all know what the Bible says about that nauseating quality. But when I think of “balance” in the sense of being “context-sensitive”, I don’t think of wishy-washy piety; I think of a radically compassionate Christ. Jesus demonstrates balance between his destination and the need at hand. Upon heading home for rest, Jesus responds to the need of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29ff). He could be in the midst of a sermon, when suddenly he is faced with a paralytic in need of healing; and so he heals (Mark 2:2ff). He could be on his way to heal a child, only to be stopped by a bleeding woman. He can’t be touched by her without power flowing from him (Mark 5:21ff).

Brooks compares Geithner to a fox, flexibly responding to the current situation. He contrasts this with hedgehogs, defined as those who are guided (and perhaps shackled?) by “a few core principles”. Politics is schizophrenic; or perhaps manic would be a more apt description. Things are either way “up”, or way “down”. Popularity polls (“Do you think the governor is doing a good job?”) vacillate more quickly than north country weather.

Daivd Brooks says these are times that call for a pragmatic approach to problems – something Secretary Geithner seems capable of bringing to the table.

“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / And treat those two impostors just the same . . .” Ah … there is the key! To recognize that your “friends” are no more your “friends” than your “enemies” are your “enemies”! Jesus put it this way: There are sheep and there are wolves. Sometimes we must be doves; sometimes we must be serpents. (Matthew 10:16.) If we will accept “triumph and disaster” for what they truly are, Kipling says: “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” If we will live with radical contextual sensitivity, Jesus assures us: “I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.” (Luke 21:15.)

With tremendous pressure to be on one side or the other, maybe the middle ground is the truest and best place to be after all. Not “lukewarm”, but delicately – and perhaps tenuously – balanced between the various competing priorities.

Loosing Chains ...

We read of soldiers returning from battle who suffer from PTSD. Now, there is speculation that a soldier who listens to the stories of returning comrades, with the intention of his listening providing a measure of comfort, has himself gone on a rampage of killing. It will be some time before the details are clear, and the actual motive or reason for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's horrific meltdown may never be known. Was it the stories he had listened to for the past six years? Was it his own fear of being deployed? Was it a personality disorder or mental condition, pushed over the edge? And, rightly or wrongly, the question is being asked of the possible connections between his actions and his religious convictions.

There is another question that needs to be asked: How much longer can the world sustain the violence of war? This is the deeper - and more critical issue - one that deserves very serious consideration. This is not about who has handguns and who doesn't. It is about the stress of violence that all of us are paying a price for.

To put it another way: It is not just the soldier; it is not just the soldier's family; it is not just the innocent civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time who becomes "collateral damage"; it's all of us. We are increasingly a society - a world - living with the immediate reality of post traumatic stress disorder. The violence the soldier experiences first hand becomes part of the national and global psyche. The stories are not about "them". Increasingly, the stories are about "us" - ALL of us. It is almost as if every action - going to school in the morning, going to the shopping center, going to work, going to church - every action is a game of Russian Roulette. Are you safe on the subway? the highway? in the cereal isle?

That President Obama has recently taken time to consider both the mission in Afghanistan as well as the method best suited to carry out that mission is a sign of hope. Whether one agrees with the politics of the president or not, the fact is that we had best be as clear as we possibly can before we subject the world to the stories that will inevitably darken the soul of us all.

I recently read about a church whose congregants are attempting to be multi-cultural / racial. The article spoke of the frustration and the pain that is part of the process. One line stands out that describes both the faith and the tenacity required of the people engaged in this church: "We would rather be together than be comfortable."

I've heard that line before; but it seems particularly apropos in this day. Is there a correlation between the continued obsession with war and the fact that not only are we in danger in the midst of our "enemies"; we are in danger when among our "friends"?

If ever we are going to be "comfortable", we are going to have to be safe together. "Loose the chains of injustice," cries the prophet Isaiah; "Set the oppressed free!" (Isaiah 58.) The challenge arises, I suppose, in identifying who is oppressed and who is oppressing; but oppression begets oppressors.

This is a sad day for our nation; but unless something fundamental changes in how we view the world, it's a day that is bound to be repeated over and over again. If we want to be loosed from the direct and residual violence of war we are going to have to make a commitment that states clearly: We would rather be together than be comfortable. Then - and only then - will we be safe.

51% ...

I am obsessed these days with the juxtaposition of information. Take, for example, this week's "The Economist". The article on health care ("But don't ask how much it costs") is followed by the article on climate change ("The road to 60"), followed by the article on homosexuality in the Lutheran Church ("Brotherly Love"), followed by an article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans ("After the storm"). What would you follow those articles with? How about the war in Afghanistan ("To surge or not to surge").

These articles all have at least one thing in common: Numbers. It's all about numbers. And the numbers are always either dollars or people ... except the people are usually reduced to percentages.

Health care: The Senate Finance Committee voted 13 to 9 in favor of the Senate-sponsored bill. The hope is to increase the number of people with insurance from 85% (currently) to 94% in 10 years. The cost: $829 billion.

Climate change: cap and trade. Is that really what we need? Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham (Democrat and Republican respectively) recently co-wrote a NY Times article headlined: "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)". More nuclear power (a nod to Republicans; a set-back for "Green Democrats"), renewed offshore drilling (a nod to conservatives; a set-back for environmentalists), and a proposed "border tax" on goods imported from countries with lax environmental standards (the language leaves room for plenty of "fudging") - All this to try to get the 60 filibuster-proof votes in the Senate for cap and trade.

Homosexuality: 1,200 Lutherans, upset about last summer's vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) to allow gays in committed relationships to serve in the clergy, gathered in Geist, Indiana to consider staying in or leaving the denomination. Here's where we start talking percentages and comparisons. 10.5% decline in membership over the past decade; a denomination more than twice the size of the Episcopalians. ("A majority of Americans oppose gay marriage ..." writes The Economist".)

New Orleans, Louisiana: Statewide unemployment percentages (lower than the national average).

Afghanistan: I had no idea it cost $250,000 a year to keep a single American soldier in Afghanistan! ("An Afghan soldier who speaks the language and can drink the water costs only a twentieth as much," says the article.) The Gallup organization tells us 48% of Americans want to send more troops to Afghanistan; 45% are opposed. Those percentages don't help the president make a popular decision.

My brain is reeling after reading these pieces. What do the numbers mean?

Here's something else I learned this week: 51% of the US population are women; but they hold only 3% of the decision-making jobs in the media. 65% of the graduates in journalism and mass communication are women. But in the past 15 years women hold 25% of the media jobs that have been created.

What percentage of any of this truly matters?

Well, one thing that might matter is this: Were there more women in the media we might be on the receiving end of an entirely different set of facts. I wonder ... would people be reduced to percentages? Would dollars give way to stories?

This is simply an observation ... the information we have been getting doesn't seem to be making a significant difference in terms of our behavior. With so few women in the decision-making media positions, I'm ready to sit at the feet of the 51%. Those of us in the "49" seem to be in a rut - in more ways than one. Or, as that old U2 song says - "We're stuck in a moment, and we can't get out of it!"

I'd be interested in hearing from folks your recommendations with regard to new streams of information from which I might drink! Any suggestions?

Another Day At The Office ...

It always leaves me wondering when I listen to the radio and hear about some natural disaster or family tragedy immediately followed by the weather report or an advertisement for cereal. Tragedy to triscuits in the blink of an eye. Maybe we are nationally ADHD, or, in order simply to survive, perhaps we have evolved such that our psyches shut down after 5.7 seconds of bad news.

On Thursday Governor Patterson announced proposed budget cuts to, among other things, education and health care. Mid-year cuts in state aid to school systems would run around 3% per district. $471 million would be cut from Medicaid and other mental health programs - including a $14 million cut to the Child Health Plus program. The governor is responding to a projected $50 billion deficit in the state budget over the next three and a half years.

Something has to be done.

The DOW is up over 10,000, pushed largely by rising oil prices. Bank of America's CEO, Kenneth Lewis, has resigned and is returning his entire 2009 salary and bonuses - not to worry, though, because he leaves with a $50 million-plus nest egg. His exit is brought on as a result of suspected impropriety and cover-ups over Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Millions come; billions go. For some, it's just another day at the office.

But for others it will mean no "After School Program", and no health care - or no payment for health care provided. It appears as if corporate executives make and lose money as quickly as we move from FOX to CNN. One hopes that politicians feel the pain more deeply, that there is some kind of existential turmoil going on before making the announcements.

With education and health care on the state chopping block - our brains and our bodies, as it were - it seems all that's left is our spirit. Can they cut that as well?

Jesus teaches that treasures can be laid up where neither moth, rust, corrupt executives, nor inept politicians can have at them. Here's hoping he's right.

Ooops ... gotta go. I'm meeting a friend for coffee.

Not Quite, Tom ...

Tom Friedman has probably forgotten more than I will ever learn, and I have read some of his books and read his column in the NY Times faithfully. Today, he let me down.

Weighing in on the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama, Friedman commends the president for receiving the prize “as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.” (Read the full culumn at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html.)

Then Friedman writes Pres. Obama's acceptance speech for him. "Peacekeeping" is done by "peacekeepers", writes Friedman, and in his recommended "acceptance speech", "peacekeepers" apparently are always soldiers.

America's military make sacrifices every day, sometimes putting their lives on the line. They deserve our support, the best equipment we can provide, and more than just a parade when they return home, often to families splintered and fractured by extended separations and the painful reality of post-traumatic stress. But our teachers put their lives on the line, too - and they deserve our support, the best equipment, and more than an apple on their desk.

Emergency medical personnel put their lives on the line ... and so do politicians. You get my point. "Peacekeeping" is not a profession. Friedman quotes the prophet Isaiah in his column today - as if to say that the challenge of convincing nations to put down their swords is solely on the shoulders of the military. He has it wrong. And Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize precisely because he refuses to look at the world's conflicts only through the lens of a rifle scope.

How long will it take us to acknowledge that guns - no matter how big - are not enough? They never were; they never will be. If stating that fact is a bruise to the military's ego, then so be it. It's not intended to be, and I'm not so naive as to assume all the world's problems can be solved at a Kum ba yah Sit-In. But much of the world reads Tom Friedman. He has earned his audience. He has challenged us to re-think corporate strategy, to take stock of our educational system, to wake up to the realities of climate change. Today he put soldiering and peace in the same bag and then he tied the knot. He did the Nobel Committee, our President, our Military - all of us - a disservice.

Tom, usually you are right on the mark. But, today ... not quite.

In An A-Ward ...

Jelveh Javaheri was sentenced to 6 months in prison for her participation in a peaceful protest on June 12, 2008. She is one of what organizers hope will be a million women, working hard for equal rights for Women in Iran. This is not her first prison sentence. She recently spent one month in prison - including 16 days in solitary confinement - because she participated in a demonstration marking International Worker's Day on May 1.

Leila Alikarami, an Iranian woman, is in London receiving the Anna Politkovskaya Award on behalf of the Million Signature Campaign. Alikarami bears witness to the fact that women have been tortured while held in detention because of their participation in the Campaign. Azar Nafisi was on hand for the ceremonies. An interesting note - Alikarami will not accept the money that accompanies this award. That would lay the Million Signature Campaign open to the criticism that they are being funded by western interests and do not reflect the opinions of the Women of Iran.

And - President Barack Obama is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. A surprise to us all! His award is given because of his words - because his words have paved the way for conversation and negotiation. He has described a vision of a "nuclear-free world"; he has attempted to open dialogue with the Muslim world and to re-start talks between Israelis and Palestinians; and - he is "re-thinking the strategy" in Afghanistan.

Maybe the operative word in that last phrase is "-thinking". President Obama's predecessor left many of us wondering: "What is he thinking!" And there were times it seemed as if he wasn't thinking at all. Now we have a president who carefully crafts his sentences, who articulates his thoughts ... well, thoughtfully.

I see a connection between these two awards - the one given to the Women of Iran and the one given to the President of the United States. They both have received awards because of words. Both are "signing on the bottom line", as it were; and we are reminded by both recipients that words matter. Azar Nafisi said the Women in Iran are a collective "weapon of mass destruction". Their names on a piece of paper are a direct threat to an oppressive regime. Their names written on the line are an indication that they are willing to go to prison, if that's what it takes, to move the ball of freedom, justice and equal rights up the field.

Barack Obama has put a lot on the line. His political future is vulnerable now to the fulfillment of dreams. And, for the US President and the Women of Iran, everything is riding on what they have said. While incredibly powerful, these words of theirs are also fragile - the fragility lies in the fact that they cannot themselves make the dream come true. Unless their words inspire us to action, not only will their dreams fade, but their very lives - politically and physically - are threatened.

We can only hope that people on the planet realize the price everyone pays if these dreams don't come to fruition. It's not only Obama and the Women of Iran who will suffer. We all will.

Missiles Down; Packages Undelivered ...

He stands in a dusty field facing a barbed wire fence and he calls the name of his son out loud. Through his binoculars he can see people three kilometers away - a crowd of people facing him. They also look across the barbed wire, and they also call out the names of their sons. This is the scene at the border between Gaza and Israel. Jews and Palestinians, with packages in hand for their sons held in each others' prisons. The packages will go undelivered. These parents can see each other, and they wave to one another.

"I fell close to my son here," says one father. "Close in distance, but far away in time. It has been twelve hundred days and nights ..." The haunting sound across the barren landscape - echoing like the Muslim Athan, like the Christian Angelus, like the Jewish Shophar - each voice in its own way a call for peace, a yearning for their sons and daughters ... dare I suggest it... Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more ..."

President Barack Obama has made the call to the appropriate heads of state in the Czech Republic and Poland - The "Missile Defense System" is not going to happen. The news brings despair to some, delight to others. The Russians have won, but can they be trusted?

People peering across borders wondering if armies will invade. And nowadays the "army" can be mustered thousands of miles away and the attack delivered in a matter of minutes, seconds. But America's president wants to put the missiles down.

Perhaps the best way for "defense" to happen - our own and our neighbors - is for all of us to put the missiles down, and deliver the packages. This won't solve all the problems. We don't have to make sentimental pretensions that everything is just fine. We don't have to reduce the complexities of the world's problems, the people's suffering, the injustices heaped upon the poor into pious euphemisms. We can still do the hard work of diplomacy, tackle the political challenges of compromise, stand our moral ground.

But really, what good can possibly be compromised and how is national pride threatened by putting the missiles down and delivering the packages?

David Brooks on Humility ...

The remembrance in Poland of the first shots of World War II was in the news recently. All these years later people still have to come to grips with what "we" did or said, and some are more humble about it than others. How much of the past should we assume responsibility for? How much of our history is my history?

Columnist David Brooks wrote a wonderful article called "High Five Nation". After hearing an old radio broadcast he writes: On V-J Day, Frank Sinatra appeared, along with Marlene Dietrich, Jimmy Durante, Dinah Shore, Bette Davis, Lionel Barrymore, Cary Grant and many others. But the most striking feature of the show was its tone of self-effacement and humility. (Read the full column at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html?em). As one of the worst slaughters in human history came to its conclusion, with technology demonstrating its power in more gruesome ways than many had imagined possible, and racism expressed more hatefully than many would ever dared to have conceived, the sentiment of the "victor" is summed up, according to Brooks, by humility.

The talk shows are abuzz with the doings of Kanye West, the speech of Michael Jordan, the outburst of Joe Wilson, and Serena Williams losing it at the USA Open. Each of these situations may be specific people acting out what all of us would like to do, but something holds us back. Something checks us before we lose it, or before we say what is really on our mind.

I find myself in situations where my primary goal is to not do something I will have to apologize for later.

I know that sometimes it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, but those are the times when we aren't really sorry for what we've done. That's different. But to be in a mindset where we are so convinced we are right that we toss sensibility to the wind, tread on people's character, threaten their physical safety, insinuate so as to destroy their reputation - that takes us beyond the "loss of civility". It takes us to the dissolution of democracy, to the brink of chaos, and to a place where all that is left is the shouting.

And then, there is President Jimmy Carter ... in his inimitable way offering a critique in a quiet voice, but with a prophetic spirit ... calling a spade a spade. Is it racism still running strong and deep within us that fuels much of the hateful rhetoric we are hearing? I think Carter's words are meant for all of us to hear.

Brooks assures us - This isn't the death of civilization. It's just the culture in which we live. He offers the glance back to that program, a day in which our greatest achievements were embraced with uncommon humility. He makes me think of another piece of my history - one that challenges me not to conform to the culture in which I live. Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but with sober judgment ... It says that pride and certainty can be inebriating, and invites me to live humbly, to love extravagantly. Some days it just seems easier to shout; but then ... there is the having to apologize later.

What We Fear ...

Here it is - one more time ... September 11. Today's NY Times has an article talking about all the things we feared would happen following the events of eight years ago. That New York would become a ghost town with soldiers in the streets and submarines in the harbor; that noone would want to live there; that people would never rent space in a sky scraper again.

In contrast to those fears, people are sitting under patio umbrellas enjoying Times Square. Security is enhanced, but the pedestrian traffic is higher in the Square now than before "9/11". And the Times article has an interesting title - Remembering A Future That Many Feared.

Those horrible days are almost overshadowed by other things ... well, in this country, by one other thing - health care reform. This week's Economist has an article called "The Politics of Death". The subtitle reads: Americans fear health reform because they fear the Reaper. The article then goes on to outline all the things people fear about "Obamacare" - death panels parceling out health care; impossible deficits; tax-payer funded abortions; life-saving treatments being denied.

With 15% of us being uninsured, most of us have health insurance. The 15% have the most to gain - potentially - from health care reform. The rest of us - most of whom have no idea what our insurance actually costs - we have something to lose. But here is the crux of the matter: No amount of health insurance would have made a difference to the 2,993 who died eight years ago today. Health care puts off the inevitable. But it does not lift the burden of our mortality.

Eight years ago today the world was reminded how fragile life is, how evil we can be, how generous many are - how frightened we can become. Sometimes we don't know what we fear until we face it. But if September 11 has taught us anything about human nature, it is this: We can live with sadness and grief, with tragic memories and crumbled dreams. We can live with the stress of economic uncertainty. We can push hard against our own mortality. We can learn to be more careful. But we can't live in fear.

There is a line from an ancient Christian Seer that is worth remembering: There is no fear in love. Eugene Peterson paraphrases the line: A fearful life - fear of death, fear of judgment - is one not yet fully formed in love. It is safe to say, I think, that we are not yet "fully formed" in love.

Maybe this is the work that must be done in this still young century - the work of alleviating fear - in our neighbors and in ourselves. Maybe today that's the best way to acknowledge and honor the memories swirling all about us. Face what we fear; deal with it; learn to love; and help others to do the same.

Laura Dekker Must Wait ...

The decision is in - 13 year old Laura Dekker will not be allowed to attempt her solo sail-around-the-world. So the Netherlands court has decided. She will be allowed to remain with her father, but a Social Services agency will be watching, pending another hearing in a couple of months.

There are several interesting ethical questions here. When is a person old enough to make decisions for her / himself? It depends on the nature of the decision ... but then, who has the authority to decide which decisions are "age-appropriate"? Is a parent in a better position to do that than a court?

In the case of Ms. Dekker, should the possible cost to society be included in the conversation? That is, should she embark on her quest to be the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe solo in a sailboat and run into trouble, needing to be rescued - is her father willing to bear the burden of the financial cost of the operation?

Along with the boundaries between adolescent pre-maturity and adult maturity (a nebulous boundary indeed), and the boundary between the authority of parents over against the courts in the life of a child, what about the boundary between adventure and foolishness? Where lies that line? Could Laura's project be put in the class of "Extreme Sport"?

As is often the case with ethical dilemmas, all the peripheral circumstances come to play to make this a most difficult situation. And, as is also true with dilemmas of this sort, there isn't a "right" answer. There is only "the best answer we can come up with for the moment".

Situations like this make me wonder: How many times do we make "right" or "wrong" judgments about circumstances that can only be given "the best we've got at the time"?

Two Challenging Situations ...

When Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter with the accompanying footnote that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven ...", it was an awesome moment. The text has various interpretations, one of which has to do with the very nature of the "authority of the church". With that interpretation in mind - that human beings are not always told what the right thing is to do, but that we have to decide - and assign - "rightness" to an action or decision, the news has given two opportunities in the past several weeks for serious ethical reflection.

The first is the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi by Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill. The second is the desire of a thirteen year old girl - Laura Dekker - from the Netherlands to circumnavigate the globe in a sailboat, solo.

Both of these situations are complicated by a number of significant factors in orbit around them - but that's what makes them so interesting. The possibilities of oil or compensation for vicitms' families that might accompany the release of the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am flight 303, and the fact of Laura's parent's divorce - Is she trying to win their admiration? - these are certainly important elements in the big picture of these issues.

In his book The Genesis of Ethics, Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky writes: "In communities that study together, their very conversation is a tool of moral development." Just talking about it makes a difference.

On the surface of it, in the first instance the conflict is between justice and mercy. In the second instance perhaps the conflict is between the individual and the community, and there is also some tension between immediate and long-term goals this young woman is setting for herself - is what she deems to be "good" for her today going to prove to be "good" for her in the long run?

Today we consider the first. In this week's The Economist, the point is made that any political concessions we might hope to gain from Libya from this act of mercy are already a reality - they no longer pursue nuclear weapons; they cooperate in the fight against al-Qaeda; they have "curtailed support for other terrorists". "Why make such a controversial concession for a prize that has already been won?" If allowing al-Megrahi the ability to die in his home surrounded by family and friends was intended to further these goals, it was misguided. If the motive was a more pure form of compassion, The Economist says: "It was misconceived."

Misconceived Mercy? If mercy is "conceived" with some alterior motive in mind, is it true mercy? Isn't the very nature of "mercy" that it is "misconceived" - that is, that it makes no sense in terms of the categories of justice? Isn't mercy simply a gift? Maybe that's what makes it so difficult to offer. As al-Megrahi was welcomed home he was treated more like a hero than a terrorist on the receiving end of compassion. Perhaps the mercy conferred upon him would be more palatable to the rest of us if he at least gave some indication that he was aware of what he had been given. But mercy is never a quid pro quo arrangement.

The real question here is not whether the Scottish justice secretary was "right" in granting al-Megrahi this "homecoming". The question is this: Do any of us have the "right" to confer mercy on another? According to the text from Matthew 16, the answer is "Yes". Now ... do we have the heart for it (or the stomach?) - that's another issue entirely.