Christian Freedom

Today's column in the Grand Haven Tribune. 

For quite a while now I have been concerned about what some Christians seem to think religious freedom entails in our country. Over the past few years increasingly people seem to think religious freedom is the freedom to force others to follow your own personal religious beliefs, or those of your organization or company. This is people claiming, for instance, that they shouldn't have to bake cakes for same-sex couples if they object to that sort of marriage—even though I've yet to see a baker refuse to bake cakes for an opposite-sex couple whose marriage might not meet their same moral qualifications. We see businesses and corporations insisting that they should be able to make decisions about what sort of medical needs are and are not covered under insurance, not given the religious conscience of their employees but given the religious conscience of the owners of the organization or the Board of Directors.

And, as I've said over and over again, religious freedom isn't about telling other people how they should live, religious freedom is about the choices you make in your own life.

But during this coronavirus pandemic the claims of religious freedom have taken a truly insidious and dangerous turn, with people insisting that it infringes upon their religious freedom to require them to wear a mask or maintain social distance or not hold in person worship services… Even when doing all of those things would literally kill people.

And so, this week I want to break the myth of religious freedom in our country, particularly for the follower of Christ.

There is a group in Ottawa County right now calling itself “Ottawa Values,” they claim to exist to uphold the values of Ottawa County residents and to protect families from government overreach. They are encouraging people in our county to write letters to the Ottawa County Commissioners and helpfully provide a sample of what they suggest you should say to our Commissioners.

They insist that the Ottawa County Health Department is inflicting harm upon them and upon parents and children in our county by not allowing parents, businesses, and Christian schools to exercise their “constitutional rights.” They say that this is not reflective of Ottawa County's traditional values and urge the commissioners to direct the health department to stop interfering with their God-given rights. They claim the citizen simply want to exercise their God-given rights to raise their families in the manner they deem best.

And I don't know if I've ever read a message from a group of Christians that has made me more angry and more embarrassed to be associated with these sorts of people. Nearly 300,000 people have died in our country. Just last week, I donned full protective gear so that I could enter the ICU and hold the hand of the priest associate at my church while he died from COVID-19. 

Health officials around our country are trying to stop a deadly and dangerous disease and some Christians are upset because they think this is an intrusion upon the rights.

So, let's be clear. Religious freedom is not your freedom to live life the way you want to when the choices you want to make will result in the death of other people. That has nothing to do with the message of Jesus. Religious freedom is not lying to the government about whether or not your school is following proper health guidelines. Religious freedom is not putting people into an enclosed space so that a deadly virus can easily infect and murder people who were trying to worship God. And shame on those Christians who would claim this is what religious freedom looks like.

One of the best descriptions of religious freedom in the Bible comes from Philippians chapter 2, where St. Paul urges Christians, “In humility, regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.” He goes on to urge those who would follow Jesus to put on the mind of Christ, to empty themselves, to be willing to take the form of a slave, to give up everything that is supposedly rightfully yours so that other people might find life.

Religious freedom for the Christian is a commitment to be a servant of the love of God and love of neighbor. And in the middle of this vicious and dangerous pandemic the best way to love your neighbor is by wearing a mask and staying 6 feet away from your neighbor, by not being in an enclosed space with your neighbor. To put it simply, the best way to love your neighbor is to ensure you don't do anything that might kill your neighbor.

So, if you are a follower of Jesus who believes that religious freedom as a Christian compels you to forgo your own rights in service to the oppressed and the vulnerable, maybe write a different letter this week. Maybe write a letter to the health department thanking them for using the best of science and medicine to save lives. Maybe write a letter to your pastor, thanking her or him for trying to be careful and keep people safe when others are encouraging reckless behavior. 

Or maybe, if you're one of those Christians who signed onto this so-called letter from Ottawa Values before you truly thought it through, write another letter rescinding what you wrote. Otherwise, you're going to have to write a few letters of apology to families who died because you thought religious freedom was getting your own way. And for the Christian, that's never what religious freedom means. 

It is Time to Move from the Symptom to the True Sickness of our Country

Below is today's column in the Grand Haven Tribune. 

It is always a little tricky to write a column that you know won’t be published for a couple of days. That’s been particularly true this year, given the pace at which things have changed even within a forty-eight-hour period. But this column, in particular, submitted the day before Election Day and scheduled to be published the day after Election Day, required some deeper pondering than most.

In the end, though, I think that what needs to be said in our common life will remain true no matter who is elected on Tuesday, November 3. Indeed, by the time you read this column, it is very likely we still won’t know who the winner of the election is. I hope that is not the case, I hope the election is decisive and the candidate who loses concedes gracefully. But we all know that a very different set of events could play out.

But here is where I am, after four years of President Trump.

President Trump has not been the problem.

Don’t get me wrong, I have profound disagreements with President’ Trump’s administration. I believe he is unfit for office, that his administration is perhaps the most corrupt in history, and that his rhetoric and the way he has exercised his authority has eroded much of what actually makes this country great.

But he is not the problem. And that means that if he loses this election, we will have a problem. And if he wins, we need to dig even more deeply into the real problems that face this country.

President Trump is a symptom of a deep sickness that is currently infecting much of the world and much of the United States, a sickness not as deadly as the coronavirus, but one that also has dead bodies at its feet. For far too long, we have not dealt with festering issues in our country and Trump’s presidency has been the raising up of all those issues, embodying them in a man who would do anything to get and maintain power, including take all the worst of America into himself.

But, even then, he’s not the problem.

The problem, my fellow citizens, is that we have become a country that seems to thrive on hate. For years politicians have used hatred and fear of the other to stoke the passions of the public and secure power and control. This is as old as the Republic itself.

But hatred seems to have become woven into the very identity of so many of our citizens. This is true in some relatively easy to point out ways—the resurgence of white-supremacy, for example. The epidemic of violence against people of color by law enforcement—and the refusal of a good portion of our society to hear their cries begging for their lives—has been shameful. The scapegoating of immigrants has made those who came here to find a better life sometimes afraid to leave their own home.

This hatred is also evident in the rise in hate crimes against LGBTQ people. In 2018, the last year for which the FBI has data available, there was a 15% increase since 2016 in hate crimes against people due to their sexual orientation. Even more unsettling, there was a 42% increase in hate crimes against people due to their gender identity, whether they were transgender or simply gender non-conforming.

Don’t get me wrong, hatred knows no political ideology. We have certainly an increase in those driven to the edges of both parties, with some of those on the right hating those on the left, calling them communists who are trying to destroy America… and some of those on the left hating those on the right, calling them fascists and traitors to the American dream. And while those claims may be true for segments of each party, they are not representative of the parties as a whole—at least not when it comes to the majority of Americans who claim those parties for their own political identity.

So, there are two things we need to do. First, we need to come together—those on the right and those on the left—and start getting serious about building a better America than the one we have contributed to over these past four years. If President Trump retains power, then we must refuse to give in to his desire to stoke hatred and violence. Since he will not face another election after this one, hopefully leaders in the Republican party would be a little less beholden to him. If Vice-President Biden captures the election, we need to get serious about undoing the damage of these past four years—not only the damage to our nation, but the damage even to the Republican party itself.

We must come together because the first hatred I mentioned, the hatred and violence against people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ Americans, this hatred and violence must be stopped. Opposing this hatred and violence with every ounce of our being must become a bipartisan issue, one in which we can all work together to tell those who would participate in these kinds of hatred and violence that there is no place for this in the America we love.

President Trump has been like a bad cough, an obvious symptom that something is wrong. But no matter who wins the 2020 election, we must stop focusing only on the symptom and start getting to the heart of the sickness which infects our country. If we don’t, I fear America never will be the great country imagined by so many of us. If we don’t, I fear continued decline is inevitable.

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.

Marriage Equality in the Cross-Hairs of SCOTUS

Below is my column as printed in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune. 

On Monday, we had the first gathering of the Supreme Court without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and things are already going downhill. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a petition from Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, insisting that it was her religious liberty which enabled her to make that choice. While the Supreme Court declined to hear the Davis’s case (which means the rejection of her claims of qualified immunity by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit stands), two justices used the case to take aim at the Obergefell v. Hodges decision which brought marriage equality to our nation. 

In the opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas (and joined by Justice Samuel Alito), Thomas claimed that Obergefell was an unconstitutional bypass of the democratic process. Thomas insisted that Davis was a “devout Christian” and “one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion its Obergefell decision.” He continued, “Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy.” 

As a Christian priest and as an American citizen, I am distraught to see two justices on the highest court in the land making such a spurious argument. Marriage equality does not force anyone to alter their religious beliefs, it simply says you cannot inflict your religious beliefs on others. 

During the oral arguments for Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia asked the counsel for the LGBTQ couples whether conservative churches would be forced to celebrate same-sex marriages. She was explicit that the Free Exercise Clause would always protect churches from that kind of interference. Both Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor agreed and  no one objected to this consensus. That understanding was reiterated by Justice Kennedy when he wrote the opinion in Obergefell. 

What Obergefell did do was remove the ability of the government to exclude same-sex couples from the rights and privileges of legal marriage. And, since Obergefell, courts have generally (though not consistently) agreed that non-religious business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. Even when the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had showed anti-religious bias in their sanctions of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, they did not rule on the larger question of whether a business is allowed to invoke religious objections and refuse service to LGBTQ persons. 

Baking a cake for a couple doesn’t mean you personally support their marriage. It just means you are providing a service to the general public, which means you cannot discriminate and refuse service on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability or—in many states—sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. To be refused service for who you are or who you love is a dehumanizing and demeaning action. I sincerely doubt that any baker does a moral inventory of a straight couple’s marriage before deciding to work with them. 

The history of religious exemptions from civil rights laws is an embarrassing one cor Christianity. Christian business leaders have claimed that they should be able to pay women less because men are the head of the household. Christian business leaders refused service to people living with HIV because they believed they were sinful. Christian business leaders insisted they had the right to segregate service between black and white Americans. Thankfully, the courts have rejected these claims.

Three years ago, our current President signed an executive order encouraging federal agencies to amend their regulations to allow for religious objections to women’s healthcare needs. His administration continues to trumpet the idea of religious liberty being the freedom of religious people to tell other people how to live their life. And, without Justice Ginsburg on the court, and with a nominee like Amy Coney Barrett, the future of marriage equality and LGBTQ rights is on the line. Barrett has criticized the Obergefell decision. She has suggested Title IX should not project transgender students. She has even intentionally misgendered them in her language, a rhetorically violent act against a transgender person. 

I am deeply concerned for the religious freedoms of the LGBTQ members of my own parish, St. John’s Episcopal Church. I am concerned the court might not only take away their right to be married, but will also embolden conservative Christians to discriminate against them in housing, restaurants, and commerce. As a priest in a church that believes LGBTQ Christians and their marriages have enriched our common life, and as an American who believes no one should be able to use their religion to discriminate against someone, I hope that Barrett’s nomination will not be confirmed. And if she is confirmed, I hope that Americans who believe in real religious liberty will raise up and demand equality for our LGBTQ siblings.

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.  

Paying the Cost of the Sins of Systemic Racism

Below is my column published in the Grand Haven Tribune this week. 

During our parish’s Lectionary Bible Study this past week, we discussed the story of the deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea in Exodus 14:19-31. This was that moment, memorialized by movies like The Ten Commandments and Prince of Egypt when the Hebrew Slaves were faced with the Red Sea in front of them and an Egyptian army in hot pursuit behind them. God divided the waters so the Israelites could pass through on dry land, finally finding safety and freedom. He then sent those same waters crashing down on the Egyptian army, eliminating the threat Egypt posed to the liberation of God’s people.

There is a somewhat disturbing line near the end of the story, “Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.” I know I never imagined that picture when I was told this story in Sunday School, bloated and drowned bodies of Egyptian soldiers washed up on the seashore.

The line provoked a discussion among us about how complicit the Egyptian soldiers were in the slavery of the Hebrews and the hard heart of Pharaoh. Did God really need to kill them all? It seemed to some of us to be profoundly violent.

And yet, for hundreds of years the children of Israel were enslaved by the Egyptians. For hundreds of year every Egyptian profited and lived a better life because of the brutal oppression of the Hebrews. Every Egyptian had some culpability, then, in this communal sin. And when the Egyptian army decided to try to continue the oppression even longer, by seeking to take the Hebrews captive once more, they were all killed for their obstinance. Their death in the Red Sea only happened as a consequence of their refusal to let the Hebrews go, their refusal to turn from their sin and oppression.

This all reminded me of one of the most powerful sections in Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. This is a long quote, so bear with me:

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

From Lincoln’s perspective, the horror and violence of the Civil War were the consequences, the justice, because of the centuries of enslavement. And if the violence needed to continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then that is what justice might need to look like.

And I wonder if in our own time, the violence and unrest we are seeing is a similar truth. The violence we are seeing is the cost of our own sins of racism, of the Jim Crow south, of redlining which perpetuated segregation, of all the ways our country has systemically sought to oppress and devalue the bodies of our citizens of color. I wonder if, to paraphrase Lincoln, these protests will continue “until every drop of blood unjustly drawn by a white person is paid by another drawn by a protestor.”

I hope this is not the case. Indeed, I want to be quick to point out a report came out this week from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and the Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) at Princeton University which found that 93% of the racial protests since the death of George Floyd have been entirely peaceful and non-destructive. And there is increasing evidence that much of the violence has been either from outside far right agitators (as happened in Grand Rapids) or was precipitated by a violent police response to a protest that had previously been non-violent.

Regardless, though, there is a cost. There is a cost our nation will pay as long as we continue to treat black bodies as inherently dangerous, as long as they are more likely to be imprisoned or killed by police than white people. There is a cost to our nation as long as we continue to draw false equivalencies between far-right racist rhetoric and those who are rising up against increasingly fascist realities in our country. There is a cost to our nation as long as we don’t seek actively to become not color-blind but anti-racist, to actively engage in the practice of identifying, challenging, and changing the values, structures and behaviors that perpetuate systemic racism.”

God will bring salvation. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jrd., said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But there must be justice before there can be salvation; there must be justice before there can be peace. And sometimes that justice is experiencing the painful consequences of our own sin—including the sin of being complicit in systemic racism—so that we might be moved to turn.

Even now, bodies are washing up on the shore of our own proverbial Red Sea as our country continues barely to tolerate protestors, much less be willing to make hard changes to bring justice about. I hope that we, as a country, will turn from this sin soon so that justice can be wrought and peace may yet be found.

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.

On the Care of Pastors During a Pandemic

Below is my column in today's issue of the Grand Haven Tribune. You can also access it on their website online here.

One of the greatest gifts to me during this pandemic, as a priest, has been the kindness and  support of my parishioners. 

Like many pastors (and many of you your own fields, for that matter), since things closed in March, I have been learning countless new skills for which I was not trained in seminary. I now understand how to read data on epidemic spread. I know what the “r naught” factor is and how that  helps me understand the spread of a virus. I have learned how to run streaming software, what a streaming key is, how to adjust sound on a soundboard so that what is heard inside the church and on the stream is different. Most importantly, I’ve learned that all my plans must be tentative and I need to be able to quickly adapt to new situations and ways of doing church. 

I have also had to learn to be gentler with myself. I tend to hold the world, the church, and my own work to pretty high standards (I’m an Enneagram One, if you are familiar with that typology). That means I try to plan carefully to ensure everything goes exactly the way it should go. However, implementing technology for streaming worship at home… and then at the church… and then outside the church, while also finding ways for my members to virtually connect has meant that it takes quite a while before a liturgy or church offering feels as seamless as I would like it to be.

Like all of us, I’m faced with the fact that sometimes there is no easy and good answer to the problems facing us. What sorts of restrictions will provide sufficient risk mitigation to enable ministry to continue? How much handwashing or sanitizer is needed? When worshipping outside, how essential are masks and how do I best ensure people feel connected to one another even while socially-distancing? Not being able to find exact and definite answers, for someone like me, is tremendously difficult.

And after all the hard work is put in, when I still cannot get the streaming software to work on a Sunday morning, or when I cancel a decision to start allowing in-person attendance at worship in the building, or when I accidentally curse under my breath (not realizing my mic is still hot) during the Great Vigil of Easter… in all of these experiences, my parishioners at St. John’s have been nothing but supportive, forgiving, and full of encouragement and mercy. 

My own parishioners know I’m trying my hardest and that our volunteers are trying their hardest. They know that while we may disagree on a host of questions related to this pandemic, in the end decisions must be made with imperfect information. They know that sometimes we must choose between a bad decision and a seemingly equally bad decision, trying to mitigate risk as best as we can. They continue to provide honest, clear, and helpful feedback, but always in a way that is supportive and full of love.

Though each congregational context differs, I know from my friendships with several other pastors in the area that they are feeling the same stresses and struggles that I am—if not more. And my heart breaks at the criticisms some of them have received, people who have left their churches angrily, with hurtful words directed at a pastor who is trying so very hard to be faithful to God and their membership during a global pandemic. 

A study by the Barna Group from late May found that nearly 70% of pastors feel overwhelmed by their vocation during this pandemic. One-in-five has frequently felt lonely. In 2016, two thirds of pastors felt more confident in their calling than when they entered ministry, now that number has dropped to less than one-third. Given how much more difficult things have become in the world and in the church since late May, I would imagine those numbers are not much better now. In fact, they are likely worse. 

So, what I want to say is this. If you are a church-going person, try to go easy on your pastor in these months ahead. Things will likely get more difficult for us all as the weather gets colder. With school re-openings and more people spending time together, infection rates are starting to climb once more, presenting us all with hard decisions. 

Don’t get me wrong. Give your pastor your honest feedback. Let them know how your church can help you grow in this difficult time. But try to do it in a way that is seasoned with love, mercy, and grace. Let your pastor know, even when they make a decision you disagree with (particularly when they make a decision you disagree with), that you will continue to pray for their leadership, that your support is not dependent upon perfection. 

There are also some ways you can be helpful to your likely already burdened and worn-out pastor. Insist they take their vacation time, even if that means the quality of the church stream or the outdoor worship might suffer for a week. Insist they have at least one sabbath day for family. Encourage them not to take their work home, but to make time for recreation and family. Let them know that you know everything cannot be perfect—but that what you want most importantly is for your pastor to be healthy, connected to God and the church, and able to offer up the best they have to God’s work in this world. 

The people at my parish have been amazing in all of these regards and it has made all the difference. I’m definitely still worn out at times. I get overwhelmed or depressed about the prospect of how long it will be before I can experience the robustness of church as it is meant to be. Their kindness and support, however, has made all the difference. Your kindness and support to your pastor will mean the world to them, too.

And if you’re not a churchgoing person? Well, this is a great time to look around. With so many streaming and outdoor options out there, you can safely begin to explore a faith community where you can thrive. And who knows, you might wind up being someone who feeds and nourishes your new pastor just as much as they nourish you. 

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com. 

Clear plan to protect local teachers, students desperately needed

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune (online at their website here).

Earlier this week, the Grand Haven Area Public School district (GHAPS) released their plan for school this fall. 

In response to surveys from parents, the district is offering two options. One option is in-person learning that may have to return to at-home remote learning, if needed. The other option is an entirely online learning environment run by an outside organization and taught primarily by GHAPS teachers. The options look to be similar in the Spring Lake district when that plan is released, likely sometime this week. 

The first thing I want to say is that I do not envy the task of the school boards of Grand Haven or Spring Lake, nor do I envy the decisions the administrations in those districts must make. Making  difficult decisions that will impact thousands of families, which involve possible life or death realities, in the midst of a global pandemic and a rapidly changing landscape of news and developments is massively difficult. Making these decisions for my own parish here in town, St. John’s Episcopal Church, has been hard. I cannot imagine what it is like on a school district level.

My concern, however, is with how the plans for social distancing will be put into place for each building. Those are beginning to be released for each building but there are no district-wide standards. For example, in the high school there will be three classes a day to reduce passing time in the hall and limit turnover in student to teacher contact but no reduction in students in the building in any given day. Face coverings will be required in all buildings—though, oddly enough not during physical education at Lakeshore, indicating that there will be physical education this fall. If there is, studies have shown that six feet of distance is not enough during physical exertion. 

The lack of clear and district-wide standards for what in-person learning means that we are already seeing very different decisions being made by different buildings. While each building is different, and what each age group can accomplish varies, the lack of district-wide requirements (for example, no in-person singing or physical exertion without significant distance, all plans must require at least six feet of distance between students, no large group gatherings, etc.) is making it difficult for parents to make decisions about whether to return and only increasing the anxiety of our educators.  

The GHAPS Superintendent, Andrew Ingall, has said that there is a priority for staff and student safety. I absolutely believe that is his goal. I hope the district will look to other schools in state and country and put together a district-wide articulation of clear requirements for in-person learning that makes that priority evident and clear.

After all, one of the other reasons we have some of the best districts in the state is because of our teachers. One of the biggest problems in this national conversation about schools reopening is a lack of attention to the risks teachers will face returning to in-person instruction, the risks that their families will face given the particularly high rates of asymptomatic transmission among children and teenagers. We must make sure our teachers know that they are not seen as childcare so parents can get back to work, but that they are an essential part of our children’s lives and development and that their safety—given that their risks are much higher than the children they will instruct—is of the highest importance.

When plans are developed for each individual building, there need to be clear articulations of just how social distancing is going to be achieved. Many schools are alternating school days or schedules, so that there will not be the same amount of people in the building as in normal times. Depending on what in-person enrollment numbers look like, I am not sure how students will be able to be spaced six-feet apart in classrooms that are already full. Some indications are that a three-foot rule might be followed instead in the districts, but no explanation for how that is a safe decision. Administrators right now seem just to be hoping that lower in-person enrollment will make distancing possible. But hope is not enough in times like this.

There needs to be a clear articulation of plans for designated entrances and exits, closing off common space (or repurposing it so that teachers can properly distance their students), floor markings to direct foot traffic. Ideally, there should be upgrades made to ventilation to ensure we are not just spreading an airborne virus throughout the building and also upgrades to the restrooms to limit contact. Cafeterias cannot continue as they did before—which would basically be large crowds of people dining in person, a sure way to pass along the virus. Some buildings (like Lakeshore) have made plans to address this, but there is not district-wide consistency on activities like this which have been demonstrated to pose significant risk of viral transmission.

More than two-hundred and fifty employees were not able to return to work in Georgia’s largest school district. Another school in Indiana had to shift to online learning after only two days of being open. Three students in Mississippi tested positive at one school within the first week of return. However we return to in-person learning in our area, my hunch is that we will shut back down after not that much time. The question is how much risk will teachers and students be exposed to during that time we are in-person. 

If our local districts are going to resume in-person learning this fall, the plan for how we will protect the health of our children and our teachers must be more than a promise of social distancing with no indication how it can be achieved. I hope those plans are articulated soon, with attention to districts who have already identified ways to achieve these goals. We must not jeopardize the lives of our teachers in a rush to get kids back in school. 

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.  

A nation burns after the winter of our delay

Below is my column in today's issue of the Grand Haven Tribune.

It seemed that circumstances in our country could not get more difficult, more tense and more painful.

Over the past several months, we have sought to survive under a pandemic that has claimed over 100,000 lives, infected nearly 2 million people and raised the unemployment rate to a Depression-era 14.7 percent. The advice of medical experts has been rejected in an unprecedented and partisan manner by many people, turning following the advice of doctors and epidemiologists into a political litmus test.

It seemed that circumstances could not get more difficult.\

Then a deli in Minneapolis called the police because they believed the $20 bill that a patron, George Floyd, was using to buy his dinner was counterfeit. Eventually, four officers in total responded to this incident. Police have said that Floyd resisted and that he “appeared to be under the influence.” A security camera from a nearby restaurant shows two officers removing him from the vehicle, handcuffing him and bringing him to the sidewalk where they sit him down. After a third officer arrives, they bring him to a vehicle but he fell to the ground. The officers have claimed he intentionally fell to the ground to avoid getting into the police vehicle, but the video does not clearly show this to be the case.

Then, while handcuffed and lying on the ground, Officer Derek Chauvin pressed his right knee against Floyd’s neck – an illegal police procedure – while casually keeping his left hand in his pocket. Former police officers and use-of-force experts have criticized the knee on Floyd’s neck and the casual postures as horrific and a blatant disregard of police procedure.

Officer Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds. During that time, Floyd repeatedly told the officer, “Please” and “I can’t breathe.” You can hear him moaning, groaning and sobbing. Bystanders urged the police to let him go, to get him into the back of a car, anything.

Floyd told Officer Chauvin, “I’m about to die.” In response, Officer Chauvin told him to relax. The police asked what he wanted and he said, “Please, the knee in my neck, I can’t breathe.” After a bit more time, Floyd cried out, “Mama!” He said, “My stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts.” He asked for water, and was given none. There is no indication of the police saying anything to Floyd’s cries for help, including when he begs them, “Don’t kill me.”

Floyd then went silent and became unresponsive. After he was unresponsive, Officer Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s next for another two minutes and 53 seconds. He did not remove his knee until an emergency service (EMS) vehicle arrived, at which point EMS placed Floyd’s unresponsive body on a stretcher. Contrary to the preliminary results from the official autopsy, which said underlying conditions had been at fault, an independent one has now determined asphyxiation as the cause of death.

George Floyd now joins an uncomfortably long list of names. Sean Reed. Breonna Taylor. Michael Brown. Philando Castile. Botham Jean. Alton Sterling. Sandra Bland. Atatiana Jefferson. Freddie Gray. Tamir Rice. Keith Childress. Stephon Clark. Aiyana Stanley-Jones. Walter Scott. Antwon Rose Jr. Keith Scott. Jonathan Ferrell. Jordan Edwards. Amadou Diallo. Sean Bell. Terrence Crutcher. John Crawford. Oscar Grant. Corey Jones. All of these people had their lived ended by police officers. They had no due process. Many were innocent of any wrongdoing.

Furthermore, white people and their fear of black bodies has resulted in the deaths of so many others. Trayvon Martin. Ahmaud Arbery. The Charleston 9. Renisha McBride. Jordan Davis. And thousands of thousands throughout the history of our country, many whose names will never be known.

It’s not surprising that Black America – and those who share the outrage of our black siblings – has erupted. Many of the protests that have taken place across the country have been marked by their nonviolence. Indeed, in our own state, in cities like Muskegon and Flint, police officers have not greeted protestors with riot gear and tear gas. Instead, they have said they share the outrage of the protestors and have sought to form deeper bonds and demand true justice. In several areas where the protests turned violent (including Grand Rapids), video and witness evidence indicates that a few white outsiders did the vast amount of the violence – whether out of an anarchist disdain for police or a twisted desire to discredit the protests, we don’t know.

And, yes, some originally nonviolent protestors felt their rage boil over. The response of many in leadership has made it clear that far too many in our country value buildings and personal property over the continued slaughter of black bodies. Our country has looted any possible wealth and path to prosperity that people of color might have for years, for decades, for more than a century. We have looted the livelihood of people and color. Why are we surprised at the anger when those in authority take it a step further and kill their sons and daughters?

Two weeks after the California Watts riots of 1965 and the race riots in Harlem in 1964, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. tried to explain the cause of rioting to a white audience. He was clear, “Riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But, in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again.”

We must turn from our winters of delay. The cause of racial justice, the reform of police practices, and the willingness to take a hard look at our own internal conscious and unconscious biases must not be a partisan task. Every single one of us, no matter the side of the aisle we sit on, must engage in self-examination, repentance and the very hard questions of what must be done to begin making this right.

Our country is bleeding, but the black parts of our country have been bleeding for quite a while, and very few paid attention. Hopefully, you are paying attention now. Hopefully, it is not too late.

Where is the America we used to see in times of disaster?

Below is my column from today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune. It is also on their website online here.

I don’t know about you, but I have been tremendously disheartened by the discourse during this time of pandemic and stay home orders.

In other times of national disaster and tragedy, people came together to make sacrifices to protect the greater good of the community. Families sent their young women and men off to war, knowing the likelihood that they may not return. People went without some necessities so that they could be used in the production necessary to turn the tide of battle. People gave sacrificially to those impacted by the disaster, trying to lift up those whose lives have been upended.

We are in the midst of the most dangerous pandemic the world has seen in a century. As of this past Monday, nearly 300,000 people have died and 4.3 million people have been infected with this horrible disease. Our country has been hit the hardest, with 1.4 million cases and over 81,456 people dead, once again, as of this past Monday. Only a few countries have more cases per 1 million people and given the massive shortages in testing equipment in the USA, it is likely that our total case number is actually much higher than being reported. Worldwide, nearly 7% of confirmed cases of COVID-19 have resulted in death. The actual mortality rate is likely lower than that—once more, because there are likely many more cases than currently confirmed, but even the lower estimates by some scientists of a 1% mortality rate is still ten times higher than the normal flu.

In response to this deadly disease, one that has claimed more US lives than the entire Vietnam War, we are not seeing a coming together to vanquish this disease. We’re not seeing a spirit of shared sacrifice and cooperation, a willingness to give up what may be yours by right in order to protect others and lessen the infection rate and lethality of this disease. Instead, we are seeing protests of stay at home orders, protests that often feature assault weapons, confederate flags, and other hate and violence-filled images. People are insisting that they will not give up one single perceived right—even when medical professionals know that giving up some freedoms in this pandemic will absolutely save lives.

Despite the insistence of some people that this is not a good time to place blame on anyone, it is a time to hold leaders accountable for the decisions they are making. And the tone, rhetoric, and language from our President has only exacerbated division in a time when we need to come together. He has encouraged debunked theories and myths about the disease, been untruthful to a degree never before seen in a time of national crisis, and used this time to attack political rivals and anyone who might question the decisions of his administration.

That language has carried down into his supporters and those on the far right who have been emboldened by this presidency. And so we have seen horrible news stories these past several days. In Oklahoma City, four McDonald’s employees, aged 16 and 18, were shot by a woman when they told her that the dining room was closed. In Holly, Michigan, a 68-year-old man wiped his nose on a clerk at a Dollar Store when told he needed to wear a mask.  And in Flint, a woman shot and killed a security guard at a Family Dollar when he would not let her in without a mask.

This is obscene.

We cannot know for sure what restrictions and actions will guarantee us safety from this disease. In truth, there is very little that will guarantee safety. However, staying at home has helped to flatten the curve so that hospitals will not be overwhelmed. Anyone who has seen photos of overwhelmed hospitals in cities where the curve was not flattened, who has heard stories of people dying in hallways and bodies stacked in rooms, must know how essential flattening the curve is. While wearing a mask is not protection against getting the coronavirus, it lessens the likelihood that an asymptomatic carrier will pass the disease on to others.

Businesses and people are absolutely struggling during these restricted times. And we should do everything we can to help those struggling. Several churches have increased the aid they offer. We must continue those efforts so that businesses do not feel the need to open up before it can be done safely and with minimal risk to their employees.

My own congregation, St. John’s Episcopal, has increased our assistance to people needing help with utilities. We have also partnered with Lakeshore Latinas, Movimiento Cosecha Holland, and Community Action House to create an Immigrant Relief Fund to assist immigrants—many of whom have no access to the social safety nets the rest of us do. Thanks to a generous grant of $20,000 from the Emergency Needs Fund (a partnership between the Grand Haven Area Community Foundation, the Holland Area Community Foundation, and Greater Ottawa County United Way), a $5,000 grant from Herman Miller Cares, and numerous other donations, we have raised over $40,000 that is being used to help people with groceries, rent, and utilities.

If you want to believe conspiracy theories and trust YouTube videos over infectious disease specialists, that is your right. It is still a free country. However, you do not have the right to engage in violence against people trying to do their jobs. Unless you have a medical condition, you do not have the right to ignore rules surrounding masks and social distancing. When you do, you are not only putting other people’s lives at risk because you might be an asymptomatic carrier, you are also very likely only increasing the amount of time businesses will need to be shut down.

We need to return to what makes this country great, to the spirit of cooperation and self-sacrifice that we have seen in prior times of crisis and disaster. We are better Americans, better Michiganders, better members of the Tri-Cities community than what has been on display these past several weeks. And if we don’t start doing better, more people will die. Obey the law. Follow restrictions. Give generously to those in need. This is how you can save lives.

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.  

Caring Nearness in a Time of Distance

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

I never thought I would crave some things that were routine in my life, things which are now impossible to come by as we live under the current “Stay Home, Stay Safe” order and try to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

I miss popping over to Arturo’s Tacos, Mr. Kozak’s, Don Luis or Righteous Cuisine for a quick lunch when the day has gone long and I just need to sneak out of the office.

I miss the familiar sights of my morning commute to the church, the question of whether I’ll be ahead of or behind that school bus stopping time this morning, whether my favorite Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office deputy will be hanging out where the speed drops to 45 mph so I can show him I learned my lesson after a stop (or two).

I miss the flow of people in and out of the church office, familiar faces poking in to say “hi” or to come and pet our standard poodle puppy, Maisie, who will function as the church dog until she is trained as a therapy dog for my wife’s work.

I miss the laughter and hugs of Sunday once-a-month family dinners, watching cousins and adult siblings connect and feeling the joy that physical presence can bring.

And I miss the altar. I miss the grounding that it gives me to stand there. I miss holding up bread made in the homes of our parishioners and wine chosen by parishioners, saying prayers over that bread and wine and knowing that Christ becomes truly and physically present to us once more.

I miss the nearness of all the things I love and I yearn for this distancing to be over.

We’re learning how to make it work, I think, as best as we can.

One of my parishioners who doesn’t even like doing email joined our Tuesday afternoon Zoom Bible Study that I lead. Seeing her face put the largest smile on my face as she pushed herself to learn a new technology, something she truly tries to avoid.

I’ve loved seeing all the Facebook posts supporting local businesses and restaurants that are trying as hard as they can to stay afloat. The Tri-Cities Pastors’ Gathering, of which I am a part, has been more active then ever in our Facebook group, sharing ideas and advice, prayer requests and hope. And each church, in its own way, is trying to figure out how calling people to worship can happen in a time of pestilence and quarantine.

But we all know, deep down, that this is not who we are. We are not minds connected by pixels and fiber-optic lines. We are not souls trapped by bodies that we will hopefully somehow overcome through technology or spirituality. We are embodied beings, people whose existence is inextricably bound up with the bodies we inhabit. That is why Christians believe that when God came to save us, he took on a body. He felt the limitations of mortality: got hungry, felt a backache when he picked up something wrong, even felt the rush of anger when he saw a perceived injustice.

It’s too early for us to know how this will all end, how long it will take for life to return to some semblance of normal. It feels like the news changes every day and a column I write on Monday could easily be obsolete by Wednesday. But when it does end, even as we perhaps continue some of our newfound virtual and online skills, our salvation will be a bodily and physical one.

We’ll walk down Washington Avenue with summer tourists, perhaps no longer annoyed by their presence but grateful that all those bodies create resources and support businesses we love. I know I look forward to sitting on the sidewalk bar at Long Road, enjoying one of their exquisite cocktails as we watch people walk by. I’ll see someone I know and run to give them a hug, not afraid that it might result in the death of one of us.

I’ll walk back into my church building, with all my people. The walls will vibrate with the resounding organ and the joyful voices. We will grip hands tightly at the Peace. We will eat the Body and drink the Blood, understanding better now than we ever had why it is that God gives the church sacraments – outward and physical expressions of inward and spiritual grace. Because we need to experience salvation in our bodies in order for it truly to become real.

And I really hope that we learn something from this, not just a renewed gratitude for physical presence and embodied grace, but a renewed compassion for all the bodies we have ignored, seen as not our responsibility, locked in cages or told were inherently disordered just because of the way God made them or where they were born.

Having had our lives uprooted – just a bit – by this pandemic, I hope we have more grace for those whose lives are entirely destroyed by violence and poverty and famine.

I hope we realize that all bodies are our responsibility. I hope we do better. I’ll try, and I hope you will, too.

Let Librarians—and Not Activist Parents—Run the Library: Further Remarks to the Grand Haven Area Public Schools Board of Education

Thank you, Board of Education, for the opportunity to speak to you once more. As I said last time I spoke, my name is Jared Cramer. I’m a class of 2000 graduate of Grand Haven and for the past ten years I have been the priest at St. John’s Episcopal Church here in town.

I must admit that I am disappointed to stand before you once more. I am not disappointed because of you, to be clear. Quite the opposite, I am proud that our district Superintendent and Board of Education continue to support our librarians and the work they do in curating content for our children and enabling parents to be actively engaged in their children’s reading habits. I’m disappointed that a small group of parents in our community continues to believe that their standards for the content of books and how those books are accessed should trump those of library associations and trained professionals.

The claim being employed tonight is that the only concern is about sexual content in books for young teens. I continue to believe that claim is false, but I want to for a moment lift my skepticism and engage that claim directly.

The difficultly with what these parents are asking for is the question of who will set the standard for what qualifies as sexual content. The parents leading this charge are now using Michigan Law 722.675 as their standard—however, they are not taking the time to read the entirety of the law. To be considered sexually explicit in this law, sexual matter must meet all the laws criteria, including, “Considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and “considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, and scientific value for minors.” On the clear wording of this law, the books being criticized do not meet the standard set out for the inappropriate dissemination of sexually explicit matter.

Now, if you listen to their criticisms, they will say it is not just about what the law says but it is about sexual organs being used in a sexual way… and maybe also lewd profanity and extreme violence… so you can see how slippery the slope has already become. What constitutes lewd profanity instead of just profanity? What makes violence extreme instead of just violent? What do either of those have to do with sexual content, if that is the actual driving concern?

Furthermore, why are these categories highlighted but not other content that may be morally objectionable to young teens, like drug use? Will that be added to the list as well? What about other sins? Is the goal to remove sin from books? Just some sins? Who decides?
What sorts of books would be restricted by the system proposed by these parents?

• The Great Gatsby by F. Scottt Fitzgerald
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
• Beloved, by Toni Morrison, which was objected to by a parent at a previous meeting—even though it won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize.
• The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• Brave New World  by Aldous Huxley
• Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
• Rabbit, Run by John Updike
• And Are you there God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume

Now, are all of these books appropriate in a middle school library? That’s a fantastic question, and one that should be answered by library professionals. Because if instead you have a single box for opting in or opting out of sexual content, with no attention paid to the literary context of that content, then parents will unknowably opt their kids out of the greatest literature of our time.

There is no need for our district to create an entirely new system of categorizing books based upon content some parents find objectionable. As I said to you earlier, there is already a system in place, a professional program at the Library of Congress that uses experts in the field and identifies the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are trained to use these systems.

And this system works! If a parent believes a book may have been inappropriately categorized, they can raise that concern with the librarian who can determine if it should be moved to a different library. That’s already happened with one book that concerned a parent. And if you, as a parent, want to keep your kid from reading books by Salinger and Steinbeck and Baldwin and Updike, you can do that. Just give that list to the librarian.

Claims that parents don’t have time to find out which books have sexual content are false. Just google the question and you will find plenty of lists of books deemed inappropriate by some people. Whose list should one use when restricting your kid’s reading? Whichever one you, as a parent agree with. The fact that there are so many, and they differ so wildly, just demonstrates the point that there is not a clear line that can be drawn. Instead, you, as a parent, have to be active and engaged. You have to determine what sort of content is appropriate or not appropriate for your child. But you do not, as a parent, have the right to demand that the library flag certain books —without regard to literary content— as objectionable for other children who are not your own.

And why would I, as a parent, want my middle school child someday to have access to this kind of content? Because it helps. By reading in the pages of a book, kids can explore what is going on in their bodies safely.  Because I want my kid, as she grows up, to confront difficult and unsettling content—and then to know she can talk to me about it. And together, we’ll discuss what we believe and how that affects how we live in the world. Please, Board of Education, continue to support parents making these decisions for their own kids. Continue to support our librarians’ goal of helping parents engage with their kids reading habits. And please do not enable one group of parents to create their own category of objectional content for all students in our district.

Some Words on Christian Socialism

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

By the time this column is published, we will know the results of the 14 states voting on Super Tuesday. Given the polling so far, it looks like Bernie Sanders seems likely to continue the momentum built in early contests. I had been leaning toward Pete Buttigieg, but now I’m pretty firmly in the Sen. Warren camp. That said, the rise of Bernie has happened hand in hand with continued hand-wringing about socialism, including the version Bernie supports: democratic socialism.

The scare concepts linking democratic socialism to communism are unfortunate, albeit rather expected. The most salient difference between the two is that democratic socialists believe in that – a democracy. Communist forms of government are not democratic because the people do not get to vote those who represent them. In communist systems, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state.

In communism, there is no such thing as private property – everything is held by the state and individuals are given their basic needs from the state. Furthermore, Bernie is not advocating a wholesale government take-over of all means of production (classical socialism), but instead is arguing for the government to take over those systems best handled by that mechanism. We already do this in America, believing it makes most sense for the government to provide for a military, for a safety-net for the poor through Social Security and Medicare, and to have a hand in ensuring there is adequate public housing.

Bernie’s argument, for example, is that the current insurance-based system is an inherently inefficient way of paying for health care in our country and that Medicare for All would more effectively accomplish this work. Given the fact that our health care costs are far above any other developed countries (all of whom have some form of government provided care) and our outcomes are below other countries, I find his article persuasive.

Don’t get me wrong, I preferred Pete’s approach of Medicare for all who want it, enabling people to make the choice whether to buy into a government-run plan. Then it would be up to private industry to compete in the market with the public option. And I think Sen. Warren’s path to Medicare for All has a stronger chance of moving forward.

Regardless of who the candidate winds up being, I, for one, will not be scared by language of socialism. One of the most significant reasons is because Christian socialism is a significant part of the history of my own tradition of Anglican Christianity. This movement, particularly strong in the United Kingdom, began in the 19th century as an argument that many socialist concepts can clearly be supported based upon the text of Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ. There was also a strong Christian socialist movement among Calvinists in France (the birthplace of the Calvinist movement) throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In the early 20th century, the Episcopal bishop of Utah, Spencer Spalding, put it most succinctly when he wrote, “The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far, she has failed, but I think that socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore, the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life.”

Spalding goes on to argue that competition always results in unequal and unfair conditions. I would not go so far as that, as I do believe that competition has the possibility of creating significant growth and development. The problem is when that competition is wholly unfettered by the state. Because then, those with significant capital (corporations and the exceptionally wealthy) can require cruel standards of living for access to only a small part of the capital in society.

We saw our own country fight against this with the labor movements in the 20th century. Let’s be clear, the ending of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay, and the establishment of rules for safe working conditions were all a government intrusion into the free exercise of the market. But they were intrusions that needed to happen because of the way unfettered capitalism was destroying the lives of working people.

The great early 20th-century bishop of Oxford, Charles Gore, said: “The State exists to enable its members to develop a worthy human life. A State must be judged, and should judge itself, by its tendency to generate in all its citizens a worthy type of life. … If at any state it finds that the institution of property, as it exists, is fostering luxury and exaggerated power in a few, and enslaving or hindering the many, there is nothing to prevent it rectifying what is amiss.”

I would argue that we confront exactly this sort of reality in 21st-century America. We have a booming economy and record-low unemployment, but the results of that economy are enjoyed primarily by the wealthy. Over the past 30 years, the bottom 90 percent of our population went from holding 33 percent of all wealth to just 24 percent. At the same time, the wealth share of the top 1 percent went from 30 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment is indeed low, but 80 percent of workers live paycheck to paycheck.

We can do better as a country. And Christians, following the teachings of Scripture and Jesus when it comes to caring for the poor, orphan and immigrant, must make their voice heard during this election year to demand our country do better. And rather than let people turn “socialism” into a dirty and scary word, we should ask what actions our State needs to take so that our social society is more just, equitable and fair.

Why I Moved from Mayor Pete to Senator Warren

With the loss of Mayor Buttigieg, I have been unsure of where to go in this race.

I've spent a lot of time thinking, reconsidering candidates I had given up on. After that consideration, I've decided that my support will go to Elizabeth Warren. Let me explain why.

Klobuchar is going nowhere in this race and I don't see a sudden surge moving her to a an actual majority of delegates. She is simply pulling delegates from others and needs to do hard thing that is best for the party (what Yang did and what Buttigieg rather bravely and selflessly  did before Super Tuesday) and end her campaign. (Same thing for Gabbard, I have no idea why she is still running). Michael Bloomberg also needs to get out of this race. He is helping no one—certainly not the Democratic party. Once these three remaining unserious candidates exit, we are left with three strong candidates (any of whom, to be clear, I would vote for if they are the nominee): Biden, Sanders, and Warren.

I admit that I still find Biden not to be a compelling candidate, unable or unwilling to think critically about the mis-steps of the Obama administration and focusing a campaign largely on Obama-era nostalgia and not upon new solutions for today's problems. He might wind up being the waiting stage between the Trump era and the future of the Democratic party, but I am uninspired by the prospect of his presidency (other than that he would be better than the current occupant of the office). Furthermore, as you will see below, I disagree with several of his policy positions. 

I agree ideologically with much of Sanders' platform—however, in politics I am more of a pragmatist than purist. I do not see a Sanders' candidacy resulting in the kind of massive changes needed in congress to enable an immediate move to Medicare for All. I think his presidency would only continue the current partisan fighting and would be unlikely to advance his policy aims (once more, many of which I agree with) in Washington.

Which leaves me with Elizabeth Warren—someone who I have long admired, beginning in her work in pushing for the creation of the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau. One the major issues, I agree with her:

• Abolish Capital Punishment
• Eliminate Private Prisons
• Bring back Glass-Steagall to regulate big banks (Biden voted to repeal it in 1999)
• Create broad paid family and medical leave plans for up to 12 weeks (no strong Biden Support)
• Make public colleges and universities tuition free (Biden only supports two years)
• Ban Fracking (Biden opposes)
• Institute universal background checks and a national firearms registry (Sanders only supports the registry for Assault weapons)
• Decriminalize illegal entry to the United States (Biden opposes)
• Federally legalize marijuana and scrap past convictions (Biden wants to leave with the individual states)
• Create an annual wealth tax on the super wealthy—you have your wealth because of our society, it's time to pay back into that society (Biden only supports a modest increase to the bracket)

As you may know, Sanders and Warren are aligned on many of the issues above. What sets them apart, I believe, is her policy and plan-oriented approach compared to his ideological indignation. To me, this makes her the better choice both for the moderate and the liberal Democrat. 

Healthcare is, to me, one of the most essential issues facing us as a country and Warren is the only candidate still standing with a compelling plan and approach. I support the end-game of universal healthcare coverage. Whereas Biden seems to want to leave us in ACA limbo.... But the ACA—though helpful and some areas—has been unable to deal with our systemic problems. It was a bandaid, not a solution. Sanders will never get an immediate movement to Medicare for all through Congress. Warren's plan might actually work. As a great Vox essay in support of her candidacy notes: 

She came out with a sequencing plan: First, she would pass a bill, using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, to expand Medicare’s benefits and open the program to everyone over age 50; expand Medicaid eligibility; strengthen the Affordable Care Act; and create a public option with generous benefits, universal eligibility, automatic enrollment, and free coverage for anyone under the age of 18 or making less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

By the way, I'd encourage you to read the rest of that Vox essay above, if you haven't. It charts her path and, to be honest, only solidified my support for her candidacy. 

I'm well aware that she is pretty far behind in the Delegate count (8, compared to 53 for Biden and 60 for Sanders) and the polls (currently averaging 14% compared to 28.5% for Sanders and 20% for Biden). That said, I'm hopeful that with Buttigieg now out of the race, we will not see a swing of his support in the direction of Biden (despite claims that they are the moderates and so that would be natural, many of those I know who supported Buttigieg disagree with Biden on a host of issues). 

We'll see what happens tomorrow, but I'm hoping her campaign gets some momentum in Super Tuesday, the remaining unserious candidates drop out, and by the time the March 10 primary rolls around, we are choosing between the final three I outlined above. 

This election is about the soul and future of this country. No matter who you are leaning toward right now, continue to do your homework and think carefully. And please—please—show up and vote. 

Public Righteousness vs Public Religion

Below is my sermon that I wrote for Ash Wednesday this year. Sickness kept me from the church that day, for the first time in my priestly ministry, but I hope they are still helpful words as you begin your Lenten journey.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

In these final days of Christendom, as the edifice of a Christian empire and the illusion of a Christian nation are finally falling down, as church attendance and membership shrinks across the board, and as few people are anymore terribly interested in what the church has to say about anything… in these days, Christianity can at times resort to jumping up and down and shouting to make its voice heard. Whether it is evangelists on television who promise prosperity if you follow their guides or Christians on social media who trumpet their own righteousness by calling out all those who disagree with them, in all sorts of arenas religion can at times become a rather noisy thing and many of the times we wish there was a mute button—to say nothing of an unbelieving world who finds noisy and showy Christianity devoid of any attraction or draw.

So, when we hear Jesus say in the Gospel reading today, “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven,” many of us breathe a sigh of relief, grateful that Jesus is telling noisy Christians to quiet down and focus more on practicing their religion than talking about it. He says your gifts of treasure should be done quietly an in secret, that your prayers should be simple and done in the quiet of your room, and that when you fast you should make it impossible for anyone to tell by looking at you that you are fasting. He reminds his listeners that wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also, and that if your treasure is being seen by others as righteous, your heart will only ever live there… it will be far from the God who desires you.

There is a slight difficulty, though, with the quiet “yay” whispered by the average Episcopalian upon hearing this Gospel text. Don’t get me wrong, Episcopalians love the idea of a quiet religion, one that doesn’t stir anything up. It’s like the old joke, when a Baptist asked an Episcopalian if they had a personal relationship with Jesus and the Episcopalian responded that this seemed like a remarkably private intrusion! 

So, just to make sure we are all on the same page, let’s be clear: Jesus is not telling you in this story that you need to keep your Christianity private and to yourself. If he was, then other verses in this Gospel would make no sense, verses where he sends out his disciples to preach the good news and do public acts of justice and healing. Verses like 10:37, where he tells his followers, “What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops.” Indeed, if this text was about keeping your Christianity private, then the whole great commission at the end would make no sense, where Jesus tells us all to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” I’m reminded of St. Peter’s advice in First Peter 3:15, “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”

Absolutely, showy and vapid religion that is all about being seen is far from the Christianity of Christ. However, keeping your religion private, not sharing with those around you the good news of God’s love and grace you have experienced, that is also far from the Christianity of Christ. Each and every one of us must learn how to give our elevator pitch, our brief articulation of how God’s love has touched us. Each of us must learn how to invite others in—because there are many broken people in this unbelieving world who are in need of an experience of grace… people who won’t have that experience unless you get brave and invite them in.

So, no. You cannot use this text as a get out of evangelizing free card. 

After all, what Jesus warns about is not practicing your religion before others in order to be seen by them (after all, he did a lot of public religious acts precisely so people could see and believe). What he warns against is practicing your “piety” before others in order to be seen by them. The Greek word there is “δικαιοσύνην.” This word is usually translated as righteousness, meaning right conduct before God. That is, these are the good acts that you do, the righteous choices you make. It is your righteousness Jesus cautions against flaunting publicly.

Which raises some very interesting questions about the ashes each of you are about to have placed upon your forehead. Because, if these ashes are a symbol of your righteousness, of the fact that you came to church in the middle of a busy week, of the decision you are making to fast and practice a righteous and holy lent… then you might want to consider wiping those ashes off before you exit the doors of this church—because publicly flaunting how righteous you are is precisely what Jesus warns against in this chapter.

But what if these ashes are a symbol of something else? Because when the ashes are blessed, we ask God to make them a sign of our mortality and penitence.  They are a sign of the fact that we know we will all die in the end. They are a sign of the fact not that we are righteous, but that we know we are sinners who have fallen far from the mark. 

And I wonder what it might mean if we took that prayer seriously, if we saw wearing ashes on our forehead as the equivalent of the Scarlet Letter of Nathaniel Hawthorne, a public statement that we have sinned and failed. What if more Christians were public not about how good they are but about the fact that they know they are sinners saved by grace—and that they found that grace here, in the sacraments celebrated in their faith community? What if Christians started being more open about humility, penitence, and contrition? I have a feeling the world might see us differently. 

The problem with self-righteousness, the problem with showy Christianity where you make sure everyone know how right you are and how wrong others are, is that not only does it actually drive people away from the church, but it also disconnects you from God. As one author notes, “It is so easy to back away from that precipitous edge of longing for God and settle into being satisfied with being religious.” Being religious is important, acts of righteousness and discipline are what help draw us closer to God… but it is easy to substitute self-righteousness and contentment with our religious acts for true pursuit of God. 

The humility and penitence of Lent, however, are a sharp sword meant to cut our selfishness and sin away so that we can move ever closer to love of God and love of neighbor. And it is when people see someone who lives a life of true humility, someone who is quick to forgive when someone fails and quick to repent when sin overcomes, when people see that… then they begin to want to know about the salvation you have found, a salvation which is clearly much more about God’s love than it is about your righteousness. 

What will these ashes mean to you? What will this holy season of Lent mean to you

Will it be some simple religious actions to distract you from the real sin in your life, from your true need to turn back from God?

Or will this Lent be about an honest giving up of yourself, a true turning from sin, and a willingness perhaps even to start being a little more public with your humility, a little more willing to be vulnerable and invite someone into this place where you find God’s grace?

Because if your treasure is in heaven, if your heart is set upon the blessed vision of God and the restoration of all creation, your life should look like it. Amen. 

On Banning Books: Remarks to the GHAPS Board of Education

Below are the remarks I gave at the public comment portion of the Grand Haven Area Public Schools Board of Education meeting tonight.

Thank you, Board of Education, for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you. My name is Jared Cramer. I’m a class of 2000 graduate of Grand Haven and for the past ten years I have been the priest at St. John’s Episcopal Church here in town. In just a couple years I look forward to enrolling my young daughter at Rosy Mound elementary school.

I’d like to start by sharing a story with you. When I was a child, probably no more than eight years old, I decided I would read through the Bible from cover to cover. Much of it was familiar. I read through the familiar creation stories, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah’s ark and the great flood, Abraham and Sarah… But then I came across a story I hadn’t heard in Sunday School. I read how after Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, went to live in a cave with his daughters. His daughters thought they would never have children and so both of them got their father intoxicated and then slept with him, trying to get pregnant.

I came into the kitchen and told my mom about this strange story had I just read in the Bible. She said, “That’s not in the Bible.” I handed her my paperback New International Version and she read the story herself, her face flushing. She then told me that maybe I should wait until I’m a little older before I read Scripture for myself.

I share this story to underline two key points. The first is that there is a good amount of literature that has some sexual content—including some much more graphic content in the Bible, as I later discovered!—and only reading a few lines of any work does not give you a sense of context, of how those lines function in the larger narrative arc. Yes, the Bible contains some content which is the garbage of humanity… But it also tells the story of how God can always redeem even the garbage of this world. Second, my mother did what any parent should do: she took an active interest in what I was reading and, when she thought I was reading something beyond my years, she made a decision for me, her child.

I was distraught a few weeks ago to receive screenshots of posts from a Facebook Group called “Grand Haven Conservative Parents.” One of the leaders of that group posted on December 20, 2019, how someone went through the school library catalogs to come up with a full list of LGBTQ-themed books at every school in our district. From that list, some books were pulled out which have some more explicit portions and those books are now being used to argue for censorship and restrictions over literature in our district libraries.

A few things I would encourage the Board to pay attention to. Note where this began—with a concern about LGBTQ content. This began with a list of books that included something as simple as a child having two dads—a story a kid in our district who might happen to have two dads deserves to read in their school library. The book by Michael Barakiva from which selections have been read is not the smut it has been made out to be through the quotation of a few sections. it is a book that has been praised by numerous serious reviewers of young adult literature. Would the content be appropriate for all ages of children? Of course not. Children mature at different rates. For teenagers who are trying to understand who they are as a gay person, though, it has been reviewed as a deeply meaningful book.

There is already a professional organization who helps parents and librarians determine the appropriate age for children and young adult literature. It’s called the Children’s and Young Adults’ Cataloging Program (CYAC) at the Library of Congress. They use experts in the field of children’s literature and evaluate many aspects of that literature to help with cataloguing, including identifying the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are also trained in knowing what literature is appropriate for which age group. We need to trust our professionals.

I want to applaud the options being offered by the district at this meeting, where parents can see any books their child has checked out, either through a weekly email or logging into their account. Parents can give a list of books they don’t want their child to checkout. All of these underscore what is truly essential—parents must take responsibility for engaging with their own kids (just like my mother did with me). They should talk with their kids about the books they read, what is in them and what their kids think about it. Lord knows, when my daughter is older, I would much rather she goes to the library to read literature with sexual content than some of the other options out there. Banning books from curious teens only sends them to other darker places.

But most importantly, a small group of parents must not be allowed to make these decisions for other children and teenagers by insisting that their standards should supersede those of library professionals. No group of parents should have the ability to say that stories that feature LGBTQ characters making out are somehow dangerous to teenagers—particularly when those books can be a lifeline to a queer teenager who feels alone and marginalized.

Furthermore, even though it might raise a few eyebrows, we need to be clear that sexual content in young adult literature—gay or straight—helps adolescents form a healthy and positive sense of their sexual identity. Judy Blume, for example, has been named one of the most frequently challenged authors of the 21st century by the American Library Association for their inclusion of content including menstruation, wearing a bra for the first time, and masturbation... and yet her books have meant the world to young adolescents. Authentic portrayals that teens can relate to when it comes to healthy sexuality as an adolescent are already hard to find. We shouldn’t make it worse.

I hope the school board will continue to empower our librarians. And I hope that parents that are concerned won’t take the path of banning books—even for their own kids. Instead, I hope they’ll focus on engaging more deeply with their own kids as they grow and develop. Thank you.