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.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Monday, March 2, 2020
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.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
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.
Monday, February 10, 2020
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.
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.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Against Those Who Would Harm LGBTQ Students in Grand Haven
Below is my column in today's Grand Haven Tribune, available at their website online here. It is also reprinted below.
There is a quiet parents’ movement afoot in Grand Haven right now—and it is one that could do irreparable harm to our kids.
A small group of parents who goes by “Grand Haven Conservative Parents” has quietly been working to formulate a plan to get any books which engage with LGBTQ characters, themes, or issues to be removed from school libraries or kept behind a desk with the requirement of a parent’s note to be checked out. One of those parents has now approached the Grand Haven Area Public School Board at a recent meeting to make this request formally and publicly. The School Board has not made a decision and is taking the time to research the issue.
First, we need to be very clear that this movement is not just about some books that some parents might find objectionable. This movement is an attempt to erase the reality of the LGBTQ students who attend Grand Haven schools. As Vanessa Perez, a part of the National Council of Teachers of English LGBTQ advisory committee, makes clear, “Declaring a book with LGBTQ characters inappropriate for school is the same as declaring LGBTQ students and families inappropriate for school. It sends the message, ‘You don’t belong here. We’ll remove this book and we’ll try to remove you, too.’”
Last year, the Journal of Adolescent Health published a study that found that 24% of suicides between the ages of 12 and 14 were completed by LGBTQ kids. Data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services indicates that LGBTQ youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth. Another study from the National Center for Transgender Equity found that LGBTQ youth are almost five times more likely to have actually attempted suicide. A study published in Pediatrics found that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide with 92% of those adults attempting before the age of 25.
And, for a conservative area like our own, it is important to note that LGBTQ youth who come from families that reject their sexual or gender identity are 8.4 more times likely to attempt suicide than their LGBTQ peers who report low or no level of family rejection. That data also comes from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. For all LGBTQ students—and particularly those who do not come from supportive families—easy access to these books are essential.
When LGBTQ students have access to positive and realistic portrayals—both in fiction and in nonfiction—of characters who resemble them, it helps to work against the cultural shame and provide a pathway to self-acceptance and understanding. Finally, they see someone whose thoughts, feelings, and identity resonate with their own. They can begin to develop a health understanding. And just as middle school libraries contain books that help adolescent straight and cis-gender students understand their own sexuality, there must be resources for LGBTQ adolescents as well.
Ingrid Conley-Adams, a librarian who helps schools serve their LGBTQ population, insists upon the importance of keeping these books in the library. “Left to their own devices,” she says, “Students and young people (queer or otherwise) may interact with information that can be incorrect or even toxic.” A study by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) found that when LGBTQ students receive exposure to these themes, they have higher attendance, GPAs, and a stronger sense of safety in the classroom. That means, not only do rates of suicidality decrease but they actually thrive in school.
The plan of these parents to segregate these books to behind a desk and require parental permission will be damaging to an already at-risk population because it sends a message that who they are as a LGBTQ teenager is not fit for public knowledge, that it must be hidden away. It exacerbates shame and will certainly increase the risk of suicidality. To require a parent’s permission will have a tremendously negative impact upon the questioning teen whose parents are not supportive of their identity.
For over a hundred years, there have been movements to ban or limit access to certain books. Everything from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird to the novels of Judy Blume have been deemed by some to be inappropriate for students. That is why, since 1982, the American Library Association has promoted “Banned Book Weeks” a campaign which “stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”
Let’s not marginalize our children or teenagers simply because their gender or sexuality doesn’t line up with the established views of a certain segment of society. Let’s keep information full and open. Let’s trust our librarians to curate books appropriately. And let’s send a message to all the children and teenagers in Grand Haven that no matter who you are, no matter your gender identity or sexuality, you will not be shamed out of our community. And you certainly must not be shamed out of your own school library.
There is a quiet parents’ movement afoot in Grand Haven right now—and it is one that could do irreparable harm to our kids.
A small group of parents who goes by “Grand Haven Conservative Parents” has quietly been working to formulate a plan to get any books which engage with LGBTQ characters, themes, or issues to be removed from school libraries or kept behind a desk with the requirement of a parent’s note to be checked out. One of those parents has now approached the Grand Haven Area Public School Board at a recent meeting to make this request formally and publicly. The School Board has not made a decision and is taking the time to research the issue.
First, we need to be very clear that this movement is not just about some books that some parents might find objectionable. This movement is an attempt to erase the reality of the LGBTQ students who attend Grand Haven schools. As Vanessa Perez, a part of the National Council of Teachers of English LGBTQ advisory committee, makes clear, “Declaring a book with LGBTQ characters inappropriate for school is the same as declaring LGBTQ students and families inappropriate for school. It sends the message, ‘You don’t belong here. We’ll remove this book and we’ll try to remove you, too.’”
Last year, the Journal of Adolescent Health published a study that found that 24% of suicides between the ages of 12 and 14 were completed by LGBTQ kids. Data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services indicates that LGBTQ youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth. Another study from the National Center for Transgender Equity found that LGBTQ youth are almost five times more likely to have actually attempted suicide. A study published in Pediatrics found that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide with 92% of those adults attempting before the age of 25.
And, for a conservative area like our own, it is important to note that LGBTQ youth who come from families that reject their sexual or gender identity are 8.4 more times likely to attempt suicide than their LGBTQ peers who report low or no level of family rejection. That data also comes from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. For all LGBTQ students—and particularly those who do not come from supportive families—easy access to these books are essential.
When LGBTQ students have access to positive and realistic portrayals—both in fiction and in nonfiction—of characters who resemble them, it helps to work against the cultural shame and provide a pathway to self-acceptance and understanding. Finally, they see someone whose thoughts, feelings, and identity resonate with their own. They can begin to develop a health understanding. And just as middle school libraries contain books that help adolescent straight and cis-gender students understand their own sexuality, there must be resources for LGBTQ adolescents as well.
Ingrid Conley-Adams, a librarian who helps schools serve their LGBTQ population, insists upon the importance of keeping these books in the library. “Left to their own devices,” she says, “Students and young people (queer or otherwise) may interact with information that can be incorrect or even toxic.” A study by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) found that when LGBTQ students receive exposure to these themes, they have higher attendance, GPAs, and a stronger sense of safety in the classroom. That means, not only do rates of suicidality decrease but they actually thrive in school.
The plan of these parents to segregate these books to behind a desk and require parental permission will be damaging to an already at-risk population because it sends a message that who they are as a LGBTQ teenager is not fit for public knowledge, that it must be hidden away. It exacerbates shame and will certainly increase the risk of suicidality. To require a parent’s permission will have a tremendously negative impact upon the questioning teen whose parents are not supportive of their identity.
For over a hundred years, there have been movements to ban or limit access to certain books. Everything from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird to the novels of Judy Blume have been deemed by some to be inappropriate for students. That is why, since 1982, the American Library Association has promoted “Banned Book Weeks” a campaign which “stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”
Let’s not marginalize our children or teenagers simply because their gender or sexuality doesn’t line up with the established views of a certain segment of society. Let’s keep information full and open. Let’s trust our librarians to curate books appropriately. And let’s send a message to all the children and teenagers in Grand Haven that no matter who you are, no matter your gender identity or sexuality, you will not be shamed out of our community. And you certainly must not be shamed out of your own school library.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Some Election Year Resolutions
Below is my column from today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune. It is also online at their website here.
As we approach New Year’s Eve tonight, many people will commit themselves to new resolutions, commitments they have made to change something about their lives for the better.
This New Year brings, I believe, one of the most significant presidential elections our country has ever faced. Furthermore, the elections in the United States legislature in the fall of 2020 will have a significant impact on the presidency of whoever wins in November. So, I’d like to make some suggestions for resolutions in this presidential election year, commitments I hope all of us can make as our country decides which way forward we want to go.
First, pay attention to facts and reject outrageous claims. While a politician’s loose relationship to the truth is hardly a new idea, it has advanced significantly over the past several years. And I’m not just speaking about our current president and his nearly 16,000 false or misleading claims since he took office. In December, Presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren made bold claims about fellow candidate, Mayor Pete Buttiegieg, and his being beholden to billionaires because of a fundraiser held in a wine cave. An opinion piece in The Washington Post clarified the actual nature and content of the event, the piece written by one of the attendees. But still, there is the tendency of candidates on all sides of the political spectrum to distract from policy with wild suggestions and theories which demean their fellow candidates. Don’t play into it.
Second, try to listen more carefully to those with whom you disagree. And I don’t mean listen so that you are ready to respond and prove them wrong. Rather, listen until you understand their perspective and point of view well enough to argue it yourself. The fact that so many people were shocked by the election of Donald Trump underscores how little broad segments of the population actually listened to the concerns and perspective of those who voted Trump into office. Maligning or mocking his supporters now will do nothing to advance your own cause. Seeking to understand—and, dare I say, empathize with—the supporters of your political opponent, however, can help you see the broader picture.
Third, reject attempts to scapegoat. This is, once again, an approach that all sides of the political spectrum have employed. We’ve seen it most heinously these past years in the scapegoating of immigrants when it comes to questions of violent crime and the economy (even though study after study has shown immigrants are far less likely to commit violent crimes and are actually a driving force in making the economy better). Democrats have also used the scapegoat method when they have failed to mount a persuasive campaign. Look to the actual reasons for the problems you identify instead of the easy group or person to blame. (See the first resolution on focusing on facts to help with this).
Fourth, and most importantly, show up and vote. If I was in charge of Facebook or Twitter, I would make it a rule that if you were eligible to vote and sat out the election, you have lost all rights to complain in social media about the state of our country. Data from Statista indicates that for the most recent national election, we rank eleventh behind other countries, with just over 55% of people participating in the 2016 Presidential Election. By contrast, 87.2% participated in the last election in Belgium. Along with this resolution, I would encourage every American to stand up to attempts by any power to make it more difficult for a citizen to vote. Everyone’s voice should be counted.
As a Christian priest, I’d also like to make a suggestion to those who, like me, follow Jesus as their Lord. Remember what Jesus taught us, everything in the law and the prophets rests on love of God and love of neighbor. Ask yourself constantly during this election year if the way you are behaving, the political opinions you are staking out, and the words which come out of your mouth are advancing love of God and love of neighbor. If not, you may be falling into the trap of self-righteousness—and our Lord had very little patience for the self-righteous.
The American experiment has made much about this country great—but we have also several times throughout history missed our guiding principles and gone down paths which were dark, hate-filled, and contrary to the ideals of liberty and justice for all people. If the American voter will seek to be committed to principles of robust and respectful engagement with the election cycle, maybe our candidates can be encouraged as well. If they will not, then start asking if there is someone else you should support who can actually carry our country forward into a future that is free, fair, and just for every person.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
The difficulty of truly seeing Jesus in Advent
Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune, also online here.
This past Sunday evening, our church hosted an ecumenical offering of “Advent Lessons & Carols.” I was blessed by the area pastors who joined in reading Scripture, the sense of unity as Christians from a variety of denominations gathered together for song and reflection. And the music, offered by Diane Penning alongside of our own music ministry, was transformative.
I’m reminded of one of my favorite Advent images, by comic-book artist Everett Patterson called “Jose y Maria.” In it, the artist reimagines the Holy Family in contemporary times. Joseph has an autoworkers shirt on with the name “José” on it and is trying to find change to make a call as he looks for lodging. A pregnant Mary is wearing a sweatshirt for “Nazareth High School” and sits on a broken horse ride outside the convenience store. The rain pours down upon them and they both look worried and unsure of what is coming next.
They also look tremendously easy to ignore.
Advent is a beautiful time of the year, a time of traditions and a growing sense of joy. It’s a time when people are often moved to give generously of their time and treasure to those who are in need. I’d encourage you, though, during this season to take it one step further. Spend some time in self-examination and ask where you may be blind to the presence of Jesus in this world.
Who is the hungry person whose causes you to avert your eyes? Who is the person struggling with serious health issues while our country fails to create meaningful change in a broken health care system? Who is the person in prison, wishing someone cared and that they didn’t just feel like they had been warehoused by society and forgetting? Who is the immigrant, living in constant fear because the only choice was a dangerous journey to live undocumented in America or certain poverty or even death back home?
Maybe you have trouble seeing Jesus in that liberal priest who writes those columns that annoy you. I know I’m broken and can be mistaken, but can you see that I’m trying?
I know I sometimes have trouble seeing Jesus in people with whom I disagree, but I try to let God’s grace continue to challenge me in that area. Maybe you can, too?
Each person, no matter what, carries inherent dignity and worth with the image of God pressed into their very soul. And each person you meet this Advent season is an opportunity for you to see Jesus in a new way, and find yourself changed in the process.
This past Sunday evening, our church hosted an ecumenical offering of “Advent Lessons & Carols.” I was blessed by the area pastors who joined in reading Scripture, the sense of unity as Christians from a variety of denominations gathered together for song and reflection. And the music, offered by Diane Penning alongside of our own music ministry, was transformative.
One song in particular struck me as deeply meaningful. It is “Sweet Little Jesus Boy,” published in 1934 by Robert MacGimsey. Though he was not a black composer, MacGimsey spent much of his early years in Louisiana around the African-American community and he wrote the song in the style of an African-American spiritual. One of the greatest renditions is the one offered by Mahalia Jackson (you can easily find it on YouTube), but Diane’s offering was also tremendously powerful.
If you’ve never heard the song, it centers around the sadness and feeling of penitence that we did not recognize the Christ child when he came. In the third stanza, the singer mourns, “Just seem like we can’t do right, look how we treated you. But please, sir, forgive us, Lord – We didn’t know ’twas you.”
As Diane sang, I was reminded how this truth is one of the fundamental teachings of the Advent season, as Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. The religious and powerful in the first century didn’t see that it was God incarnate in that small baby crying in the stable next to the inn. The religious and the powerful didn’t see that it was God incarnate in the itinerant carpenter’s son turned preacher from Nazareth. In fact, the religious and the powerful found the way he challenged accepted beliefs and practices, found the very people he spent time with, so unsettling that they conspired to torture and kill him.
If we remember this truth, every single one of us will hopefully take a moment in this season to pause and reflect. Because missing the coming of Christ in the child Jesus was not just an historical accident. It is something Jesus himself warned that religious people would continue to do. At the last judgment, when the Lord sends the accursed to eternal fire, he is very clear about why, “Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Matthew 25:44–45)
Jesus is saying that when we see someone who is hungry or thirsty, we are seeing Christ himself. When we see someone naked or sick, we are seeing Christ himself. And, even more troubling perhaps for American Christians who like their Jesus respectable, when we see someone in prison, we are seeing Christ himself. And when we see someone who is a stranger – the Greek word being xenos, literally meaning foreigner and the same word from which we get xenophobia – we are seeing Christ himself. What we do for someone in any of these situations is an action done to our Lord Christ.
When we wrestle honestly with this verse, we will have to acknowledge that there are many times Christ has come to us and, like the singer in the song, “We didn’t know it was you.”
If you’ve never heard the song, it centers around the sadness and feeling of penitence that we did not recognize the Christ child when he came. In the third stanza, the singer mourns, “Just seem like we can’t do right, look how we treated you. But please, sir, forgive us, Lord – We didn’t know ’twas you.”
As Diane sang, I was reminded how this truth is one of the fundamental teachings of the Advent season, as Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. The religious and powerful in the first century didn’t see that it was God incarnate in that small baby crying in the stable next to the inn. The religious and the powerful didn’t see that it was God incarnate in the itinerant carpenter’s son turned preacher from Nazareth. In fact, the religious and the powerful found the way he challenged accepted beliefs and practices, found the very people he spent time with, so unsettling that they conspired to torture and kill him.
If we remember this truth, every single one of us will hopefully take a moment in this season to pause and reflect. Because missing the coming of Christ in the child Jesus was not just an historical accident. It is something Jesus himself warned that religious people would continue to do. At the last judgment, when the Lord sends the accursed to eternal fire, he is very clear about why, “Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” (Matthew 25:44–45)
Jesus is saying that when we see someone who is hungry or thirsty, we are seeing Christ himself. When we see someone naked or sick, we are seeing Christ himself. And, even more troubling perhaps for American Christians who like their Jesus respectable, when we see someone in prison, we are seeing Christ himself. And when we see someone who is a stranger – the Greek word being xenos, literally meaning foreigner and the same word from which we get xenophobia – we are seeing Christ himself. What we do for someone in any of these situations is an action done to our Lord Christ.
When we wrestle honestly with this verse, we will have to acknowledge that there are many times Christ has come to us and, like the singer in the song, “We didn’t know it was you.”
 |
| Everett Patterson’s picture, called “Jose y Maria,” reimagines the Holy Family in contemporary times. |
They also look tremendously easy to ignore.
Advent is a beautiful time of the year, a time of traditions and a growing sense of joy. It’s a time when people are often moved to give generously of their time and treasure to those who are in need. I’d encourage you, though, during this season to take it one step further. Spend some time in self-examination and ask where you may be blind to the presence of Jesus in this world.
Who is the hungry person whose causes you to avert your eyes? Who is the person struggling with serious health issues while our country fails to create meaningful change in a broken health care system? Who is the person in prison, wishing someone cared and that they didn’t just feel like they had been warehoused by society and forgetting? Who is the immigrant, living in constant fear because the only choice was a dangerous journey to live undocumented in America or certain poverty or even death back home?
Maybe you have trouble seeing Jesus in that liberal priest who writes those columns that annoy you. I know I’m broken and can be mistaken, but can you see that I’m trying?
I know I sometimes have trouble seeing Jesus in people with whom I disagree, but I try to let God’s grace continue to challenge me in that area. Maybe you can, too?
Each person, no matter what, carries inherent dignity and worth with the image of God pressed into their very soul. And each person you meet this Advent season is an opportunity for you to see Jesus in a new way, and find yourself changed in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)