Duane Gran’s log of thoughts

On this day 491 years ago Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis as a challenge to the excesses of his day and opened the doors to mass schism. He could have been a renown reformer in the church, but the legacy today is nearly 30,000 protestant denominations.

I used to think of it as a bold and appropriate move but increasingly I see the protestant revolution in problematic terms. As I research more tenants of early Christianity they increasingly mirror the tradition and ethos of modern Catholicism.

I’m pleased to announce, for those not in my immediate email orbit, the birth of my daughter — Maria Katherine Gran. She joined our family the evening of August 13, 2008. She is 6 pounds and 7 ounces. She is quite healthy and adorable. We are adjusting to the new addition and having a great time.

See previous.

Incidentally, Zachary is doing great as well. He will be a wonderful big brother, I’m sure.

A Catholic Culture article summarizes the long history of the Church on matters of labor and human dignity. Of particular note to me:

Starting with Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum, often referred to simply as his “labor encyclical,” the Church would indeed have much to say! In fact that Pope placed the Church in between the opposing parties: the capitalists and the socialists. He did so by rejecting both the hare-brained Marxian initiative to do away with private ownership of the material means of production, and the capitalist treatment of human labor as mere merchandise which had made the socialist mad-hatter venture seem credible to so many in the first place.

Every few years I find myself re-reading Rerum Novarum and each time it tempers my persuasion and realigns my sense of the eternal in us all. For all the criticism heaped on the Church, there are few institutions capable of charting a third way between Marx and Smith.

I necessarily attribute such wisdom to the Holy Spirit, but fortunately the fruits of such wisdom is available to all regardless of faith.

On this Good Friday I’m necessarily brought to a place of reverence for a carpenter and Savior who washed the feet of others. If the transition seems not too abrupt, I want to draw attention to one of the most thought provoking articles about labor that I’ve read in years. I could quote volumes from it, but I’ll share the most stirring passage for me:

Knowing the production narrative, or at least being able to plausibly imagine it, renders the social narrative of the advertisement less potent.

My effort in writing here is to raise awareness (my own and others) about the dignity of human enterprise. Anything that promotes material desire, such as advertising, necessarily is a threat to our innate desire to commune with and serve God.

A delightful NY Times article delves into the moral implications of wealth and poverty and puts into clear relief how we have a moral imperative to serve others who are less fortunate. It has been years since I’ve read a good Kantian viewpoint and this article may well be one of the best I’ve seen.

On November 23 we celebrate Thanksgiving. It is a time for reflection on the many blessings we hold dear, yet the day after is a time for being unsatisfied with our blessings and filling the void with commerce. How one can go from thankfulness to the orgy of commerce known as Black Friday I’ll never understand. This Friday will yet again be Buy Nothing Day in my household. I encourage you to also prolong the sprit of thankfulness and to count your blessings well beyond the Thursday feast.

A particular portion of the scripture has spoken to me for years about being grateful. Luke 17:11-14 describes how Jesus healed ten people of leprosy. The scripture goes on to say:

One of them, when he saw that he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him — and he was a Samaritan.

Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go: your faith has made you well.”

My sincere hope is to live like the one who gave thanks, not like the other nine. The decision is ultimately personal, but resisting consumerism during the holidays is a meaningful protest. It keeps me thankful for what I have and aware that the grace given thus far is sufficient.

This week I had the opportunity to learn more about three charities in the Central Virginia area. Sometimes I hear people express doubt about philanthropy trustworthiness, which often culminates in an excuse to not contribute. An ounce of graft in one charity tarnishes the many but there are so many worthwhile endeavors that desperately need support. The following three are about as genuine as they come and I’m glad to have learned more about them.

1. Habitat for Humanity — I had the opportunity to hear Tim Bowring, the Director of Resource Development, speak to the Charlottesville Rotary Club on Tuesday. They work with donors and volunteers to create affordable housing so that firefighters, teachers and other professionals can live in the communities they serve. It is simply intractable for someone who earns 45k per year to own a 300k home, but they are able to keep the costs under 200k. Of note, in their ten year history in the Charlottesville area they have not had one person default on a home loan.
2. Boys and Girls Club — On several occasions I’ve spoken with Tim Sinatra, the Director, about the good work they are doing for over 900 youth in the area. Juvinile related crimes are double between the hours of 3pm and 8pm. Their four facilities provide a constructive alternative for troubled youth and may well represent the soundest investment you can make in the community.
3. Bridge Ministry — I attended a benefit banquet on Thursday evening and was touched by the compassion of this ministry. They provide a year-long program for men who are incarcerated and want to rebuild their lives. They form partnerships with the private sector for job placement. Their recidivism rate is 15%, which is a remarkable achievement. A Daily Progress article summarizes some key points from the banquet.

It’s easy to become cynical about service organizations but there are too many people hurting and suffering for this to be an excuse to stay on the sidelines. Whether you commit time, talent or treasure I hope that people in our community get involved.

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. –Al Gore

While not wishing to exude a 10th September mindset, I feel compelled to state that I don’t feel terror on this day like I might have before. Gradually I’ve come to accept terrorism as one of a variety of dangers in life that don’t warrant sleepless nights, hand wringing or long war. The prescient writing of John Mueller speaks my mind well on the matter.

Update (18 Sept 2006): A cheeky article in Wired News make a compelling case about the real threats that abound.

I recently watched the film End of the Spear, which is about a true story of missionaries killed in Ecuador and the triumph of forgiveness. In case you are a believer in movie spoilers (my thoughts on the misnomer) you may not wish to read further.

The film depicts the most uncommon sign of Christian faith in deeds, which is forgiveness and reconciliation. It also avoids simplistic tropes about savage people while fairly demonstrating the incapacitating cycle of violence among the Waodoni tribe. The missionaries attempted to teach non-violence to this subculture in Ecuador but it cost them their lives trying.

Positive themes abound in the film, but the absence of token love stories or flim-flam conflict sets it apart from routine modern picture shows. It has been years since I saw a film which ennobled the human spirit. The events of the film occurred in the last fifty years — a startling and encouraging reality in one bundle.

I’m encouraged because I believe the same message of non-violence and reconciliation is badly needed today in the Middle East. We could make a world of difference in the lives of suicide bombers by showing Christian compassion, but instead we settle for isolation and justification for retaliatory violence. This is, to put it tritely, not what Jesus would have done.

I’m pleased to announce, for those not in my immediate email orbit, the birth of my son — Zachary James Gran. He was born on June 20th and weighed 7 lbs and 12 ounces. He is the picture of health and the apple of my eye.

Much fuss has been made on the AM radio band as well as in congress about immigration. The objection is predicated on a belief that we have too many illegal immigrants. An article by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative economist, captures the essence of the anti-immigration viewpoint:

Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.

He goes on to cite examples of troublesome groups, such as Russians and Nigerians, as worthy of special exclusion from entering the United States. It almost has the ring of truth and sense until you consider that any group-based discrimination denies the rights of individuals. I find the wording of the Manifesto for the Abolition of International Apartheid, authored in 1997, to be helpful in identifying the crux of the issue:

Since the end of interracial apartheid in South Africa, no longer any state in the world openly practices discrimination between humans based on the arbitrary criterion of skin colour. Today, however, another equally arbitrary criterion is still accepted and applied by virtually every state in the world. For a human individual to have been born in some a particular place, from parents of some particular nationality, and thus to possess emself some particular nationality, is a matter of chance, and cannot be taken as a non-arbitrary criterion of discrimination.

Ultimately the raging debate may be a lot of fury over nothing, as Arnold Kling, an economist, deflates the hype in pointing out that “illegal immigrants bring relatively little economic benefit and cause relatively little economic harm.” Advocates for tighter border control aren’t xenophobes and proponents for the status quo aren’t laying a welcome mat for n’er do goods. That doesn’t sound worth fighting over, but I can’t blame 500,000 people for protesting legislation that would criminalize providing services to illegals.

It’s un-Christian and I don’t think Senator Hillary Clinton was far off the mark when she said that House Resolution 4437 would criminalize the Good Samaritan. We should foster, not criminalize, our compassion and it should transcend borders.

Much has been said and written about the recent outrage of Muslims over the depiction of the prophet Muhammad in a Dutch newspaper, and the consequent reprint in European newspapers. Embassies have been evacuated, flags have burned and no one seems very happy with one another. We are told that this is a contest between free expression and religious zealotry, but among the hand wringing discussion I observe a historical disconnect where the western world and the 20-40 latitude are talking across purposes.

Put simply, the Muslim community (which means the leadership and its vocal proponents) has a 16th century world view. The west is thoroughly ensconced in the 20th century (I think the 21st is too new to discern any differences) which presumes a lot about state and government function. We are, in fact, so sure about how government and society should be structured that few people think twice about the sense of making the rest of the world in our image. While we have great mastery over the power of sword and jewel, we neglect the mirror too often.

But things seem even worse on the other side. For example, a BBC article reports that an Iranian newspaper is holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust. Herein lies the cross-purpose thinking: While westerners see a conflict of expression and religion, vocal Muslims (and opportunists throughout) see a conflict between Islam and Israel. If you can stomach it, a fellow Virginia writer delves into the themes of blasphemy and puts in stark relief the extreme views of those who protest the cartoons. There isn’t much room for ambiguity when a protester’s sign declares, “slay those who insult Islam”.

To put this into context, Europe has a centuries-old culture of ridiculing and lampooning religion, much to the ire of the Vatican. Most reasonable Christians have come to see such behavior as a useful counter balance to the authority of the Church and among the offended, nearly all believe in peaceful resistance to blasphemy. This viewpoint is relatively new in the past few centuries, which leads to the historical disconnect. The friction today could very well be the same as if a 16th century Christian were transported into today’s secular world.

We can’t (and I’ll go further to say we shouldn’t) secularize Muslim countries against their will, and they also can’t apply Sharia to secular society anymore than we can instate Kings and the Holy Roman Empire. However, we can — and should — find ways of getting along. To that end, it was poor taste for the Dutch publisher to commission the illustration and worse judgement for newspapers to reprint them, knowing full well that it would fan the flames of Muslim outrage. Being right about the freedom of expression is immaterial when lives are endangered.

The Christian Science Monitor offers a good summary of newspaper positions on the matter. I find the position espoused by The Guardian to be particularly apt:

The Guardian believes uncompromisingly in freedom of expression, but not in any duty to gratuitously offend. It would be senselessly provocative to reproduce a set of images, of no intrinsic value, which pander to the worst prejudices about Muslims. To directly associate the founder of one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions with terrorist violence - the unmistakable meaning of the most explicit of these cartoons - is wrong, even if the intention was satirical rather than blasphemous.

Can’t we all just get along?

An essay from Rick Sincere raises some interesting counter points to the oft-repeated concern about the commercialism of Christmas. He persuades shoppers to feel morally comforted with the following refrain:

Simply remember that every time you buy a Christmas gift — a toy, a CD- player, a spice rack, a hunting rifle — you are helping to pay someone’s wages. Millions of such purchases, made every day in the Christmas-shopping season, keep factories open, keep workers employed, keep families fed.

I suppose one might also break windows and burn down buildings to keep people employed, but this in itself doesn’t constitute a moral foundation for doing so. By all means, people should feel happy and content to give gifts, as I’m personally doing, but in all things it should be done with moderation. There is a tipping point at which consumption becomes conspicuous and we have given leave of our better senses to serve others.

I believe, as many others do also, that we have eclipsed that point where Christmas is rarely about faith and more about consumption. That Mr. Sincere feels the need to quiet the discontent in some people’s hearts speaks volumes to me about the moral tremor that lies beneath. While I don’t wish to sound preachy, there is a moral component to how we conduct our commercial affairs, but correct execution goes much deeper than simply benefiting the already employed. We are judged in how we use our talents, not whether we expend them.

To all merchants:

As we approach the Christmas season I’m sure that you are eager to sell a good number of baubles and whatnot. I’m told that you do about half of your business during the holidays. This is a big time for us all, which brings me to my request.

If it isn’t too much trouble, would you kindly refrain from pitching Christmas-related items before I’ve properly enjoyed Thanksgiving? It is crass and poor taste to upstage the turkeys and pilgrims. They don’t like it, and neither do I.

And another thing — kindly stop reminding me how many “shopping days” it is until Christmas, as if shopping were the sole function of the holiday. I seem to recall a celebration of a birth, but amid the tinsel and secularism the memory escapes me. Maybe you can do something helpful about this.

Narcissism Goes to Church

Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified.

I couldn’t have said it better, but I believe the current preoccupation with self-esteem goes beyond affects in religion. I’m reminded of a recent story where teachers are urged not to use red ink because it is damaging to a student’s self-esteem. Ludicrous examples may be a straw man, but what the most troublesome aspect to me is the uncritical acceptance of the belief that higher self-esteem leads to other positive outcomes. While an upbeat outlook and good mood seem to reinforce good habits, I have serious doubts that building up one’s self image displaces bad habits or creates new good habits.

After all, that is what maturity is all about. Good habits are built from practice and, in the beginning, a bit of well intended coercion. Some correction and discipline comes with instruction, and I also suspect some bruising of the ego. Good self-esteem comes from internalizing those good habits, not being let off easy. I’ll readily confess to harboring some bad habits in case it appears that I’m casting stones.

Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, the authors of One Nation Under Therapy summarized this point nicely in a Spiked essay:

Young people are not helped by being wrapped in cotton wool and deprived of the vigorous pastimes and intellectual challenges they need for healthy development. Nor are they improved when educators, obsessed with the mission of boosting children’s self-esteem, tell them how ‘wonderful’ they are. A growing body of research suggests there is, in fact, no connection between high self-esteem and achievement, kindness, or good personal relationships. On the other hand, unmerited self-esteem is known to be associated with antisocial behaviour - even criminality.

I’m not an expert on education or religious order, but my gut instinct tells me that an honest complement builds good will and that flattery helps no one. To bring this back to the initial topic of faith, I’m reminded of a proverb from Ecclesiastes 7:5 which says, “It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools”

A fantastic interview with Brian McLaren reveals some poignant insight into the mind of a Christian Postmodernist — a term that may signal contradiction to many Christians familiar with the current phase of Conservative faith. While neither McLaren or I intend to craft a litmus test for “real” Christianity, I personally find his views to resonate with the message of service and humility that Jesus espoused. In particular, I agree with him about the appropriate way for faith to intersect with the politics.

I think the Christian community is making an extremely dangerous mistake with this. The mistake is we are going from dissatisfaction to legislation and missing the middle step of persuasion. Now you would think, from our beliefs from the Gospels, that God isn’t just interested in us being focused on the law, but he actually wants to change our hearts. That’s my understanding of how the Kingdom of God works, but we (the church) don’t seem to understand that.

…

So, firstly, I think it’s a gross and foolish mistake of strategy. If we were to take 30 percent of the effort spent on legislation and invest it instead on sensible and palpable persuasion, we would get an awful lot farther.

Secondly, it’s hypocritical, because the conservative religious value always talks about how we want to weaken federal government. They want to weaken the federal government when it talks about the government helping the poor, preserving the environment or doing a lot of other things that I think Christians should care about, and they want to strengthen the government in all these other ways. They ought to at least be honest and say, “We want to strengthen the federal government for our agenda and not somebody else’s.” I think it’s incredibly duplicitous to, in one breath, call for weakening the federal government and then try to use it for your advantage. I’m stunned that people who call themselves Christians would practice that kind of duplicity. It’s stunning. It feels to me like George Orwell.

See also a Harper’s article about the disconnect between the Christian profession of many Americans and their expression of faith.

Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.

The article goes on to cite several contradictory signposts in American public policy, such as poverty rates among children, foreign aid and rates of violence. My general feeling is that humans, myself regrettably included, are masters at rationalizing the things we do. As much as it pains me to see someone claim Jesus’ endorsement for Conservative political aims, possibly they feel the same when I applaud Christian edicts of service in progressive public policy. What seems clear to me is that both camps can’t be right, but they may well both be wrong.

That said, I tend to believe that the faithful should operate on persuasion instead of legislation and where faith affects public policy, it should do so to further the aims of serving the most disenfranchised in our society.

It isn’t every day that find my inspiration in The American Conservative but I’m impressed by an article entitled Fear Factories by Matthew Scully. Liberals should read it so that they understand that Conservatives are thoughtful and well-meaning people. Conservatives should read it to understand a new and compelling argument on what has traditionally been a Liberal cause. The ethics of industrial farming is an issue where we can find common ground.

The entire article is quotable and well-written, but I want to draw out a portion that spoke to me:

We know man as he is, not only the rational creature but also, as Socrates told us, the rationalizing creature, with a knack for finding an angle, an excuse, and a euphemism. Whether it’s the pornographer who thinks himself a free-speech champion or the abortionist who looks in the mirror and sees a reproductive health-care services provider, conservatives are familiar with the type.

So we should not be all that surprised when told that these very same capacities are often at work in the things that people do to animals—and all the more so in our $125 billion a year livestock industry. The human mind, especially when there is money to be had, can manufacture grand excuses for the exploitation of other human beings. How much easier it is for people to excuse the wrongs done to lowly animals.

….

Yet when corporate farmers need barbed wire around their Family Farms and Happy Valleys and laws to prohibit outsiders from taking photographs (as is the case in two states) and still other laws to exempt farm animals from the definition of “animals” as covered in federal and state cruelty statues, something is amiss. And if conservatives do nothing else about any other animal issue, we should attend at least to the factory farms, where the suffering is immense and we are all asked to be complicit.

Scully calls for a Humane Farming Act to address the maladies he describes in his article and his recent book, Dominion. I don’t find any references to this in the legislative record, but I certainly think it is worth our while to consider it.

Creationism: God’s gift to the ignorant

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or intelligent design theory (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

While I believe in God as a creator of life I have little alliance with the creationist viewpoint. It isn’t clear how faith is threatened by evolution and I believe there are bigger fish to fry. Everyone is free to believe whichever origin scenario they prefer, but I find the misuse of science by creationists to be disturbing. To further quote Richard Dawkins, “The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors.”

The other disturbing matter is how the ID crowd goes about promoting their beliefs. They raise thought-provoking inquiries about evolution, but instead of conducting research and publishing in scientific journals they promote their ideas in the marketplace and church group. Put simply, the ID crowd is more interested in garnering sympathetic followers for political ends than convincing the scientific community.

Check out Gospel Spectrum for a fascinating visualization of the life of Jesus as it is portrayed in the four gospels. I don’t know much about how this was produced or how they chose versions for the texts, but it is interesting to see what portions of Jesus’ life and ministry are most collaborated upon.