Comments, Etc
Merry Christmas - A Morning After Reflection
December 27, 2002
Dear friends,
On this day after the day after, I am watching the sun rise on a world which looks much like the day before the day before. The long awaited day has come. And gone.
And much as the day before, I discover the morning news bearing headlines of despair. Struggling with the exhaustion of holiday "wonder", daunted by the celebrations still unfolding, I cannot help but wonder at the wisdom of our hopefulness.
For all of the excesses of the season, the shoots of hope seem minute. Yet they are indistinguishable and invite us to pause.
The Christmas Eve snow storm changed the cast of characters at our midnight worship, put the snow could not diminish the Spirit of God that danced through the exquisite music. And as we cleared snow from our walks yesterday, we watched as a van with Virginia license plates pulled into our neighbors driveway bearing her 10 month old great-granddaughter for a Christmas visit. My children's television viewing is being interrupted this morning by the gentle nudging of their newly adopted dog, "Evie" (Christmas Eve); the love of God enfleshed.
On this day after the day after, I am weary but content. In our remembering of God's sharing life with us, we have once again discovered our story to be one of truth.
Merry Christmas, dear friends.
October 2002. Copyright Katherine Hawker.
WWTD? As I pondered my response to a recent curve in the road, I found myself wondering "What would Tony do?" As a minister I know that I am charged with wondering what Jesus would do, and I do. But I also wonder about Tony. Not that I would do what Tony would (any more than I manage to do what Jesus might), but I often find Tony´s responses thought provoking. Troubling perhaps, but often intriguing. Placing my dilemma into his character yields insight.
Tony, my sometime ethical dialogue partner, is the protagonist of the hit HBO series "The Sopranos". For those who have yet indulge, let me explain that the "The Sopranos" features a mob boss, his psychiatrist, and both of his "families". In an article about the appeal of series last month, Harry Levins of the Post-Dispatch commented that English majors watch the show for it´s character development. {St. Louis Post Dispatch, September 15, 2002} The characters are indeed amazingly complex, and real. Tony is a mob boss plagued with anxiety attacks; he is also a son, a husband, and a father. And though we would like to dismiss him as "evil" personified (certainly some of his actions qualify), we see in him the inestimable pain of a parent when a child is in trouble. In Tony, we see that people who live into evil cannot be quickly dismissed. Coming to know Tony Soprano makes it more difficult to unilaterally dismiss ones enemies. In a world where people are quickly labeled as "good" or "evil", Tony defies categorization.
And as I consider what Tony would do, I also recognize the implications of my own choices. I am forced to realize that the capacity for evil lurks even in myself. Knowing our own capacity for evil is critical when we are asked to participate in war. Last week our Congressional leaders gave permission to "use force" against Iraq. Beyond the headlines however is the simple reality that such a display of "force" means that people will die. Two of the "smart bombs" that rained in Iraq in 1991 successfully completed their mission, destroying a bomb shelter and the 408 civilians huddled within it. {'Smarter' Bombs Still Hit Civilians, Christian Science Monitor, October 22, 2002} Bombs may be smarter these days, but it is the innocents who nonetheless bear their pain. Why would we support such evil with our taxes and our votes? This destruction is necessary, we´re told, so that we can live without fear of attack. What would Tony do? If Tony believed that an avowed enemy had the capacity for mass destruction and desired to use it, Tony would use his first. If we are persuaded by the arguments of Iraq´s capacity and intent, we too are tempted. But such temptation blurs fact and fear, leaving my children "safe" while my Iraqi sister buries hers.
The appeal of Tony Soprano is the window he offers to moral agency. But such voyeurism reveals our own agency and choice. Like Tony, I make choices. Choices about whether to vote and for whom. Choices about whether to pay taxes and to whom. Choices to ignore political trends or to offer an alternative voice. Choices when my own familyâs best interest collides with the good of the wider community. Sometimes I cheer Tony´s choices and my own, sometimes I weep with shame. Watching "The Sopranos" is not for the faint of heart.
I continue to wonder what Tony would do;
not because I aspire to be like him
but because I am.WWJD? calls us to deeper faithfulness,
WWTD? reminds us of who we are.
Maybe we need both right now.
"The End of Tyranny and Terrorism?"
September 2002. Copyright Katherine Hawker.
This weekend the White House unveiled a sweeping new manifesto: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This public document, printed in full on the White House web page, offers a detailed plan for how the United States will be in relationship with the world community. This publication offers a unique opportunity to be clear about our definitions and to hold our nation accountable.
In the introduction to the ground breaking new manifesto, George W. Bush writes that, "We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants." Although the war was declared only on "terrorism" last fall, at some point the object of our warring expanded to include tyrants. Nobody likes tyrants, so the expansion seems harmless. It does seem appropriate however to be clear about our definitions before we aim our weapons. According to Miriam-Webster's, "tyrant" means "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution" and "a usurper of sovereignty". Given that we are committed to protecting the world against tyrants, we can now be assured that we will not perpetuate tyranny. Accepting this policy would suggest that we are committed to respecting the sovereignty of other nations and their governments. This is a clear shift in policy, but certainly a refreshing wind of change.
I was heartened to read that "terrorism" isn't nebulous in the document, there is a clear definition holding us to accountability. "The enemy is terrorismÑ premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents." (Chapter 3, Paragraph 1) Although "innocents" is undefined, I rest easier at night knowing that civilians will be safe in this new world order; at least those who do not have the opportunity to vote for, or against, their leaders. I am grateful that this document would commit us to resolve situations without violence, bloodshed, or starvation of the innocents. I am eager to hear now the good news that the sanctions dooming the Iraqi children to hunger are lifted, the children in Cuba will have access to the world economy, and that no further bombs will rain on the children in Afghanistan. For these children are surely innocents - and they are now guaranteed protection.
Curiously, or not so, our brothers and sisters in Germany are unconvinced of our commitment to the plan. Just this past weekend they elected the Social Democrat candidate, Schroder, who shared publicly his disdain for the aggressive policies of the United States in relation to Iraq. He, and a sizeable majority of German citizens, are convinced that we will not respect the sovereignty of Iraqi, that we would do harm to the innocent people who have already suffered long under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.
Yet as the people of Germany were voting, the White House unveiled this new plan and promise. To be sure, the arrogance and veiled threats woven into the manifesto only fuel the disdain of those opposed to all things American. But I would be willing to overlook these flaws, as I'm sure would others, if only we could hold our government accountable for the two helpful promises offered in this plan for a new world order - respect of sovereignty and the protection of innocents. The White House has offered the promise, now we the citizens must hold them accountable.
July 2002. Copyright Katherine Hawker.
At a recent family gathering, Aunt Lorraine was telling of a particularly precocious boy in her Sunday School class. While in her telling of the tale her love for the child was obvious, so was her frustration with his question. The story of the day was the gospel story where Jesus invites Peter to leave the boat and walk with him on the water. The young child, upon hearing the story, demanded to know, "How did he do that?". The child's question was timeless, as was Aunt Lorraine's answer. "It's a miracle. You just have to believe."
As I listened to Aunt Lorraine's retelling, I was struck by how the boy's question had sent a dart into the armor of her literally held biblical faith. A weak dart that did little damage to be sure, but an unmistakable attack. I wondered why. Why does the little boy have to believe that a historical man took a literal walk on an actual body of water in order to be a Christian? Why does he have to believe that the story happened that way?
Why can't the little boy believe the truth in the story? The truth that sometimes our faith takes us places we would never want to go, places that seem precarious and unsteady and wrought with peril? The truth that in those times we walk not alone? In our quest to teach the little boy to believe the facts of the story, I am quite certain that we will teach him to miss the truth.
As we prepare to enter a new season of learning and growing together, I pray that we will carry these precious people and their questions with us. May we find the courage to meet the little boy's question with our own.
July 2002. Copyright Katherine Hawker.
During an otherwise unremarkable entry to the summer season, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that sent shock waves through the secular and religious communities of this nation. They ruled that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, with the 1954 addition of the phrase "under God", is unconstitutional. Both houses of Congress and the President of the United States were more united than on September 12th in their commitment to overturn the offensive ruling. Although the ruling, and the posturing all around, is at heart a secular issue, the religious implications are not insignificant.
What does it mean to pledge one's allegiance? And to whom and for what are we willing to do so? For people of faith, this is an extremely important question. Early in my ministry I was privileged to a serve a congregation which continued to be confused and challenged by a pastor who had served before me. This pastor quietly but consistently and publicly refused to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Each time he was questioned, he would patiently explain once again that his allegiance was simply and wholly to God. Not to this - or any - nation state. This courageous pastor's witness has continued to shape my faith.
As my elementary aged children traversed the public school system in the post-September 11th days, the question of how we participate with the Pledge of Allegiance took on a more prominent place in our family discussions. One day I took the plunge. "You don't have to say it", I told my daughter. "Your allegiance belongs with, and only with, God. You don't have to say any other pledge." My rule-abiding daughter looked first confused and then defiant. "Yes we do. Mrs. Frank said we do," my daughter retorted. And she was right; despite what I might teach at home, despite what our church may chose to offer, the all day every day influence of the public schools is a powerful force. And when the classroom teacher says so, a mother's authority clearly pales. Religious teaching isn't even on the radar.
My daughter says the Pledge of Allegiance, loudly and proudly these days. I quietly watch with my hand at my side. If ours were truly independent choices, I would suggest that we have achieved the goal of our "founding fathers". But given the inherent coercion in a child's choice, I am persuaded that the 9th Circuit Court may have more wisdom than the court of public opinion is currently acknowledging. If we coerce, however gently we may do so, our children to make pledges, we must be extremely cautious. Perhaps the Pledge of Allegiance is best left as a voluntary response.