Fine Prints: September, 2007

The Subtlety of Discrimination September 1

Carter Druse's Conundrum  September 8 

Land of Opportunity? Or Opportunity for Land?  September 15  

Poverty and the Church September 22

What's So Good About the Good News Part 1 September 29 

The Subtlety of Discrimination

The other day I was reading a professional publication for clergy when I suddenly went into slow burn. And it wasn’t about anything theological.

You see, I have a pet peeve—several, actually!—about publications that provide details of letter writers’ city and state of residence—except when the letters are sent by email. So we read about "John Smith, St. Louis, Missouri," and "Bill Jones, via email."

Now I have no problem with editors having a fixation about where people reside. Nor do I have a problem with their having a fixation about how people choose to send in their letters. But fairness demands that all letter writers face the same fixation. Are we to assume that people who utilize email have no city and state of residence? Or that it’s impossible to provide such information via email?

As I was contemplating this widespread double standard, it struck me that we have here a classic example of how discrimination begins, takes root, becomes the accepted norm and rarely is questioned.

For decades, publications had included letter writer’s name and city and state of residence. But with the advent of email, some editor somewhere decided to highlight how technologically advanced his or her publication was. So a trend started. Belief in email’s superiority caught on like a contagion. Letter writers who used email received special mention (which doubled as a vehicle for self-congratulations for the publication).

The trend continues. Probably a majority of publications still give special acknowledgement to letter writers who send in their comments via email. But why? The novelty is gone. It didn’t make sense then, but it definitely doesn’t now. Email is ancient history.

Could it be that editors include the city and state of residence of snail-mail letter writers so it will be easier for roving bands of anti-Luddites to track them down, berate them, beat them and vandalize their mailboxes because they’re not getting with the program technologically? (Britain’s "Luddites," led by Ned Ludd, violently resisted the mechanization that came as a result of the Industrial Revolution.)

No, the reason the practice continues has nothing to do with Luddites or their antagonists. The explanation is simply this: At some point in the past someone decided that email was superior—as were those who used it—and therefore deserved to be treated differently.

There’s no rational basis for such an assumption—in just the same way that there’s no rational basis for assuming that men are superior to women, or whites are superior to blacks, or Americans are superior to everyone else, and the list goes on.

But somewhere along the line, an idea creeps in. Others jump onto the bandwagon, and a belief becomes widespread. More frightening, though, it becomes entrenched and unexamined. We just take it for granted.

In correcting the inequitable treatment of letter writers, I suggest that indicating how the writers delivered their message to the editors could be a lot more interesting than telling where they reside.

And if we’re going to give accolades for one form of delivery or another, I think mental telepathy should get prime mention—if you’re picking up on my train of thought.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Carter Druse's Conundrum

Recently I forked over $2 for a book printed in 1941 titled Voices of Liberty. It’s an anthology of essays about . . . you guessed it, liberty. Democracy. The prerequisites for and the principles of true freedom.

At this time of pre-emptive war, nation-building, domestic surveillance, torture and indefinite detention of unconvicted "enemy combatants," it seemed a worthwhile exercise to refresh my memory about what democracy’s movers and shakers of the past have had to say.

The book was designed to provide models of good writing for college composition students. And the essayists addressed matters of liberty dating from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the period between the two world wars. The contributors were as varied as Edmund Burk, Arthur Schlesinger, Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln. Plus a lot of others.

The essay/short story that convinced me to part with my $2 was "A Horseman in the Sky," by Civil War veteran Ambrose Bierce. Few American writers have used words as dexterously as Bierce. And few writers have jolted me as he did. Allow me to share the gist of his story.

Carter Druse, a Virginia youth, decided to join the army during the Civil War—the Union Army. His dyed-in-the-wool Southern father, though heart-broken and assuring Carter that he was a traitor to his native Virginia, allowed him to leave. Carter, certain he was supporting the right side of the conflict, poured heart and soul into his soldiering.

On a mission to launch a surprise attack on the Confederates, Carter acted as sentry for a large group of Union soldiers. It was imperative that the enemy not gain advance warning. As Carter looked down from his mountainside post above the boxed-in valley where his comrades were organizing for the impending assault, it struck him just how vulnerable they were should word of their whereabouts leak out and they become the attacked rather than the attackers. He scanned the surrounding hillsides to make sure no Confederate became aware of his men’s position.

Just then Carter saw a horse standing on a promontory overlooking the valley where his men were. On the horse sat a man in gray. Instinctively, Carter raised his gun to shoot. Under no circumstances was that man going to return to Confederate lines.

Suddenly the man swung about in the saddle, facing the direction where Carter lay ready to shoot. The young Union soldier froze. His whole being shuddered. He recognized his father.

He looked at the man on the horse. He looked at the men in the valley. He thought of the cause for which he was fighting and in which he so strongly believed. He wracked his brain for some way not to have to decide.

Then he raised his gun and fired a fatal shot.

End of story.

Ah, the conundrums of war. Child against parent. Parent against child. Such strong belief in a cause that some become willing to sacrifice their own flesh and blood.

On the other hand, if the cause for which I kill isn’t moral enough to justify killing my own father if need be, why should I treat with such relative indifference the killing of someone else’s father?

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Land of Opportunity? Or Opportunity for Land?

We often hear it said that the United States is the land of opportunity. But the opportunity our nation offered the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was in great measure land itself. In abundance. Cheap. Even free. Such land, once acquired, could be parlayed into other forms of wealth. It was like receiving an inheritance, which could in turn be passed on to succeeding generations. But that situation has changed dramatically.

The Europeans who left their respective homelands to come to the new world were, for the most part, leaving regions where the land was already concentrated in the hands of a relative few. If land hadn’t been in one’s family for generations, it was difficult to acquire. In the United States, however, 160 acres was there for the taking. One merely had to cultivate the soil and erect some kind of dwelling.

With the arrival of increasing numbers of immigrants, and with the westward migration of Americans seeking to better their lot, one had to go farther and farther into the hinterland to find such land. Eventually, free land was no longer available. Fortunately, land acquired freely only years or decades before was still cheap. So, although it was more difficult, there was still opportunity for the once-landless to become landed.

But land is a finite commodity; the population isn’t. With more and more people pursuing a fixed amount of land, the land parcels have become smaller and the prices have become higher. Add to this the artificialities of the market, which can dramatically affect prices, and land ownership is rapidly becoming an impossibility for many Americans. Which means the American dream of home ownership is for many little more than a mirage.

What’s happening in the realm of land is duplicated in other economic areas. Those who already have wealth are able to take advantage of the opportunities to acquire greater wealth. While those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder struggle merely to be housed, clothed and fed. In short, the new world, inevitably, has begun to reflect what the old world was when so many left its shores for ours a century or two ago.

It’s sobering to realize that it wasn’t our democratic ideology alone that made the United States different from the old world; it was in great measure the availability of land. With the disappearance of readily acquirable land, the new world increasingly takes on the character of the old. The population is polarizing into two distinct groups—an owner class who control the majority of the assets, and a lower class who are substantially dependent on the owner class for goods and services.

While the United States is still a land of opportunity, the rise from rags to riches takes far more creativity than it did in the past—especially for the rank and file at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Poverty is on the increase, and the future looks increasingly grim for a growing number of people.

How should the church relate to this reality? Is there something we might be able to do? Is there something we should do? We’ll talk more about it next week.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

Poverty and the Church

I titled last week’s Fine Print "Land of Opportunity? Or Opportunity for Land?" I noted that one of the reasons the United States has afforded so much opportunity was because of readily available free or cheap land.

But that’s all changing. The population is burgeoning, while the land mass is static. Which means that more and more people are vying for the same amount of land. Which means that land prices are rising rapidly. Which means that the generations-long land owners are increasingly advantaged while the landless are increasingly disadvantaged.

My main point is this: Poverty is on the increase. The gap between rich and poor is growing––both in terms of relative income and percentage of population. So what role should the church be playing in seeking to alleviate the inevitable hardship and suffering that follow in the wake of poverty?

While the practices of the Bible can’t be carried directly into our current social situation, many of the principles can be. Note the following––which, I suggest, apply both to individuals and to congregations:

1. Be generous. Deuteronomy 15:7 states: "Do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded . . . ."

2. Be altruistic. "Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: ‘The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,’ so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing" (Deuteronomy 15:9).

3. Don’t take unfair advantage of the poor. "Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns" (Deuteronomy 24:14).

4. Don’t discriminate or show favoritism. "‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:15).

5. Remember your own roots. Most of us were at one time poorer than today––or our forebears were. So it’s important not to forget. Repeatedly in the writings of Moses we read: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15).

6. Seek to preserve the dignity of labor. "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien" (Leviticus 19:9, 10). The need for work wasn’t magically removed in the efforts to assist the poor. This principle has been lost sight of in the past 50 years, resulting in a sense of entitlement. We do a disservice by inadvertently fostering such a spirit.

7. Recognize that poverty will always be a problem. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land" (Deuteronomy 15:11).

Social justice issues will increasingly become a concern for congregations. The lack of land is but one of the many factors changing the fabric of society. But individual Christians and congregations should play a major role in solving the problem.

Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor

What's So Good About the Good News Part 1 

I’m about to discuss a rather heavy theological topic, so it seems appropriate to start with a somewhat lighter story to illustrate my point.

While waiting to board a flight from Munich to London on our recent trip to Europe, Leonie noticed that the well-dressed man who’d been sitting across from us in the departure lounge had left a black Hugo Boss shopping bag on his seat. Looking inside, she discovered a new Hugo Boss shirt, along with the receipt. It had cost 79.90 euros (more than $110). Scanning the crowd who were boarding the flight, we saw the shirt’s owner just before he disappeared beyond the departure gate.

Seeking to be helpful, she gathered up the bag and shirt.

Not wanting to take any chances of being caught with contraband, the moment we boarded the plane Leonie told the flight attendants that a man had left his new shirt in the departure lounge. They examined the bag and shirt briefly, then asked if she could recognize the owner. She said she could—she thought. So they led her down the aisle in search. It didn’t take long to find him.

"This lovely lady has been following you to ensure that you get the shirt you forgot in the departure lounge," the flight attendant said in his very gracious and very British manner—which, it struck me, almost made Leonie sound like a stalker!

The shirt’s owner seemed appreciative, thanking her for her efforts.

The flight attendant, impressed by how she’d gone the second mile, said she deserved free champagne. When she said she didn’t drink but would welcome chocolate, he was noncommittal. Neither champagne nor chocolate was mentioned again. But Leonie and I did talk as we flew.

"If he leaves that shirt on his seat again, I’m going to take it," Leonie mused. "I think I deserve it." She never thought he might actually do so.

We were virtually the last passengers to leave the plane in London. No Hugo Boss bag was visible when we walked past the man’s now-vacated seat. But at the door of the plane, we met a gaggle of flight attendants.

"Can you believe it?" one attendant exclaimed to us. "That man forgot his shirt again!" He held out the open Hugo Boss bag, revealing the shirt for which someone had paid 79.90 euros.

"If he doesn’t want it, I’ll gladly take it," Leonie said jokingly.

"You might see him in the baggage-claim area. If not, keep it," the flight attendant said, giving her the bag and noting that she might as well have it as someone else. Why have it just get thrown away?

The shirt’s owner wasn’t in the baggage-claim area.

Maybe the Hugo Boss bag and shirt were some sort of secret code in a spy saga that went astray because of a "lovely lady." We don’t know if the man lamented his loss or lamented Leonie’s efforts to help. But we do know that our son Jared looks great in his new Hugo Boss shirt. And we do know that something the man had lost was returned to him, and he lost it again.

Keep that latter point in mind when you read a future Good News—2 Fine Print.

 Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor