Zeitoun, by Dave Eggers, is one of the most captivating books I've read in a long time. It's non-fiction, a true story, but reads like a novel or detective story. Zeitoun is Arabic for "olive," but in this case it is the surname of Abdulrahman Zeitoun (photo, with his family), of Jableh, Syria, a town I know well. After his father's death, Abdulrahman left home and went to sea for ten years. Deciding it was time to settle down, he found a wife in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and became an American citizen. Together they moved to New Orleans. There he developed a large paint contracting business and became a well-known and relatively rich man, amassing properties in the city, all the while supervising a half-dozen paint and restoration crews working in various sections of New Orleans.
          Then Katrina struck. And Zeitoun is the harrowing tale of its impact -- and the impact of an incompetant FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and a truly vicious judicial system -- on Abdulrahman and his family. I was alternately inspired, saddened, and infuriated as I read the book. Zeitoun is listed at $24, but you can get it for under $15 at Amazon.com.

          



          Captain Hamstra makes another point that I have not yet reconciled in my own mind. He says, “The plea for national nonviolence does not stand up to the test of history. Yes, there are countless examples of misused violence, but there are too many examples of violence used to obtain peace and justice for us to justify abandonment of the national use of violent force.”         
          Where I find Hamstra unpersuasive is his citation of “countless examples of misused violence” over against “many [not countless] examples of violence used to obtain peace and justice.” Regardless of whether or not there are actually "many," to my mind, “many” does not justify “countless.” Over and over again, even the best-intentioned of nations – and I would like to include the United States – have pursued war unnecessarily (the myth of “weapons of mass destruction) or for ignoble reasons (war with Mexico in order to expand U.S. territory).         
          The earliest Christians opposed war unambiguously, not permitting disciples of Jesus to serve in the Roman legions (though many were forced to as captive slaves). The "just war" theory emerged within Christianity only after the warring emperor Constantine embraced the faith. I wonder if the world would be worse off today if contemporary Christians opposed war – any war – just as resolutely? Even the "just" wars end only after countless innocents have been slaughtered.

          The chief reason I am not a pure pacifist is that I believe God has essentially given the human race freedom to create its own culture. Evolution has built aggression and violence into human nature and war is one of its expressions. In other words, from a short term perspective, war is inevitable.          
          But not from a longer perspective. The incarnation of Jesus in human history has, I believe, introduced an entirely new evolutionary situation.  We are no longer obligated to conform to Darwinian rules. The Spirit of Jesus both informs and empowers us to overcome violence and replace traditional lose-lose, or win-lose, scenarios with win-win ones. Slowly, incrementally, this new spirit is at loose in the world. Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and Eunice Shriver (Special Olympics) are examples of it. 
          And that being the case, I think Captain Hamstra (see yesterday’s blog) is right: Christians and other people of good will need to be involved in the evil of war, not only to pursue justice (for I see that as highly ambiguous) but to alleviate the worst horrors of war, and bring out certain noble qualities (intense comradeship, self-sacrifice, endurance) that can, in fact, emerge during conflct.          
          To be concluded tomorrow…

         



           Because I feel strongly about certain issues, I make of point of trying to understand and appreciate opposing views. I believe strongly in nonviolence. And ever since the horrific fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo in World War II, which caused unimaginably painful deaths to hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women and children, I have been utterly repulsed by war. And I reject the Christian tradition (since Augustine) of a “just war.”         
          My views on nonviolence and war lead logically to pacifism. But I don’t believe in pacifism. So I’ve got a problem of consistency. Recently I read with interest a short essay by a U. S. Army captain currently serving in Afghanistan – “training, advising, and fighting alongside the Afghan National Army as it promotes peace and security in this war-torn land.” The article appears in The Banner, the denominational magazine of the Christian Reformed Church of which I am a member.           The essay reveals Captain Mark Hamstra to be a devout Christian. “It is time,” he writes, for the church to be bigger than the [right wing] community that wants victory more than peace; but it’s also time for the church to be bigger than [left wing] nonviolence and pacifism.”         
          Hamstra points to the story in Matthew 8, where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. Although Jesus had “a perfect opportunity” to preach nonviolence to the centurion, he did not. Instead, he praised the centurion’s faith and humility. “Perhaps Jesus needed that centurion, someone who live out the message of Christ on the thin line of war and terrorism – someone who could walk amid the fog, confusion, and horror of war with wisdom, while leading his soldiers to do the same,” opines Hamstra. No doubt the captain sees himself in a similar situation.          
              To be continued…

          Today our papers and TV screens are filled with tributes to Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy (center, with brothers Robert and Jack to his right and left) -- a flawed man, like most of us, but a great senator. My favorite story about him follows:
          In 1971 President Nixon supported a measure co-authored by Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, to created the National Cancer Institute. But Nixon exacted a price that most senators would not be willing to pay. Nixon said he would sign the bill only if Kennedy's name was omitted, allowing the Republican party to take credit for it. An intermediary approached Kennedy with Nixon's offer, assuming Kennedy would refuse. But Kennedy replied, "Oh,hell, that's no problem." That story perfectly illustrates the principle, popularized by Ralph Waldo Emerson, that great things can be accomplished if one doesn't care who gets the credit.
          The same day Ted Kennedy died from cancer, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim also died from the disease. al-Hakim was as great a figure in Iraqi politics as Kennedy was in American politics. He led the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council. For most Iraqis, he embodied their resistance to the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Like Kennedy, he suffered great personal tragedy. During the war between Iraq and Iran, six of his brothers were executed by Hussein. His only surviving brother was killed shortly after the American invasion of Iran. His death reminds us that every nation, every culture, has its great ones.

            I attended a funeral yesterday of a Paterson friend my age, and this morning woke up to the news that another friend in Colorado Springs had gone to be with the Lord, and that Senator Ted Kennedy has also passed away. All this reminds me that my own days are surely numbered and I ought to make the best of them.
          We live in a free country. Former vice president Dick Cheney (left) is free to speak his mind. That doesn't mean that he is right, however. From a Judeo-Christian perspective he is clearly misguided when he insists, over and over again, that any measures taken to gain war intelligence, including torture, is warranted if it enhances national security, The end justifies the means, he believes.
          By contrast, Jesus insisted that "he who would save his life will lose it." That is, personal or national security can never be the highest priority, particularly if behind that concern is the self-destructive thought that sheer force, on the battle field or in the torture chamber, is our salvation. Centuries before Christ, the Hebrew prophet Zechariah brought this word to Israel's leaders, '"Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit," says the LORD."
          

          Attorney General Eric Holder (photo) and his decision to appoint a special investigator to examine prisoner abuse by the Central Intelligence Agency grabbed the headlines this morning, overshadowing an equally disturbing -- and disturbingly related -- report on the abuse of juvenile delinquents in New York prisons. 
          Correction officers in the New York prison system routinely use harsh punishment, resulting in broken bones, shattered teeth, concussions and other serious injuries. According to a report issued today by the U.S. Department of Justice, in New York physical force is generally the first response to any act of subordination by a juvenile, whereas the guidelines clearly state that it must be the last resort. So now the federal government is threatening to take over the New York youth prison system unless reforms are instituted immediately.
          For six years my wife Georgia was a county commissioner here in New Jersey she discovered the situation paralleled that of New York. She set about to make major refoms, not in the entire State, but in our County's juvenile prison system, and was remarkably successful. We regard that as one of her enduring legacies, so far as our County is concerned.
          But here is what is on my mind today: What connection is there between the way we treat our juveniles in prison and the way we treat terrorist prisoners? How we treat the acorns is how we treat the oaks. My belief is that a character flaw underlies both situations. Americans are quick to resort to violence. Perhaps that is just human nature, or perhaps it is the result of conquering our continent and trying to establish order in a lawless frontier environment. Whatever the reason, violence has become a part of our national character.  
          Fortunately, it appears we are becoming sensitive to this character flaw, as the two government actions reported today indicate. Former presidential candidate John McCain has been especially vocal in his insistence that Americans take the high moral road in our treatment of prisoners. We need Local officials to be equally insistent. Unless we can correct this trait in our national personality we have no right to pretend to international leadership.

         

          "The opression of women worldwide is the human rights cause of our time. And their liberation could help solve many of the world's problems, from poverty to child mortality to terrorism." This is the theme of a provocative article by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn in this week's New York Times Magazine.
          I don't consider myself a rampant male chauvanist, but the truth is, I was reared in a patriarchal community during the Great Depression when the husband/father was sole breadwinner, so I suspect that I am influenced by the prevailing notions of those days to a greater or lesser degree. Thus I read the article attentively, wondering, Is it true that global female oppression is the priority human rights cause of our timeP and it is true that liberating women would in turn solve many of the world's evils?
          According to Kristof and WaDunn and the many research reports they cite, in a large slice of the world girls are uneducated and women are marginalized. Is it coincidence that these same countries are mired in poverty, corruption, fundamentalism and chaos? The World Bank, the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and non-governmental organizations such as CARE have concluded that the most effective way to obviate extremism and poverty is to focus on women. In short, they say, women are the solution, not the problem.
          In this light it is worth considering that Jesus, who lived and ministered in a patriarchal socient, paid extraordinary attention to women. Helene Ashker, a former secretary of mine, has written two Bible study booklets entitled "Jesus Cares for Women" and "Jesus Changes Women." These are vailable from www.NavPress.com  and I recommend them.
         

            I was slow coming around to Barack Obama. Initially I favored Mrs. Clinton as having more experience and being reliably committed to the political values I believe in. And there was no question about her toughness. At the same time, to my mind Mrs. Clinton also represented a rather tired, same ol’ same ol’ approach to politics. So gradually I came to favor Obama. (My wife’s enthusiasm for Obama probably helped.)

            My hesitance toward Barack Obama was based not only on his relative lack of experience. I was more troubled by his apparent similarity to another presidential candidate who only people of my age will recall with clarity. Adlai Stevenson was the governor of Illinois. He was a lawyer, an intellectual, a “cool” individual who conveyed rationality. He was an eloquent orator for liberal causes. He saw all sides of an issue and as a consequence gained a reputation for indecisiveness and even weakness. He was soundly defeated, twice, by General Dwight Eisenhower.

            Perhaps it’s just a matter of style, but in my opinion President Obama at this point appears to be too quick to compromise, too hesitant to take decisive action on issues I think are worth fighting for. In short, too much like Stevenson, not enough like Harry Truman. It’s still early in his presidency, of course, but during these first eight months I have not seen the kind of aggressive leadership, as opposed to aggressive oratory, I had hoped for.

          Feedback from yesterday's blog about Scotish values requires me to make a couple of more comments. While basically agreeing (against all the American media) that al-Megrahi's "compassionate release" was justified from a Christian perspective, readers complained that surely there could be no justification for the hero's welcome al-Megrahi received upon returning home to Libya. How can such a reception be justified for a man who murdered 270 people?
          As hard as it might be for Westerners to comprehend, the hero's welcome can be justified from an Arab/Muslim point of view. And in the kind of world we live in today I believe it is incumbent upon us to try to grasp the "other's" perspective, even if we can't agree with it. The hero's welcome was based on two factors.
          First, there is the belief among Libyans and other Arabs and Muslims that al-Magrahi is actually innocent of the crime, despite his conviction in a Western court of law. They believe he is a willing scapegoat for the Libyan government, talking the fall in order to protect the operations of the Libyan secret service which, they believe, actually engineered the Pan Am crash over Lockerbie. Few Arabs are convinced that an Arab or a Muslim can get a fair hearing in the Western legal system.
          Second, the Pan Am crash occurred 20-plus years ago. At that time Libya, under the leadership of its president, Muammar al-Qadhafi, was at the top of America's list of terroristic states. In those days Libyans considered themselves at war with the West -- David against Goliath. They saw the Pan Am incident as an act of war. People get killed in wars, and usually those who do the killing are honored as heroes, both in the West and Arab lands. Today things have changed, and al-Qadhafi is welcomed at the White House while Americans gladly consume Libyan oil.         

           The release Scotland’s authorities of the Libyan terrorist Ali al-Megrahi (photo) on compassionate grounds (he is dying of prostate cancer), has caused tremendous outrage on the part of the families of the Lockerbie air crash victims, most of whom were Americans.
          The families have suffered enormously. Not all the terrorists were caught and jailed. All of the crash victims died, while the terrorist was sentenced to life in prison, not executed. The families’ loved ones did not die in the arms of their families, as will al-Megrahi. So the outrage is understandable, magnified by the media.         
          At the same time – and no doubt what I am about to write will itself infuriate some readers – the outrage is inappropriate from a Christian standpoint. Some kind of emotional response is inevitable, but not outrage. For outrage is fundamentally a feeling that justice has been perverted – that the man did not get what he deserved; in fact, that he got off too easily and should be punished more.            
          But of course, from that point of view justice lies far, far beyond the horizon. 270 lives were lost. In what sense can one life sentence, or even the execution of a single terrorist, ever compensate for that loss? Keep in mind that al-Megrahi served only eight years of his sentence before contracting prostate cancer. In what way will three more months in prison avenge the evil he has done? In what way can allowing al-Megrahi to die amidst his family instead of among fellow inmates, compensate for all the victims who perished alone?         
          What is really being expressed in the outrage is the feeling that “he has hurt me; therefore he must himself be hurt to fullest extent possible. Only this can relieve my pain.” But Christians, as well as people of good will everywhere, know that “tit for tat” resolves nothing in this life. So Jesus commands his disciple Peter to “put away your sword” when approached by armed men intent on unjustly crucifying Jesus. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” says the LORD. Human beings must learn to rise above the desire for revenge. The self-proclaimed “Scotish values” actually reflect the transforming spirit of Jesus and are indeed the right ones.

          NASCAR (National Association Stock Car Auto Racing) is a big-time sport in the United States. Next month, as its $150 million Hall of Fame building takes shape in Charlotte, North Carolina where my youngest daughter Linda lives, officials are set to announce the first five inductees into the Hall. The five will be chosen from among 25 nominations. NOT among the 25, however, as sportswriter Bruce Lambert, has reminded us, is the pioneering black driver,Wendell Scott (photo). 
          Despite consistent discrimination, Scott managed to rank among the top 10 drivers in 147 national races. The film Greased Lightning, starring Richard Pryor, was loosely based on Scott's life. His career is chronicled in the biography Hard Driving by the prize-winning journalist, Brian Donovan. NASCAR has a long history of discrimination. Even today it remains this countries least diversified sport. Only one of the 125 regular drivers in NASCAR's three national racing series are white males. The sole exception is a Hispanic driver.
          NASCAR insists it is trying to diversify, but the record indicates otherwise. With this in mind, supporters are sponsoring a Wendell Scott Recognition Day tribute on September 12th at the Virginia Museum of Natural History. The event will include a petition for Scott's induction into NASCAR's Hall of Fame. Let's hope the officials are listening.

          
          My friend David Mays, who writes a blog called “Book Notes,” has penned a summary of a book by Professor James Herrick entitled Scientific Mythologies. Herrick writes to show how science and science fiction are combining to forge new religious beliefs in our day. According to Herrick, science fiction has emerged as a formidable social force with a worldwide reach. Myths shape perceptions of reality. The myths shaping public imagination today blend facts with speculation, scientific research with fiction, objective observation with subjective worldviews.          
          Among the new myths for the new age are the myth of The Extraterrestrial, the myth of Space, the myth of the New Humanity, the myth of the Future, the myth of the Spiritual Race, the myth of Space Religion, and the myth of Alien Gnosis. Various films and TV serials, such as E.T., Star Trek, and X-Files, and thousands of books, promote the myths.         
          This is of special interest to me because my former son-in-law David Zindell (photo) is an accomplished science fiction writer and, presumably, one of the creators of the new mythologies. You can find his books at Amazon.com or www.davidzindell.com along with his descriptions of how he developed each story.

          Westerners have been fighting "wars of necessity" in Afghanistan for the past 170 years. (The painting at left shows Afghan warriors beating back the British in 1840.) So when President Obama tells the Veterans of Foreign Wars, as he did yesterday at their annual convention, that the present conflict in Afghanistan is "not a war of choice; this is a war of necessity," those of us who have been around for a while withhold our applause.
          Mr. Obama is learning that the presidency is no bed of roses. His vaunted stimulus plan has not produced the results he expected. He has retreated ignominously from his oft-repeated a can onlyssertion that a public option is vital to health reform. And many, including myself, fear that his Afghanistan strategy will inevitably produce another Viet Nam-like debacle.
          President Obama told the veterans that "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency wll mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." Readers please note: he didn't say that the Taliban is plotting war against America. He correctly noted that Al Qaeda is. So why not go after Al Qaeda. Why go after the Taliban who are merely providing shelter to Al Qaeda? Why pour additional tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan and engage in a costly and perhaps futile effort in "nation-building?" Why indulge in a strategy that raises tension with Pakistan, a nation with a nuclear arsenal? It doesn't make sense to me.

          The chubby little guy standing in front of me in our side garden in Blair, Nebraska in the year 1933 is my brother Jerry. He is three years old and I am four. And today is his 79th birthday -- assuming he is alive. But I have no idea if he is still living. 
          Jerry ran away from home in his early teens and headed out to California. When our father was killed our mother moved to California to reconnect with Jerry, taking my two other younger brothers with her. (By that time I was married and living in Washington, DC.) After I became a world traveler, I would often stop over in San Francisco en route to orfrom Seoul or Saigon, Singapore or Sydney to briefly visit them all. Jerry got married (I was best man at his wedding), had a son, Stephen, and later divorced.
           In 1976 Mom died and the three brothers went off in several directions. We gradually lost track of each other. A couple of years ago brother David contacted me and since then we have made sporadic efforts to track down Jerry and Jimmy, to no avail, so far. Jerry had multiple and serious health problems stemming from his hard lifestye, so it would not surprise me to learn tbat he has already died. Still, one can hope that next year we will celebrate his birthday together.

          It was billed as "three days of peace and music," and half a million young people showed up for the Woodstock festival in upper New York State exactly forty years ago. I was not among them, for I was living in Malaysia, routinely visiting Viet Nam in connection with my ministry, and far more concerned with the horrific but futile war going on there.
          But I was aware of Woodstock and tried to make sense of it. All reports agreed that it was indeed an occasion of peace and music. As someone commented at the time, "Where else could 500,000 people gather for three days without someone being murdered or a mass riot breaking out?" The "peace" aspect was all the more remarkable because it rained a lot, the entire acreage was muddy, and sanitation facilities were totally inadequate. But this was the era of LSD, heroin and pot, so the dope probably contributed to the peace. Certainly the music did.
          Was anything lasting accomplished? That's what people of my generation instinctively asked. We were at the tail end of the so-called "great generation," motivated by victory in World War II to change the world by ambition, hard work, and democracy. The Woodstockers were early baby-boomers, a minority of whom (we called them "hippies") wanted to change the world by other means. What those other means were -- beyond vague talk of cosmic harmony and love, music and flowers -- never became clear. Eventually the majority of them, if they wanted to eat, had to get a job and work within the system.

          Yesterday Phil Olson, my pastor friend who lives further south in Burlington County, New Jersey, introduced me to Bridge of Hope, a non-profit group whose motto is “Ending and Preventing Homelessness…One Church, One Family at a Time.” Phil is an advisor to the group and another long-time friend, Rev. Jim Kraft, is a member of their Board of Directors.         
          Bridge of Hope recruits local churches to “adopt” homeless single mothers and their children for a period of 18 months or so. The congregations help them find permanent housing get the children settled in school, and achieve financial self-sufficiency. Understandably, many of the mothers and children are vulnerable emotionally. Many have suffered physical abuse. The congregations help them recover and enhance their self-esteem through mentoring friendships.         
          Bridge of Hope works at a strictly local level and is supported financially by individual donations. No government money is involved. The Burlington County branch is one of about 20 that have gradually spread across the nation, having begun 20 years ago in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Bridge of Hope is a positive example of how much can be accomplished by small groups of people who love God and want to share God’s love with others.

          Yesterday President Obama presented 16 notables with America's highest civiil honor, the Medal of Freedom. Most went to Americans such as the Rev. Joseph Lowery (photo), a great civil rights warrior. But four foreigners also received the medal, and since this was Obama's first presentation (the honors are given out annually) I was interested in the foreigners he chose: Stephen Hawking, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu, and Muhammad Yunus. 
          Of these, the Muslim Muhammad Yunus has perhaps had the greatest impact on the lives of individual persons. He pioneered the concept of micro financing and created a bank that provides small "seed loans" to very small-scale entrepreneurs in underdeveloped countries. He claims that more than 98 percent of his loans have been repaid.
          Archbishop Tutu is justly famous for the pivitol role in played in dismantling South Africa's system of apartheid while Nelson Mandela was in prison. Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, has also been long recognized for promoting human rights throughout the world, though she is frequently criticized by Israelis for her sympathy toward Palestinian refugees. Stephen Hawking may be the most amazing of the recepients in that he has suffered from muscular dystrophy all his life and is almost completely paralysed. Not an atheist but an agnostic, he is renowned as a theoretical physicist specializing in the cosmic study of black holes, among other things.

          When I was ten years old my home town, Omaha, Nebraska, threw a giant party. I and all my Walnut Hill School classmates dressed up daily for the better part of a week in cowboy/cowgirl outfits -- most of us could afford only a bandana and a toy six-shooter, actually -- and joined the fun. The celebration was the 70th anniversary of the driving of the Golden Spike, which joined two railway lines and created the first transcontinental railroad in the USA. Major features of the gala were the premier showing of Cecil B. DeMille's new film, Union Pacific, and Vincent Lopez' big band. Today, another 70 years later, the memory of that week is still vivid in my mind. Here are a few excerpts from the city's official program:

Wednesday, April 26
2:00 p.m. - Opening of Indian Village, Court House Lawn (runs through Saturday)
7:30 p.m. - Unveiling of historical windows, downtown stores
8:00 p.m. - Whisker Clubs Parade, downtown

Thursday, April 27
3:15 p.m. - Arrival of special Hollywood train carrying Mr. Cecil B. DeMille, Barbara Stanwyck, Joel McCrea, and other celebrities. Reception at Union Station.
3:30 p.m. - Parade of the stars and distinguished visitors, from Union Station in 1869 vehicles
5:30 p.m. - Arrival of 1869 locomotive, new steam turbine locomotive and other special equipment. Union Station.
7:30 p.m. - Old Timers Dinner, Coliseum. [Note: these would have been people my age now.]

Friday, April 28
8:00 a.m. and all day - Showing of 3,000 h.p. steam turbine locomotive, 1869 locomotive used in filming of picture, and other railroad equipment. 10:00 a.m. - Historical Parade
3:00 p.m. - Dedication of marker designating eastern terminus, Union Pacific Railroad, Council Bluffs, Iowa.
8:00 p.m. -World Premiere Cecil B. DeMille's "Union Pacific"  Orpheum and Paramount Theatres (Old Timers Club Members only).
8:15 p.m. - Omaha Theatre, Performance starts (for public)
Midnight - Special midnight premiere. Orpheum Theatre. The entire Hollywood party will make personal appearances.

Saturday, April 29
9:00 a.m. - Regular run of "Union Pacific" at popular prices, Omaha Theatre. "Union Pacific" will also be shown at Paramount Theatre on Saturday and Sunday, April 29 - 30, to accommodate public.
7:00 p.m. - Doors open for Costume Ball - Ak-Sar-Ben Coliseum. Ceremonies at 8:30 p.m. - Vincent Lopez orchestra at 9:00 p.m.         

          I'll vent just a wee bit this morning. Over the past few days I've been watching images of town hall meetings being held during the congressional recess. Health care is the primary topic, and I'm confounded not only by the massive misinformation ordinary citizens seem to have, but by the violence with which they shout their misinformation. I don't know where the misinformation originates, but it seems to be to be inexcusible. After all, details of the various bills that the House and Senate are working on have been well reviewed on the news channels and talk programs. From my perspective, former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is among the worst of the offenders. She not only broadcast misinformatin about a supposed "death panel," but the following day put out another press release urging folks to conduct the health care debate "civilly." How hypocritical can one get?

          Hans Wilhelm is an old friend of mine, so I am happy to recommend his newly published autobiography. Note the neat play on words: "China Hands" is what we used to call during World War II that group of experts who knew China like the back of their hand, and who were availble to advise the Allies on matter related to the war.
          Hans Wilhelm was a German citizen raised in China during World War II. Escaping China he returned to Germany, first joining and later rejecting the Hitler Youth. He became a Christian and, after the war, emigrated to the USA, where we met. He served briefly with us in The Navigators, then spent most of his life as a missionary to Chinese in Asia.
          It's not easy writing an autobiography. Mine is 1,100 pages long and loaded with photographs, so no publisher will touch it, though its accessible here on my web site. Dr. Werner Burklin, founder of China Partner, says of Hans' book: China Hans is one of the best mission books I have ever read. The book is available for now directly from Hans at chinahansbook@gmail.com It costs $22.50 plus $5 for shipping and handling.

          Most of you know that in May of this year I embarked on a 7,000 mile journey by Amtrak, America's only nationwide passenger train service, to visit my kids and grandkids. I hate air travel, having had my fill of it during my younger years.
          The smoothest, speediest part of the trip was the first segment, from New York to Washington, DC. After that everything slowed to a crawl. Not that the crawl was all bad; one takes in the scenery, some of which was spectacular, and there is ample time for reading.
     The reason the NY-DC segment, a mere 225 miles long, was so different is that the ordinary Amtrak train I was on was utilizing the same rail line used by Acela (photo), America's only high speed train. France and Japan, to name just two, have rail service faster even than Acela's (whose top speed is 120 miles per hour) but the USA remains far, far behind in providing this kind of service across the national expanse. Yet surely there can no better time for the federal government to build a high-speed rail network that would lessen congestion on our highways and airports, reduce reliance on foreign oil, and create much needed jobs in the midst of a severe econmic recession.
          In the new network freight trains would have access to high-speed rail lines. If only ten percent of freight currently moved by highways were switched to rail, national fuel savings would amount to one billion gallons of oil, or more, per year. And greenhouse gas emissions would fall by 12 million tons. I wish the Obama administration would make this project part of its overall stimulus plan.

     I don't like beating a dead horse -- or two, this morning -- but I will. One of the first cases that Sonia Sotomayor, our new associate justice on the Supreme Court, will have to decide is whether juveniles can constitutionally be sentenced to death or life without parole. The USA is the only country in the Western Hemisphere to impose these draconian sentences, and is only one of two countries in the world that have not ratified the United Nations Convention On the Rights of the Child. I don't have to remind you of my own opinion on this matter. No child, regardless of the nature of the crime committed, should ever be deemed incorrigible and unredeemable.
          The other horse I am beating is the precariousness of our justice system in general. Yesterday Ernest Sonnier was released from a Texas prison after serving 23 years for a crime he did not commit. To date an astounding 241 people have been exonerated, thanks to the Innocence Project, a charity dedicated to such cases, and the availability of DNA testing. A major reason innocent people are convicted is because of eyewitness testimony. Historically we have assumed such testimony to be reliable, but time after time it has been demonstrated that it is not. Our legal procedures need to be modified to take this into account.  

          I want to make a few personal observations about yesterday's blog on the Chinese "Back to Jerusalem" missionary movement. For Christians it goes without saying that any time a major ethnic group gets excited about Jesus' "great commission" to make disciples of all nations, we all should be excited, or at the very least, praying for their success. But from the perspective of history and Christian tradition, we can also harbor significant reservations.
          Contrary to the Back to Jerusalem movement's basic philosophy of history, Christianity has not -- repeat not -- been an exclusively westward movement. One of Jesus' twelve apostles, Thomas, is thought to have established the Mar Thoma Church of South India. That's an eastward movement. Mark, the writer of the Gospel bearing his name, is said to have established the Coptic Church of Egypt, a move to the south. Soon thereafter other missionaries reached Ethiopia, even further south. During the very period when some Catholic missions were evangelizing western Europe, and some Orthodox missionaries were evangelizing eastern Europe, Nestorian missionaries had penetrated as far eastward as China, establishing hundreds of churches and sending missionaries onward to Korea and Japan. This was during the Tang dynasty. Later Russian Christians also sent missionaries eastward, first to far Siberia and then on to Alaska, where today Orthodox Christianity is well established. After the 16th century Reformation Spain sent missionaries to Central and South America, a southwestward endeavor; North American Christians sent missionaries to Africa, a southeastward endeavor. Today Brazilian Christians send missionaries eastward to Angola and other parts of Africa. Much contemporary mission work is internal. India has at least 33 major language groups;India Christians send missionaries from one language group to another, in all directions.
          So the fundamental perception of history on the part of these Chinese brothers and sisters is flawed. From the very beginning, Christian mission has been multi-directional. A singular direction is in the eye of the beholder. Not that that is crucial. It is quite possible to do great things even with a mistaken philosophy. And if the Chinese churches can succeed in evangelizing Muslims in great numbers in the years ahead, they will have succeeded where American efforts of the past two hundred years have often failed.

          "It is the destiny of the house churches of China to pull down the world's last remaining spiritual strongholds -- and to proclaim the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations before the Second Coming of our Lord." So asserts Brother Yun, a leader in the Back to Jerusalem (BTJ) movement, described in some detail by Dr. Tobias Brandner, in the current issue of Missiology.  Brandner is a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.  BTJ is a fascinating movement for several reasons.
          First, it is an indigenous Chinese movement, with roots that go back to the 1920s. Second, it interprets the history of Christianity as a westward movement, beginning in Jerusalem, moving to Europe, then to the Americas, then to the islands of the Pacific, then to China. From China it will move to Central Asia, and finally reach Jerusalem: full circle. Third, Chinese Christians have been called by God to fulfill this special mission, which will involve establishing the Church among traditionally Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim peoples.
          Chinese Christians believe they are especially suited to fulfill this mission. They have no traditional enemy in Central Asia and the Middle East. They have deep experience in clandestine evangelism and church planting. Their traditional mode of mission -- hospitality, visits, one-to-one witnessing -- needs no modification in the countries between Beijing and Jerusalem. They are used to practising an attractive simple lifestyle form of Christianity. They rely more on cost-effective traders and merchants, rather than full-time missionaries, to spread the gospel. And they know how to accept persecution and suffering as part of the Christian mission.
          The full article, which includes reflection on the millennial, covenantal, and political implications inherent in the Back to Jerusalem movement can be found in the July 2009 issue of Missiology (Volume XXXVII, Number 3).         

     California is a great state in many ways, but a failure in some important ways. For one thing, the state has barely escaped bankrupcy. It doesn't know how to live within its means. For another, it maintains a ruinously overcrowded prison system, largely because of a short-sighted "three strikes and you're out" legislation that places even non-violent offenders in prison for life.
          Yesterday a panel of federal judges ordered California to reduce its inmate population by 27 percent -- from 150,000 to 110,000 within two years. According to the judges, this is the only way California can change its unconstitutional prison health care system.  The poor health care stems from overcrowding. In California prisoners are stacked in triple bunk beds in gymnasiums, hallways and day rooms. In their order the judicial panel noted that in overcrowded conditions, inmate-on-inmate violence is prevelant,  infectious diseases spread more easily, and each week at least one prisoner dies uncessarily.
          California is not the only state that has a prison overcrowding problem. The Baby Boomer generation, beginning with President Reagan back in the 1980s, decided that the answer to the crime problem is not restorative justice but retributive justice, and the latter is best handled simply by putting offender out of sight. Out of sight, out of mind -- that is, until the prison system becomes too numerous, becomes way too expensive, and the constitution prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment becomes impossible to ignore.

            Most of you know, or know of, Chuck Colson, the Nixon aide who went to jail during the Watergate era, gave his life to Christ there, and founded Prison Fellowship when he was released. At age 77 he writes a regular column in Christianity Today. For various reasons that I need not detain you with here, I rarely agree with his views. But his most recent one on health care reform had some good ideas.

            It is true that in this particular article Colson relies too much on anecdotal evidence – that is, horror stories he has heard about terrible health care in “socialist” countries such as Canada and Great Britain. The problem with such evidence is obvious: for every horror story he can relate, I could relate one equally horrific based on the free market American insurance system. For example, both Colson and I rely in part on Medicare. His experiences with Medicare have been bad; mine have been good. Not much is to be gained by relying on anecdotal evidence.

            In his article Colson speaks to the subject of an earlier blog of mine, namely, the ethical question of whether or not health care needs to be rationed.  Colson agrees that inevitably health care is subject to rationing, but “the real issue is by what standards those decisions will be made,” and calls for a public debate on the matter.

            In debating the matter, Colson offers three guiding principles: human dignity, care for the poor, and prudence. With respect to human dignity, he says, “while some kinds of heroic care may be withheld in hopeless cases, it is wrong to intentionally take a life.” As regards the poor, “we must champion care for the poor and the weak; bringing health-care reform to the forefront is the first step.” And prudence – “how do we best allocate limited resources?”

            On the latter, I have already indicated my position: If insuring all Americans means a “public option” must compete with private insurance, I am in favor of a public option – which, it is important to note, is not the same as nationalizing health care. And if insuring all members of our community means I must pay marginally higher taxes, I am ready to do so.

             

          The new post-9/11 G.I. Bill for men and women who have served in the military since the fall of the Twin Towers was inaugurated by President Obama yesterday. This bill provides full college tuition, books, and a monthly stipend. It will not only spur the economy, but will produce a large crop of leaders for the years ahead, not only engineers and research scientists, but teachers and even some missionaries.  I know, for I benefited from the original G.I. Bill signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1944 in the midst of World War II. [The snapshot is of me in a lighthearted moment on Guam 62 years ago.] By virtue of the G.I. Bill, I and thousands of others, made our way through college. Many of us were the first in our family to attend college. I trust the same will be true of today's Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. Sadly, there was no G.I. Bill available to veterans of the war in Viet Nam.

                E-waste, as you probably know, is an informal name for computers, TVs, VCRs, stereos, copiers, and fax machines nearing the end of their useful life.  Disposal of E-waste is regulated in the U.S.A., but many waste disposal companies evade these regulations by shipping E-waste to developing countries in Asia and Africa. There in the “Gehennas” of Manila and Bombay and Accra poor people, mostly children and teenagers, make a dollar-a-day living by retrieving copper and other valuable materials embedded in the electronic machines. But this can be, and is, terribly dangerous, for among these embedded commodities are some extremely toxic elements such as lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium VI, cadmium, zinc sulphide and others. America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to be preventing this kind of abuse but, until very recently, it has been noticeably lax. The Obama administration claims that EPA has now stepped up its enforcement. All of us benefit from electronic devices, and presumably we all dispose of them correctly. But if large waste disposal companies turn around and endanger the lives of hungry people in other parts of the world, and our regulatory agencies allow it, America is being both hypocritical and murderous. Send an email to your Senator about this.

          How can President Obama’s health care reform be fully funded and yet not add to the national debt? First, from savings gleaned from the present defective system. Everyone knows there is tremendous waste in the present American health care system which can and will be eliminated.

         Second, more savings will come by virtue of the reformed system’s emphasis on preventive health care. This is an area the current dysfunctional system does not focus on.          
          And third, by discontinuing certain tax cuts for families making more than a million dollars per year. These families constitute only one percent of the population. As a result of these actions, Obama claims that insurance premiums for individuals and families will actually go down, not up.           
          As to the other main objection, namely, the heavy hand of big government, I only note that under a solely private system, as we have it now, 47 million people are uninsured and millions more are underinsured. Something has to be done to make health care affordable to everyone, and the private sector has clearly demonstrated it is unwilling or unable to do so.          
          Will health care provided under the reformed system suffer because of government inefficiency? Undoubtedly there will be some increase in bureaucracy. But bureaucracy is not bad in and of itself. For millions of citizens over 65 years of age, government-sponsored Social Security is a godsend. For millions more seniors, who are currently covered by Medicare, also government run, the same. I’ve been under Medicare coverage for the past 15 years and have not suffered unduly.         
          A big factor in my tentative conclusions to date is that the Republican opposition to Obama has not offered an alternative plan. If they and the so-called Democrat “blue dogs” were to defeat Obama’s plan, we will be stuck indefinitely with what we have now, and to me that is insufferable.          
          If the Republican opposition offers an alternative plan that improves the present system somewhat, but fails to insure the 47 million currently uninsured citizens – that too, for me, is insufferable.         
          Other aspects related to health system reform need to be considered, but the two I have briefly discussed are the ones most often raised, and from my perspective the Obama plan’s benefits, as currently outlined, greatly outweigh its disadvantages.

 


          The health care debate in the U.S. is heating up, so let me weigh in. Many readers of this blog live in societies where some type of universal health care already exists, and may wonder what the fuss is all about. Others live in societies where neither universal nor private health care is available to the average person, and may find our debate a luxury. Because I like to keep my pieces short, this blog will have to be in two parts, today and tomorrow.         
          Several of my American friends oppose the kind of health care plan President Obama is floating, on the basis of costs, primarily, but also because they dislike big government. Let me comment on these both points, though there are others in the mix as well.         
          As to cost: cost to whom? Well, us taxpayers. It is widely thought that if we set about to insure the 47 million Americans who currently don’t have health insurance, that will obviously drive up costs which taxpayers will have to assume. That may not be true (see below) but first: As a Christian, I ask myself, why is that so bad? Aren’t we supposed to love our neighbors as we love ourselves? Aren’t we supposed to care for those who, for one reason or another, are unable to adequately care for themselves?         
          It is the essence of community that we share costs. We do this for roads, for police and fire protection, for national defense, for public education and other aspects of community life. Why not health? Particularly when health is such a vital component to a community’s overall prosperity?  And when the U.S.A. is one of the richest communities on earth.         
          Health care currently accounts for between 20 and 30 percent of American growth domestic product (GDP). Worse, it is said that if things continue as they are now, health care will consume a full 50 percent of GDP within a couple of decades. Obviously, reform is imperative.         
          It is projected that the Obama health care reform will cost up to a billion dollars a year when fully phased in. But the President claims it will be fully funded and will not add a dollar to the national debt (that is, to us taxpayers). That’s what Obama promises; and we are free to fire our presidents if their promises prove false.          
          Part II tomorrow…