January 2, 2009
Harry Potter and the Mirror of Erised: What Would You See?
A Sermon Delivered to
Trinity Presbyterian Church PC(USA)
29 June 2003
He shouldn't have been out of his room wandering the halls, trying to sneak into the restricted section of the library, but he was. He knew there were risks but he thought they were acceptable for he had his invisibility cloak, a mere piece of cloth that was delivered to him by an anonymous person which, when placed over the wearer, rendered them invisible. Surely with such a covering he could go where he wanted.
Even so, Harry Potter, the mischievous wizard at Hogwarts School for Wizards felt like he could still be seen so he slipped into an empty classroom through a door that was left slightly ajar. As some of his professors walked past him in the hall, our beloved Harry breathed a sigh of relief and took a look around the room. It looked like nothing but a vacant classroom, a room in a section of the school not often used, but there was something different about this room. Propped against a wall there was a piece of furniture that looked to be very old. As Harry approached it he realized that it was a magnificent old mirror. It was held in place by an ornate gold frame and standing on two clawed feet. Carved in the top of the frame was the inscription Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi.
Harry, feeling secure that he was alone now, stepped in front of the mirror expecting to see his reflection but he was not to be so lucky. He peered into the mirror and saw not his own reflection, but the reflection of others. He spun around to see who had entered the room and was standing behind him but he saw no one. He looked back into the mirror and they were there again. He reached behind hoping to touch the woman he saw standing in the mirror but she was not there.
Harry stepped closer to see what was in the mirror. He began to notice the woman's eyes looked much like his own. The man standing next to her had hair sticking up at the back of his head, just like Harry's hair. Harry then realized that he was looking at his mother and father in the mirror. Harry's knees became wobbly because he had only seen pictures of his parents. Harry's parents had been killed when he was but a child by the evil Lord Voldemort. Harry, an orphan, had been living with his cruel Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon, and Cousin Dudley Dursley since his parents had died. For ten years he tolerated the treatment until the day the letter of admissions to Hogwarts was delivered to Mr. H. Potter at The Cupboard Under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey.
Harry had to share this magnificent find of the mirror so he returned the next night with his friend Ron. He took Ron to the mirror and asked him what he saw. Ron Weasley, overshadowed by the accomplishments of his older brother, saw himself in the mirror. But he saw a much older self, an older self who was head boy. And he was also the Quidditch captain holding the Quidditch Cup.
The two youngsters hypothesized about the mirror. Ron suggested it showed the future but Harry pointed out that couldn't be the case because his parents were already dead. They left that night not knowing what the mirror was.
Harry, we learn, is a very special wizard. In his exploits as told by J. K. Rowling, he goes on to many adventures and fights evil. He seems to be an ordinary boy, by wizard standards anyway. He is not the brightest student at Hogwarts. He is an orphan and his Aunt and Uncle are Muggles; they don't have the slightest amount of magic in their blood. Harry is not particularly attractive. His hair is untidy, he wears thick glasses, and he is not a particularly spiffy dresser. To make matters worse he has friends who are not from the upper crust of the wizard world. Harry, by all accounts, is a nobody. What sets Harry apart from others is his courage, his desire to do what is right, and his concern for his friends.
David was also a "nobody". The youngest of eight, David was the son of the servant Jesse. While his three oldest brothers followed Saul into battle, David stayed behind to care for the sheep. After all, what was a youngster like David to do? Surely he couldn't fight. One day Jesse told David to take to his eldest sons an ephah of grain (a little over a bushel) and ten loaves of bread and to take their commander ten cheeses. David left the next day on his mission.
As David arrived at the camp, he found the men were preparing for battle. For forty days the Philistine Goliath had been coming and challenging the army. Goliath, a giant of a man who towered over the Israelites at a height of nine feet, nine inches, had been taunting Saul's army to choose a man to fight him one-on-one in a winner take all match. For forty days no one would fight.
David was accused of just sneaking of to watch a battle by his brothers and they chastised him for leaving the sheep unattended. David continued to ask "What would happen to the person who killed Goliath?" and when word of his questioning reached Saul, he was called to meet with him. David was brave and knew he had the Lord on his side. He was not afraid to fight the giant and said as much to Saul. However Saul was hesitant; he asked how David, a mere boy with no training, could take on Goliath who had been trained as a warrior from his youth.
As a shepherd, David explained, he had tracked down lions to rescue lost sheep and when the lions turned on him, he killed them. He told Saul that just as God had delivered him from the lions, he would ensure victory against Goliath. Saul then clothed David in armor, gave him a shield and gave him a sword to strap across himself. But David, unused to the weight of the armor, could not walk so he removed the garb of a warrior and instead grabbed his staff, placed five smooth stones in his shepherd's bag, and held his sling in his hand.
Goliath was amused at the sight he saw. Here came this boy, not a man, to call him out for a fight. He wore no armor and had no serious weapons. He had a stick and a slingshot, weapons of children. Goliath stepped nearer to David, and instead of running away like the other soldiers had been doing for 40 days, David ran towards Goliath, slingshot in hand, and scored a direct hit on Goliath's head. As the giant crumbled to the ground, David stepped forward and killed him.
How often have we met a David or a Harry Potter and underestimated their strength, their resolve, their intent? How often have we ignored the voice of someone because they did not have the proper level of education, wear the proper clothes, or come from the right family? How often have we underestimated someone's ability because of their age? Just a few weeks ago we recognized some very small boys with very big hearts for collecting enough money to buy a flock of chickens to help the poor. How many of us looked at them as doing something cute and sweet but never really appreciating the impact they could have? And how many of us have personally thanked them and told them what they did was a great thing?
We need to walk a fine line in life but we tend to walk too far on either side of the line. At times we are quick to judge others and at other times we are too hesitant to judge. Some days we are quick to label people, other days we are too slow. Some days we are too critical, other days we do not offer encouragement. More times than not we fail to realize what an impact a few good words can have on someone or how great of an impact a few bad words can have.
A few years ago I was called into the conference room by my then commanding officer in the Naval Reserve. It was once again time for my annual fitness report, that piece of paper we get every year where we are evaluated by our commanders; that piece of paper that can lead to a long career or can cut it short. It had been a tough year for me and I was tired. The recruiting slogan of one weekend a month and two weeks a year was just that--a slogan. Then, as now, I was spending much more than one weekend a month and two weeks a year for the Navy. I have missed countless birthdays and anniversaries. I have missed my daughter's performances, and I missed visits with friends and family. I was ready to quit.
I went into the conference room and was ready to tell my CO that I was ready to hang up the uniform. Whether he sensed how I was feeling that day or not, I don't know. As I sat down he started talking to me. He began by telling me how tough it was to ever become an Admiral in the navy, how the chances of anyone making it that far were astronomical. I thought this was great, he's telling me I can't go much further so quitting is going to be easy. Then he let the other shoe drop. This Navy Captain, this officer with years of experience, this man who graduated from the Naval Academy, this person who was not far from being an Admiral himself, said that if he had known someone who had what it would take to go that far, that I was the person. Now how could I quit after a pep talk like that? Obviously I didn't quit and am glad I didn't, but seldom does a day go by that I don't think about the faith he showed he had me at a time when I needed it most. Now I ask myself, how many opportunities have I passed up that allowed me the opportunity to do the same for someone else?
In the tenth grade, we had a new student come to our school. He did not dress nicely, he did not know anyone, and he had no friends. He was however in the band. And if you were in a band you knew you were in a family, a little nerdy maybe, but in a family. He was eating lunch with some of us and as he was finishing his meal he picked up his roll and began to mop up the gravy left in his tray. This was certainly not the way you ate in our lunchroom and some of those at the table began to ridicule him asking him if all hicks ate that way? Later in the day others asked him what he was doing in the band; what did he intend to accomplish? He said he was there to be first chair saxophone. Needless to say, our first chair saxophonist was none too happy which led to further belittling. I'm not sure what happened to that student but he was only at school for a few months. I often wonder what would have happened had he received some positive comments that day rather than nothing but critical statements.
Jesus was not one to worry much about what others thought. He was also able to see within people and know what they needed. The woman Jesus met at the well was a Samaritan--someone who respectable Jews did not want to be seen with, much less talk to. To make a bad situation worse, this particular woman was on her fifth husband. She was a Samaritan and a hussy to boot. What would bring Jesus to her? Why would Jesus talk to such a low-life?
Jesus knew that he had what she needed. He had the water that would quench her thirst forever. His conversation with her led her to go to others and tell them about Him. Once they saw for themselves, they told others who then came to drink of the water only our Lord can provide. What would have happened had Jesus not had the courage to talk to this woman? How many would have never known Him? What if instead of telling her about His water, he ridiculed her for her five husbands or commented on her ancestry?
Antwone Fisher was an abandoned child who grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. Born in a woman's prison, he was placed in a foster home until his mother was released and could come for him. His mother never came. His father had been murdered before he was born. He grew up in an abusive family, was molested by his foster mother's daughter, and was routinely threatened with harm. He was called names and treated with derision. He did not see what he ultimately wanted out of himself but he knew he wanted out of where he was. He was an angry young man living on the edge of crime with a life that could go either way.
After being thrown out of the house by his foster mother, he signed up with the Navy. He said he couldn't see himself sleeping in tents and that's why he didn't join the Army. On his ship, Antoine was a trouble maker; his anger got him in many fights and did not earn him any friends. He was also a bright kid who had not been given many opportunities to succeed. After one particular fight, Antoine was taken to Captain's mast. Captain's mast is relatively unique to the Navy in that it allows the Commanding Officer to hold hearings and mete out punishment without the formalities of a trial. Antoine was sentenced to a reduction in rate, forfeiture of several months pay, and perhaps most importantly, to an examination by a psychiatrist.
It is with the psychiatrist that Antoine's life began to change. The doctor had faith in Antoine, believed that he wanted to be a good Sailor and that he wanted to be a good person. Antoine was difficult though, he didn't want to talk, and he didn't want to cooperate. The doctor saw something inside Antoine and kept working with him.
One of the bonus features with the Antwone Fisher DVD is an interview with Antoine. He talks about how his commanders in the Navy changed his life. How the sentencing to see the psychiatrist was the beginning of turning his life around. He talks about how he was standing on the flight deck as a helicopter was coming in for a landing and the Chief handed him the wands and said it was time he learned how to bring in a helicopter. As he was standing there, scared to death, he realized that the life of the helicopter crew was in his hands while he directed them to their landing. He realized that the Navy had just placed a tremendous amount of faith in him that day. If the Navy could trust a poor black kid from a foster home with such an important task, maybe there was hope for him after all.
We often act on faith. We try to see the inside of people, to determine their intent, to guess their motives. This is natural, particularly when we meet a stranger and oftentimes necessary for our safety and well-being. Looking at the inside of someone is hard to do but it is what we must do if we wish to be more Christ-like.
On the third night, Harry returned to the room to look at the mirror. Nothing was to stop him from looking at his mother, father, and grandparents all night. As he sat looking, he heard a voice, "So--back again Harry?" Sitting in the room was Albus Dumbledore, the school headmaster. Harry apologized for not seeing him. "Strange how nearsighted being invisible can make you", said Dumbledore.
Dumbledore told Harry he had discovered the Mirror of Erised and asked if Harry figured out what it showed. As Harry thought about it he gave him a hint. "The happiest man on earth would be able to use the Mirror of Erised like a normal mirror, that is, he would be able to look into it and see himself exactly as he is." As Harry thought, Dumbledore explained that the Mirror of Erised showed nothing more than your heart's deepest desire. In fact Rowling gives us a hint at this in the very name Erised, which is nothing more than "desire" spelled backwards. And if the carving above the mirror is read backward, the purpose of the mirror is revealed: "I show not your face but your hearts desire." Dumbledore explained that the mirror would be moved for "it does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live".
If you had the mirror here today, what would you see in yourself? If you could look into the desires of others, would you see a little boy who misses his family? Would you see a little shepherd boy trying to watch a fight or would you see a little boy with a keenly accurate slingshot who would slay a giant? Would you hand the poor black Sailor the wands on the flight deck or would you tell him to get out of the way? Would you see a poor woman who had been divorced four times drawing water from a well, or would you see the woman who would bring many to know Christ? Would you see the little boys being cute and collecting money at the church door, or would you see the flock of chickens they would give to the poor? Perhaps what we see in others is really an indication of what we see in ourselves.
God is able to see inside of us and know what we desire. He knows what we are capable of doing. God has faith in us to do what is right; is it asking too much for us to have faith in each other?
Amen.
Sources:
Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Washington, Denzel (Director). (2003). Antwone Fisher [Motion Picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Home Video.
Posted by robertgreen at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)
Harry Potter and the Mirror of Erised: What Would You See?
A Sermon Delivered to
Trinity Presbyterian Church PC(USA)
29 June 2003
He shouldn't have been out of his room wandering the halls, trying to sneak into the restricted section of the library, but he was. He knew there were risks but he thought they were acceptable for he had his invisibility cloak, a mere piece of cloth that was delivered to him by an anonymous person which, when placed over the wearer, rendered them invisible. Surely with such a covering he could go where he wanted.
Even so, Harry Potter, the mischievous wizard at Hogwarts School for Wizards felt like he could still be seen so he slipped into an empty classroom through a door that was left slightly ajar. As some of his professors walked past him in the hall, our beloved Harry breathed a sigh of relief and took a look around the room. It looked like nothing but a vacant classroom, a room in a section of the school not often used, but there was something different about this room. Propped against a wall there was a piece of furniture that looked to be very old. As Harry approached it he realized that it was a magnificent old mirror. It was held in place by an ornate gold frame and standing on two clawed feet. Carved in the top of the frame was the inscription Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi.
Harry, feeling secure that he was alone now, stepped in front of the mirror expecting to see his reflection but he was not to be so lucky. He peered into the mirror and saw not his own reflection, but the reflection of others. He spun around to see who had entered the room and was standing behind him but he saw no one. He looked back into the mirror and they were there again. He reached behind hoping to touch the woman he saw standing in the mirror but she was not there.
Harry stepped closer to see what was in the mirror. He began to notice the woman's eyes looked much like his own. The man standing next to her had hair sticking up at the back of his head, just like Harry's hair. Harry then realized that he was looking at his mother and father in the mirror. Harry's knees became wobbly because he had only seen pictures of his parents. Harry's parents had been killed when he was but a child by the evil Lord Voldemort. Harry, an orphan, had been living with his cruel Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon, and Cousin Dudley Dursley since his parents had died. For ten years he tolerated the treatment until the day the letter of admissions to Hogwarts was delivered to Mr. H. Potter at The Cupboard Under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey.
Harry had to share this magnificent find of the mirror so he returned the next night with his friend Ron. He took Ron to the mirror and asked him what he saw. Ron Weasley, overshadowed by the accomplishments of his older brother, saw himself in the mirror. But he saw a much older self, an older self who was head boy. And he was also the Quidditch captain holding the Quidditch Cup.
The two youngsters hypothesized about the mirror. Ron suggested it showed the future but Harry pointed out that couldn't be the case because his parents were already dead. They left that night not knowing what the mirror was.
Harry, we learn, is a very special wizard. In his exploits as told by J. K. Rowling, he goes on to many adventures and fights evil. He seems to be an ordinary boy, by wizard standards anyway. He is not the brightest student at Hogwarts. He is an orphan and his Aunt and Uncle are Muggles; they don't have the slightest amount of magic in their blood. Harry is not particularly attractive. His hair is untidy, he wears thick glasses, and he is not a particularly spiffy dresser. To make matters worse he has friends who are not from the upper crust of the wizard world. Harry, by all accounts, is a nobody. What sets Harry apart from others is his courage, his desire to do what is right, and his concern for his friends.
David was also a "nobody". The youngest of eight, David was the son of the servant Jesse. While his three oldest brothers followed Saul into battle, David stayed behind to care for the sheep. After all, what was a youngster like David to do? Surely he couldn't fight. One day Jesse told David to take to his eldest sons an ephah of grain (a little over a bushel) and ten loaves of bread and to take their commander ten cheeses. David left the next day on his mission.
As David arrived at the camp, he found the men were preparing for battle. For forty days the Philistine Goliath had been coming and challenging the army. Goliath, a giant of a man who towered over the Israelites at a height of nine feet, nine inches, had been taunting Saul's army to choose a man to fight him one-on-one in a winner take all match. For forty days no one would fight.
David was accused of just sneaking of to watch a battle by his brothers and they chastised him for leaving the sheep unattended. David continued to ask "What would happen to the person who killed Goliath?" and when word of his questioning reached Saul, he was called to meet with him. David was brave and knew he had the Lord on his side. He was not afraid to fight the giant and said as much to Saul. However Saul was hesitant; he asked how David, a mere boy with no training, could take on Goliath who had been trained as a warrior from his youth.
As a shepherd, David explained, he had tracked down lions to rescue lost sheep and when the lions turned on him, he killed them. He told Saul that just as God had delivered him from the lions, he would ensure victory against Goliath. Saul then clothed David in armor, gave him a shield and gave him a sword to strap across himself. But David, unused to the weight of the armor, could not walk so he removed the garb of a warrior and instead grabbed his staff, placed five smooth stones in his shepherd's bag, and held his sling in his hand.
Goliath was amused at the sight he saw. Here came this boy, not a man, to call him out for a fight. He wore no armor and had no serious weapons. He had a stick and a slingshot, weapons of children. Goliath stepped nearer to David, and instead of running away like the other soldiers had been doing for 40 days, David ran towards Goliath, slingshot in hand, and scored a direct hit on Goliath's head. As the giant crumbled to the ground, David stepped forward and killed him.
How often have we met a David or a Harry Potter and underestimated their strength, their resolve, their intent? How often have we ignored the voice of someone because they did not have the proper level of education, wear the proper clothes, or come from the right family? How often have we underestimated someone's ability because of their age? Just a few weeks ago we recognized some very small boys with very big hearts for collecting enough money to buy a flock of chickens to help the poor. How many of us looked at them as doing something cute and sweet but never really appreciating the impact they could have? And how many of us have personally thanked them and told them what they did was a great thing?
We need to walk a fine line in life but we tend to walk too far on either side of the line. At times we are quick to judge others and at other times we are too hesitant to judge. Some days we are quick to label people, other days we are too slow. Some days we are too critical, other days we do not offer encouragement. More times than not we fail to realize what an impact a few good words can have on someone or how great of an impact a few bad words can have.
A few years ago I was called into the conference room by my then commanding officer in the Naval Reserve. It was once again time for my annual fitness report, that piece of paper we get every year where we are evaluated by our commanders; that piece of paper that can lead to a long career or can cut it short. It had been a tough year for me and I was tired. The recruiting slogan of one weekend a month and two weeks a year was just that--a slogan. Then, as now, I was spending much more than one weekend a month and two weeks a year for the Navy. I have missed countless birthdays and anniversaries. I have missed my daughter's performances, and I missed visits with friends and family. I was ready to quit.
I went into the conference room and was ready to tell my CO that I was ready to hang up the uniform. Whether he sensed how I was feeling that day or not, I don't know. As I sat down he started talking to me. He began by telling me how tough it was to ever become an Admiral in the navy, how the chances of anyone making it that far were astronomical. I thought this was great, he's telling me I can't go much further so quitting is going to be easy. Then he let the other shoe drop. This Navy Captain, this officer with years of experience, this man who graduated from the Naval Academy, this person who was not far from being an Admiral himself, said that if he had known someone who had what it would take to go that far, that I was the person. Now how could I quit after a pep talk like that? Obviously I didn't quit and am glad I didn't, but seldom does a day go by that I don't think about the faith he showed he had me at a time when I needed it most. Now I ask myself, how many opportunities have I passed up that allowed me the opportunity to do the same for someone else?
In the tenth grade, we had a new student come to our school. He did not dress nicely, he did not know anyone, and he had no friends. He was however in the band. And if you were in a band you knew you were in a family, a little nerdy maybe, but in a family. He was eating lunch with some of us and as he was finishing his meal he picked up his roll and began to mop up the gravy left in his tray. This was certainly not the way you ate in our lunchroom and some of those at the table began to ridicule him asking him if all hicks ate that way? Later in the day others asked him what he was doing in the band; what did he intend to accomplish? He said he was there to be first chair saxophone. Needless to say, our first chair saxophonist was none too happy which led to further belittling. I'm not sure what happened to that student but he was only at school for a few months. I often wonder what would have happened had he received some positive comments that day rather than nothing but critical statements.
Jesus was not one to worry much about what others thought. He was also able to see within people and know what they needed. The woman Jesus met at the well was a Samaritan--someone who respectable Jews did not want to be seen with, much less talk to. To make a bad situation worse, this particular woman was on her fifth husband. She was a Samaritan and a hussy to boot. What would bring Jesus to her? Why would Jesus talk to such a low-life?
Jesus knew that he had what she needed. He had the water that would quench her thirst forever. His conversation with her led her to go to others and tell them about Him. Once they saw for themselves, they told others who then came to drink of the water only our Lord can provide. What would have happened had Jesus not had the courage to talk to this woman? How many would have never known Him? What if instead of telling her about His water, he ridiculed her for her five husbands or commented on her ancestry?
Antwone Fisher was an abandoned child who grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. Born in a woman's prison, he was placed in a foster home until his mother was released and could come for him. His mother never came. His father had been murdered before he was born. He grew up in an abusive family, was molested by his foster mother's daughter, and was routinely threatened with harm. He was called names and treated with derision. He did not see what he ultimately wanted out of himself but he knew he wanted out of where he was. He was an angry young man living on the edge of crime with a life that could go either way.
After being thrown out of the house by his foster mother, he signed up with the Navy. He said he couldn't see himself sleeping in tents and that's why he didn't join the Army. On his ship, Antoine was a trouble maker; his anger got him in many fights and did not earn him any friends. He was also a bright kid who had not been given many opportunities to succeed. After one particular fight, Antoine was taken to Captain's mast. Captain's mast is relatively unique to the Navy in that it allows the Commanding Officer to hold hearings and mete out punishment without the formalities of a trial. Antoine was sentenced to a reduction in rate, forfeiture of several months pay, and perhaps most importantly, to an examination by a psychiatrist.
It is with the psychiatrist that Antoine's life began to change. The doctor had faith in Antoine, believed that he wanted to be a good Sailor and that he wanted to be a good person. Antoine was difficult though, he didn't want to talk, and he didn't want to cooperate. The doctor saw something inside Antoine and kept working with him.
One of the bonus features with the Antwone Fisher DVD is an interview with Antoine. He talks about how his commanders in the Navy changed his life. How the sentencing to see the psychiatrist was the beginning of turning his life around. He talks about how he was standing on the flight deck as a helicopter was coming in for a landing and the Chief handed him the wands and said it was time he learned how to bring in a helicopter. As he was standing there, scared to death, he realized that the life of the helicopter crew was in his hands while he directed them to their landing. He realized that the Navy had just placed a tremendous amount of faith in him that day. If the Navy could trust a poor black kid from a foster home with such an important task, maybe there was hope for him after all.
We often act on faith. We try to see the inside of people, to determine their intent, to guess their motives. This is natural, particularly when we meet a stranger and oftentimes necessary for our safety and well-being. Looking at the inside of someone is hard to do but it is what we must do if we wish to be more Christ-like.
On the third night, Harry returned to the room to look at the mirror. Nothing was to stop him from looking at his mother, father, and grandparents all night. As he sat looking, he heard a voice, "So--back again Harry?" Sitting in the room was Albus Dumbledore, the school headmaster. Harry apologized for not seeing him. "Strange how nearsighted being invisible can make you", said Dumbledore.
Dumbledore told Harry he had discovered the Mirror of Erised and asked if Harry figured out what it showed. As Harry thought about it he gave him a hint. "The happiest man on earth would be able to use the Mirror of Erised like a normal mirror, that is, he would be able to look into it and see himself exactly as he is." As Harry thought, Dumbledore explained that the Mirror of Erised showed nothing more than your heart's deepest desire. In fact Rowling gives us a hint at this in the very name Erised, which is nothing more than "desire" spelled backwards. And if the carving above the mirror is read backward, the purpose of the mirror is revealed: "I show not your face but your hearts desire." Dumbledore explained that the mirror would be moved for "it does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live".
If you had the mirror here today, what would you see in yourself? If you could look into the desires of others, would you see a little boy who misses his family? Would you see a little shepherd boy trying to watch a fight or would you see a little boy with a keenly accurate slingshot who would slay a giant? Would you hand the poor black Sailor the wands on the flight deck or would you tell him to get out of the way? Would you see a poor woman who had been divorced four times drawing water from a well, or would you see the woman who would bring many to know Christ? Would you see the little boys being cute and collecting money at the church door, or would you see the flock of chickens they would give to the poor? Perhaps what we see in others is really an indication of what we see in ourselves.
God is able to see inside of us and know what we desire. He knows what we are capable of doing. God has faith in us to do what is right; is it asking too much for us to have faith in each other?
Amen.
Sources:
Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Washington, Denzel (Director). (2003). Antwone Fisher [Motion Picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Home Video.
Posted by robertgreen at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)
Harry Potter and His Tattoo
A Sermon Delivered to
Trinity Presbyterian Church PC(USA)
Starkville, MS
07 July 2002
I have a few confessions to make. My favorite snack is Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans, my favorite sport is Quidditch, I would love nothing better than to ride a Nimbus 2000 broom and be the seeker on the Quidditch team. I've been sorted by the sorting hat into the House of Gryffindor and wish I could trade my email for Owl Mail. I think Hermione Granger is as cute as a button and she even reminds me a little of one of my fifth grade girlfriends. I am, I have to admit, a Harry Potter fan.
Now my love for the Harry Potter stories did not come easy. I remember when the craze swept the nation and I wanted nothing of it. I'm not one to jump on the latest best seller unless it is by a tried and true author. I was, in fact, shamed into reading my first Harry Potter Book. A very dear friend kept asking me why I hadn't read Harry Potter and my initial response was "Why would I read what every 10 year in the country was reading?" Then she said she was disappointed I hadn't read them. Well I could not have her be disappointed in me and we do tend to like a lot of the same books ranging from John Grisham to Nicholas Sparks so, reluctantly, I started reading Harry Potter.
What I found in Harry Potter was similar to what I found in the movie Jungle Book. As a child I thought Jungle Book was a pretty cool and funny movie. Years later when it was re-released Sara and I watched it with Kathryn and I found it had a new meaning on a different level for adults. I enjoyed it even more as an adult than as a child.
Harry Potter has been much maligned in churches across the nation, a New Mexico church even had a book burning where they burned Harry Potter books by J. K. Rowling and even works by Shakespeare. The reason given is that the books are evil, that they teach children how to become witches and warlocks, that they are satanic. Scary words, these are. But these are probably the same do-gooders who want to keep the Road Runner cartoons off Saturday morning television for fear that some child will strap rockets on his roller skates and chase dogs down the road or jump off a cliff and bounce up again after landing on a spring that was just delivered from the Acme Supply Company.
Well I don't know too much about the children in New Mexico but the children I know in Mississippi are a little too smart to fall for such nonsense. I think these fears more accurately reflect the ignorance of the adults rather than the children. My friends and I all grew up watching the Road Runner, Batman, and Superman. Never once did we have the slightest bit of trouble in separating television from reality. We do have adults who tend to confuse the two but we call them legislators and that is the topic for another day.
Harry Potter was, at first, nothing special. He was, as we find out, an orphan left on the doorstep of his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon Dursley. He was mistreated as a child, apparently shown little love, and had to live with his cousin Dudley who picked on him continuously. Harry's address was the Cupboard under the Stairs, Number 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey. But Harry made the best of it. Then around the age of ten, he got the letter admitting him Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
It is at Hogwarts where most of the story takes place. Harry meets his friend Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. This threesome always manages to find some sort of mischief to get into but it is always during an attempt to do good. You see not only is Harry Potter a good read, it is a story about virtues. And I use the word virtues rather than values for a reason. As Bill Bennett says in his Book of Virtues, values are talked about by people as if they are something you possess like beads on a string or marbles in a pouch. But Virtues are the central part of human nature; they are not something to have but something to be. (The Book of Virtues
, William J. Bennett, p. 14.)
By reading Harry Potter we learn the value of friendship, how do have a caring relationship with others, how to put others before yourself, and how to make personal sacrifices so that others may benefit. We also find Harry and his friends breaking a few rules to accomplish a greater good. You see Harry is not an ordinary child, he is not even an ordinary wizard, Harry is special in a way that not even he knows at first.
Breaking rules is something we are all taught to not do. Our teachers in school made up all kinds of rules about chewing gum, eating in class, talking in the halls, and sitting up straight. Some of these rules were a good and valuable part of our education, others were merely there to make life easier for themselves. As I walk through the halls on campus over the summer and see the teachers sitting in classes as students I can't help but chuckle. They have their cokes and coffee sitting on their desks even though the sign at the front of the room says food and drink not allowed. If only their students could see them now! What we find in Harry Potter is that he sometimes breaks a rule or two. I've known others who broke rules and I'm sure you have too.
Years ago, when she was in the third grade, my daughter started a petition at school to get Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday declared a school holiday. The petition was confiscated and she got fussed at a little by her teacher. She came home and told us about it and my response to her was that she needed to decide how much it was worth to her. Did she believe strongly enough to take a little heat and get in a little trouble? If so then she had our complete support. If not then she needed to let it go and apologize. She didn't back down. A few days letter the petition was returned to her and shortly thereafter the school declared King's birthday as a holiday. Now I'm not naive enough to think that a petition from a third grader made a school change its policies but perhaps it did get them to think a little about it. I was never prouder of her than that day, the day she decided to put her welfare below that of something because it was the right thing to do.
One of my favorite speeches is one given by General Krulak, now retired Commandant of the Marine Corps, to the Leaders Forum and midshipmen at the Naval Academy. In this speech, General Krulak talks about the virtues and values a person holds dear. He points out that as leaders, those in the audience will be tested and tempted. They will be tried and they will have to decide and act. He says there is nothing more valuable to a leader than integrity. Integrity. Integrity and Moral Courage are fundamental traits that go hand in hand.
Were he not afraid of dirty needles, the General says, he would take everyone in the audience down to the nearest tattoo parlor and have the word Integrity tattooed somewhere on their bodies. But he was afraid of dirty needles so he challenged the audience to tattoo that word on their souls. Tattoo integrity on your soul he said. As long as it is tattooed on your soul you will never have to worry about lying, worry about stealing, or cheating. You will never have to worry about doing the right thing. What is tattooed on your soul? Look at your soul and what do you see?
If more people would follow the advice of General Krulak today's newspapers would be empty. Twenty-four hour news channels would need only fifteen minutes a day to cover the news. There would be no murders; there would be no crimes. And we certainly would not be reading about Enron and WorldCom. Those people did not have integrity tattooed on their souls; I doubt they even had integrity in their vocabularies.
On September 11th of last year I was onboard the USS TRENTON at the pier in Norfolk. Like many of you, I watched the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacks unfold on television. The difference is I was in the Wardroom of the ship with the people who were certainly going to be heading in harm's way. I was with people who had kissed their wives and children goodbye that morning and reported for duty, fully expecting to see them again around 4:30 that afternoon. In a matter of minutes that had all changed. They were now making preparation to get underway. They had no idea when they would get home again.
The Sailors I was with were scared. The average age was less than twenty on that ship and they were scared. We were all scared. We were at the largest naval installation on the eastern seaboard and felt certain, in those minutes that followed, that we were going to be the next to be attacked. I did not see panic. I did not see tears. And contrary to what many of our church leaders say, I saw no knee-jerk violent reactions. What I saw were young men and women with integrity tattooed on their souls. They turned to and started to do their jobs. They knew not what they would be called on to do in the days that followed but they started preparing for anything that would be asked of them by their country. I saw their tattoos.
In the days that followed I was both proud and saddened. I was proud of what I had seen onboard the ship but I was saddened by what I would see on television. I recall one particular interview of a student on the west coast who, when asked what he thought about the possibility of a draft, replied he was not in favor of it because it did not fit in with his career plans. How self-centered can you be? People had just lost their lives, much more than their careers, and this twenty-something was concerned about his career plans. I'm not certain he has much of a soul but I am confident his only tattoos were on his skin.
My confidence was somewhat restored a few weeks later when several people from my unit were mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle. These people received a phone call telling them they had to report immediately and would be shipping out in less than 72 hours. I made it a point to go down while they were being processed to let them know I cared and to help them get through the process.
One of the Sailors being mobilized was Petty Officer Sisson. Petty Officer Sisson has been a Sailor for many years, as has her husband. She moved around the world with her husband and tried to maintain her activity in the Naval Reserve but had recently received a letter saying that she had reached high year tenure and was going to have to retire.
Petty Officer Sisson did not want to leave the service and I did not want her to leave. She requested a waiver of the high year tenure and sent it to me to be forwarded. In the Navy just about everything has to be forwarded through the chain of command, as did this request. Our usual process is to attach a brief letter that says simply "Forwarded, Recommending approval". If we are really excited and have strong feelings we send an endorsement that says "Forwarded, strongly recommending approval." I felt even stronger about this request so I took the time to write a full letter stating her value to the service and stressing that she was in this situation because she was doing the right thing by following her husband to a remote duty station even though it would harm her career. I closed the letter by simply saying that approving this request was the right thing to do.
We were both somewhat surprised when the request came back approved. It was indeed a rare occurrence. Now this fine Petty Officer was facing being taken away from husband for who knew how long. When I went to see her and the others off I looked at her and asked her if she wished now we had not tried so hard to get her waiver. She stood there in front of me, looked me square in the eyes and said, "Commander, this is what I signed up to do and I am ready to serve my country. I have no regrets." I saw her soul that day and it had a great big Integrity tattoo on it. I have spoken to her several times since that day and she has yet to voice one single complaint or regret. What kind of a country would it be if we had more Petty Officer Sisson's and fewer west coast students?
Harry Potter also has a tattoo. Well, it is not exactly a tattoo but it is rather a scar. He has a lighting bolt scar on his forehead. We find out later that this scar was given him when his parents were killed during a fight with Voldemort. Voldemort, for those unfamiliar with the story is the incarnation of evil. He is a very powerful wizard that went over to the dark side and is struggling to regain power.
Harry also has several tattoos on his soul. In addition to integrity, Harry has tattooed on his soul words like friendship, love, kindness, and goodness. Harry is also a rule breaker. When he needs to break a few rules to do something that is for the betterment of all, he breaks them.
In the first book, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, Harry learns that Voldemort is trying to steal the sorcerer's stone which is hidden in Hogwarts. This stone, if recovered by Voldemort, would restore his power and his brand of evil would reign again. Harry gets wind of this and knows that Voldemort has learned the secrets to enter the chamber and steal the stone. The only option left to him is to steal the stone first so he, Ron, and Hermione sneak out of their rooms one night on a mission to get the stone.
On the way out though, they run into another friend of theirs, Neville Longbottom. Neville is a nice sort of fellow and tried to keep them from getting in trouble by blocking their way out of the room. Neville does not want them to get in trouble for several reasons but one is that, if they are caught, their house will have points taken away which could keep them from winning the school cup, the prize given to the best dormitory each year. They do not have time to explain to Neville what they are doing so Hermione puts a spell on him that causes him to stiffen and fall to the floor allowing them to pass.
Harry does eventually enter the chamber where the stone is hidden, but not without some troubles and some trials. To get the stone, Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to play a game of chess, not ordinary chess--wizard chess. In wizard chess the pieces move themselves. The knight's horse moves and the King's remove their crowns when checkmated. When pieces are taken they are destroyed. In order to win the game, Ron must allow himself to be taken allowing Harry to checkmate. Ron knew he would be harmed but he also knew there was no other way. I need not tell you that Ron also had a tattoo on his soul.
Harry eventually enters the chamber and while there he comes face to face with Voldermort's evil helper Quirrell who is sharing his soul with Voldemort to keep him alive. During a fight for the stone, which had magically appeared in Harry's pocket, Harry touches Quirrell and Quirrell begins to die. Some time later, as he lay recovering in the hospital following the fight, Harry asks the headmaster Dumbledore some questions. One is why Quirrell could not touch him? Dumbledore explains:
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He did not realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign...to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." (J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, p 299.)
We have this same sort of protection. We have a Father that loves us so much that evil can not harm us. His love has given us the ability to tattoo our souls and stand for that which is right and against that which is wrong. We seem to forget this at times and focus on only standing for the right, but we must also stand up against the wrong. And let there be no mistake, there is wrong and evil in this world. We saw it on September 11th in New York and Washington, we saw it in Kosovo, we saw it in Bosnia, we saw it in Beirut, and we still see it in Afghanistan. Evil abounds, but we have the power to stand up to it and to prevail.
At the end of the first book in the Harry Potter series, all of the students gather for a feast and the awarding of the school trophy. Harry's house, the House of Gryffindor, had not won the trophy. They were a few points shy of victory and everyone was more than a little bit disappointed. Dumbledore, the headmaster, rose from the head table and stated that not all of the points had been awarded.
As we read in the book, Dumbledore says, "First--to Mr. Ronald Weasley...for the best played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years, I award Gryffindor house fifty points."
"Second--to Miss Hermione Granger...for the use of cool logic in the face of danger, I award Gryffindor house fifty points.
"Third--to Mr. Harry Potter...for pure nerve and outstanding courage, I award Gryffindor house 60 points." (J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone, p. 305-306.)
The points awarded meant that Gryffindor house was now tied for first place. If only they had one more point. Dumbledore raised his hand and silence swept through the room. He then said "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom. Gryffindor house had won the school trophy. Personally I think Neville deserved a few more point because I think that standing up to your friends is actually harder than standing up to your enemies.
Harry, Ron, and Hermione had broken some rules during their year in school but they had accomplished a greater good by doing so. Jesus was also a rule breaker. He frequently saw things that were wrong and needed to be fixed and he fixed them, even if it meant breaking laws and customs of the times. He stood up for the woman who was about to be stoned and saved her life. He spoke to the woman at the well. He healed the sick. Jesus was not afraid to break a few silly rules in order to do some good.
The message we can get from Harry Potter is the same as we get from General Krulak's speech. Throughout life we will have many decisions to make. Some of these decisions are easy, and some are hard. We need no help in making the easy decisions because they are, well, easy. It is the tough ones which we need help in making. Maybe we will have time to think about the decision and even talk to our friends about it. Other times we will not have time to think very long. It is at those times that we need to check the tattoo on our souls. Do we have virtues that are a part of us or do we simply possess values that we can change at will?
Magic does not really play a role in the choices Harry has to make in the stories. Magic is there but Harry could use his magic and not have gone after the Sorcerers Stone. He, Ron, and Hermione could have easily stayed in their rooms that night and not worried about it. They were only children after all. They had a choice between doing what was right and what was easy, perhaps the most difficult type of decision there is to make.
In the time of Jesus, there were also miracles. He turned water into wine. He made the lame walk. He cured leprosy and blindness. He fed the multitude from seven loaves and just a few fish. He performed, for lack of a better term, magic. Many people had seen His work and were following him but there were others who were not yet convinced. The Pharisees wanted still more signs from Him; they needed more proof before they could tattoo their souls and follow Him. The choice of following Him was one they, like us, must make on our own. And just as for the Pharisees, there will be no miracles and no magic to make the decision for us.
Harry Potter has been much maligned by some. I believe this is undeserved and that there is much to be learned from reading about his antics. Getting children or even adults for that matter, to read is never a bad thing. Those who oppose Harry Potter seem to think our children are a little dimmer than the one's I know. The children I know are quite capable of reading about magic yet knowing there is no such thing. They will not strap Acme rockets on their skates, nor will they jump on a broomstick and think it will carry to the Quidditch match. They will, I think, learn much about life and choices from reading Harry Potter.
At the end of General Krulak's speech, he challenges the audience to take a page from the Bible and to soar with the eagles. The prophet Isaiah says that those "who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint." (Isaiah 40:31) General Krulak then closes with a poem, The Eagle and the Wolf
There is a great battle that rages inside me. One side is a soaring eagle. Everything the eagle stands for is good and true and beautiful. It soars above the clouds. Even though it dips down into the valleys, it lays its eggs on the mountain tops.The other side of me is a howling wolf.
And that raging, howling wolf represents the worst that is in me.
He eats upon my downfalls and justifies himself by his presence in the pack.Who wins this great battle?
The one I feed.
The one I feed.
Which one will you feed? When your soul reaches heaven, what will be tattooed on it?
What troubles us today is not J. K. Rowling's books about Harry Potter but rather a lack of tattoos...a lack of tattoos on our souls that read Integrity, and Moral Courage.
Posted by robertgreen at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)
But I'm Too Busy to Help
12 March 2002
Trinity is a volunteer organization. We have a few paid people, several who are underpaid, to take care of some of the work but there is not enough of them to go around. Our church is governed by the Session, sixteen volunteers. Our church work is done by the many committees. Our income is freely given by volunteers. The people in the chairs on Sunday morning are...volunteers. So the next time you are asked to do something for the church, remember, without your help, the work would not get done.
I've meet very few people at Trinity who were not busy. Some have said they had the time but I knew they were just being polite. They may have been unemployed at the time or retired but they still had commitments to be fulfilled to others. And it always seems that the people who are the busiest are the ones who quickly agree to do more. I know they are the one's we keep going back to ask for help.
I've wondered why the one's who do the most seem to be the one's who never say no and always get the job done. Last night I think I found the answer. While flipping through Bill Bennett's book, The Moral Compass, I ran across this poem. The author was not identified so I can only assume it was written by the prolific Anonymous, perhaps a volunteer. Read the poem and I think you will understand why we keep asking the same people to help. And please feel free to substitute woman, child, layperson, professional, gardener, or whatever you please. Trinity, perhaps more than most churches, realizes that we all have valuable contributions to make...as volunteers.
If you want to get a favor done
By some obliging friend,
And want a promise, safe and sure,
On which you may depend,
Don't go to him who always has
Much leisure time to plan,
But if you want your favor done,
Just ask the busy man.
The man with leisure never has
A moment he can spare,
He's always "putting off" until
His friends are in despair.
But he whose every waking hour
Is crowded full of work
Forgets the art of wasting time,
He cannot stop to shirk
So when you want a favor done,
And want it right away,
Go to the man who constantly
Works twenty hours a day.
He'll find a moment, sure, somewhere,
That has no other use.
And help you, while the idle man
Is framing an excuse.div>
William J. Bennett, The Moral Compass, Page 615.
Posted by robertgreen at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)
Memories of 11 September 2001
11 March 2002
With today being six months from that day in September and with every television station showing the videotapes and covering the speeches, it is hard to not reflect on the day that has changed America forever. I have not talked much about what I experienced that day, in part because I'm not the kind of person that talks about such things, and in part because it is tough to talk about what I saw and experienced. While most people saw nothing but terror and confusion, I had another perspective. I saw terror, sure, but I also saw bravery, courage, honor, an individuals resolved to protect and defend this country.
I was in Norfolk, Virginia at the Naval Base on board the USS Trenton (LPD 14) conducting a hull material condition inspection. I was on board with five other Naval Reserve Officers as part of a team and together we were tagging along with the INSURV (Inspection and Survey) Team. INSURV was conducting a thorough, overall, inspection of the ship and its systems while we were focused on some very specific areas of concern.
The morning of 11 September 2001 began like others during that training period. We arrived at the Naval Base and boarded the ship as a team. We all went to our staterooms, changed into our coveralls, unpacked our equipment, and gathered in the wardroom to begin our inspection. That day we were dividing into three teams to inspect some tanks and voids. A Commander and I were the lucky ones to draw two tanks down in Machinery Room 2. The boilers were firing and it was hot. After a few hours of the heat, we decided to take a break and get some drinks.
On our way back to the wardroom we crossed the crew galley and saw the big screen television out with several Sailors sitting around watching. It was highly unusual for a crew to watch television at that time so we stopped to see what was going on. A Sailor told us that an airplane had just crashed into the World Trade Center tower. Like most, we assumed an accident had happened, but then we saw the second plane fly into the other tower. We knew then that this was no accident.
Shortly we learned that yet another plane had crashed into the Pentagon. At that time I turned to the Commander and said "We are at war. They have just attacked our center of commerce and our center of the military, this is war." Everyone on board the ship knew the same thing. We also knew that it was most likely one of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups behind the attacks.
We made our way up to the wardroom to get our drinks and continue to watch the coverage. While there, the OOD (Officer of the Deck), came on the 1MC (the ship's PA system) and instructed all personnel to set THREATCON Bravo. A few minutes later another announcement was made to set THREATCON Charlie and all civilian personnel were directed to leave the ship immediately.
Things were happening now. Weapons came out of the lockers, and boats were placed over the side of the ship to set up a perimeter. Then what we had all been expecting. The OOD came on the 1MC and said "Attention TRENTON, standby for the Commanding Officer". Then skipper came on. "TRENTON, this is the Captain. It has become obvious over the last few minutes that the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon have been attacked. There are also reports of other incidents in the country that have ye to be confirmed. I do not know where this will lead but I know that we are ready. We have been directed by LANTFLT to set THREATCON Delta. All Liberty is immediately cancelled. I hereby direct the ship to set condition modified Zebra and make preparations to get underway. The INSURV inspection has been cancelled and all INSURV inspectors are requested to depart at their earliest convenience. I do not know what lies ahead but I do know that we have a job to do. Focus on your job, do what you have trained to do, and do it safely. We are ready."
We went to our staterooms to change from our coveralls and gather our equipment. While there another came over the 1MC. "TRENTON, this Combat. CIC (Combat Information Center) is manned and operational. Effectively immediately, secure all cellular telephone transmissions." A few minutes later we left the ship and what we saw was eerie. The .50 caliber guns onboard were manned and ready. Boats in the water were patrolling making sure nothing came close to the ships. Jersey walls were erected and rent-a-cop gate guards had been replaced by Sailors and Marines with M-16's shot guns, flak jackets, and helmets. Everyone not assigned to a ship or a Command was on their way off base. Civilians were at the front of the line, we were brining up the rear.
We eventually made it back to our Quarters at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek. Traffic was slow and the security getting onto NAB Little Creek was tough as well. The Navy had never been at THREATCON Delta before so some of the rules were being made up as we went. Delta is the highest threat condition possible and is indicative that a credible threat of immediate attack exists. Once we got to our quarters, there was little we could do other than watch the news. Although we were at Delta, we still felt safe. All civilians had been directed to leave the base which meant nothing was open. The Exchange, Commissary, gas station, and McDonald's were closed. There were a few Sailors who were running the mess hall but not enough to keep the Officer's mess open. We would all be tired of Galley food before we left.
But that was insignificant to what I had seen on board the Trenton. The INSURV team was by far the oldest group of people on board. Most of the Sailors were in their late-teens or early-twenties. I did not see panic, I did not see uncertainty, I did not see blind rage. What I did see was tremendous courage and determination. These Sailors turned-to and did their jobs. We had that ship opened up for inspection and they immediately began to close the tanks and make her ready to sail. Their liberty had just been cancelled and they had just been told they couldn't use their cell phones. No one was going home that night and it would be hours before some of them could get word to their families. These were not trivial things but there was no complaining.
Due to the high OPTEMPO (Operational Tempo) while at sea, when a ship is in port, the CO does his best to set up a nine to five (actually a seven to three thirty) work day so the Sailors can spend some time at home with family and friends. A large portion of this crew drove in to work on the morning of 11 September with the intent of being back home in a few hours. Some of them came in the family car leaving wives and children at home without transportation. These Sailors had just been told that they could not go home and that they could not use their cell phones. To make things worse, at THREATCON Delta their wives would not be allowed on base to get the family cars. Add to all of this anxiety the knowledge that you live in the largest concentration of Naval forces on the Eastern seaboard, certainly a valid target. Schools had even gone into lock-down mode out of fear of attack.
I was proud that day. Proud to be a Sailor and proud to be a part of the world's finest fighting force. There was talk of turning some sand into glass but we knew it would not be that easy. The war we were now in was going to be long and difficult. I had no doubt that we were up for the fight but I did have doubts about the American public.
A few days later we resumed the INSURV inspection with at-sea testing. To make things as easy as possible, we mustered at Little Creek and the Trenton sent vans to pick us up. We arrived at the ship around 0430 after passing through extraordinary security and an eerily quiet base. We boarded the ship and prepared to get underway.
Boats were in the water patrolling the waterfront. Believe me, no one was the least little bit interested in getting too close to any US Navy ship that day. As we left the pier, the .50 calibers were manned, and once we left the bay, the CIWS (Close-In Weapons System) was loaded. There was no doubt that this was a warship ready for war.
The sky was quiet. I have never heard less noise in the sky than on that day. There were a few contrails very high in the sky, but that was it. This was the first day that the airspace had been opened so there was little activity. We were able to get a Navy Lear jet to fly which allowed INSURV to do a "detect and engage" test with the CIWS. I stood on the port bridge wing and watched as the jet came in low and fast, a few feet over the Trenton, and the CIWS definitely did detect and did engage. Fortunately it had been safed so it wouldn't fire.
We returned that night about 2330 to conditions much like we had left. There was heavy security, patrol craft at the piers, and even fewer ships at the piers because several had sortied during the day. Our work, save for the report, was done, but work of the Trenton was just beginning.
During the days immediately following the 11th, patriotism ran high. Flags were seen everywhere. When we went places in uniform, people would always say something kind to us, a "God Bless You" or a smile. I knew they were all sincere but I couldn't help but wonder how long it would last. How long would it be until someone started to complain and started to be Monday morning quarterbacks. It didn't take long.
First were those who wanted to turn this into a Holy War. They wanted it to be Christianity against Islam. This war was not and is not a war against the Muslims and Islam; it is a war against terrorists who do not appear to practice their own religion. America respects the Islamic religion and part of why we fight is to allow those who practice that religion to do so in freedom. We all would do well to learn about their religion, as a group they certainly know a lot about ours, not so we can become converts but so that we can have a better understanding of a large population of those who live on this Earth.
Then some people jumped in the fray with their call for us to look at ourselves and find why we made these people do this to us. Excuse me? What WE did to make someone attack us like cowards? What did we do wrong? We did absolutely nothing wrong! The United States stands for freedom and individual rights. We stand for everybody being able to practice their own religion, for everyone to live in relative safety, for everyone to have the opportunity to better themselves, for everyone to pursue happiness. Perhaps it is time for them to re-read the Declaration of independence and the Constitution.
Do people hate us? Absolutely! There are many who hate what we stand for. We are a threat to them, to their power. Some of them want our movies, our music, our cars, and our toys. And there are those who don't want them to have any of those things. Should we give up what we have to keep others from wanting it?
There are also those in this world who are simply evil. Yes, that word that many have forgotten. Evil!strong> It is what happens when people develop without morals and without a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Some would even say that it is what happens when we take religion, prayer, and discipline out of schools and preach tolerance at the expense of standards. This is not to say that tolerance is not a good thing and should not be taught, but it must be taught with a basis in fundamental truths, truths that are self-evident. A society that is tolerant of everything soon becomes a society that merely has no standards, and will ultimately cease to be a country.
I've heard about enough from the whiners about how bad the United States is. Some people have some very selective memories and are quick to forget all the good we have done. They seem to forget that when a nation is in need, we are the first they call. They are also dishonest, dishonest with themselves. They have benefited from the very things they now condemn. In fact the radical Islamists are most upset about the decay of morals in the West and how those morals are infiltrating their country. Need I point out who is primarily responsible for the decline in Western morality?
Like most Americans, I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have a fairly comfortable life, a house that is not too bad, a really cool car, a loving family, the best friends in the world, a job that I enjoy and pays well (not that a raise would not be appreciated), and many opportunities to further my education and understanding. I have these things for some very simple reasons. First, I worked hard. While others were playing, I was studying. When some graduated from high school and went to work, I went to college. While some took the easy classes in college, I opted for the tough ones. While others merely did their jobs, I tried to do mine a little better than was expected. I was also blessed. Yes, I believe that I was given something to make me work a little harder than some. And of course all this was possible because I had parents who made sacrifices to make sure I got these opportunities. They made sure I lived in the best school districts, had the school supplies I needed, sent me to the college of my choice, and encouraged me in all that I did. I have nothing to be ashamed of other than those who are ashamed to be an American
I must admit, I find those people to be insulting. They insult me and all the Sailors I know. They insult those who have died in this war and those who are yet to die. But the funny thing about it is that I will fight for their right to insult me. They will not go unchallenged; they will not be allowed to have their say without the rest of us having ours, but we will fight for their right to say what they will. Why? Because we are Americans and that is the way we do things.
We, as Christians and Americans, do need to better understand Islam. It is the right thing to do but we must be careful that we do not turn this into an us against them war. This is not a war of Christians against Muslims; it is a war against terrorists who happen to claim the religion of Islam. It will be a long war and many good people will die before it is over. But we will win it.
I do still worry at times. The left has taken hold of many of our nations institutions with the belief they are doing good. I come back to the words spoken by Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention when he was asked, "What have you wrought?" Franklin answered, "...a Republic, if you can keep it." I pray everyday that we can keep it.
Posted by robertgreen at 10:27 AM | Comments (0)
September 14, 2008
Read, Think, Write, and Publish--But be Prepared for the Conequences
"Read, Think, Write, and Publish' by Admiral Jim Stavridis, U.S. Navy, US Naval Institute Proceedings, August 2008, pp.16-19.
In the August 2008 issue of Proceedings, Admiral Jim Stavridis, USN, Commander of US Southern Command makes a compelling case for military officers, actually military members, to air their ideas. In his article entitled “Read, Think, Write, and Publish”, he quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying “Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing” and then Admiral Stavridis adds, “Do both!” The John Adams motto “Read, Think, Write” has long since been adopted by the Naval Institute, and is also my personal motto, and now Admiral Stavridis asks that we all adopt it but take it a step further and publish. [John Adams actually said “Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”]
Such a request is not without its risks, however. Putting ideas out in the open can be a dangerous thing at many levels, especially at the personal level. Reciting the widely-accepted mantra of the day, or merely restating the obvious is usually not risky. But then again, it accomplishes very little. The best writings, in my opinion, are those that get people to think. Even if in the end the opinion expressed is not widely accepted or the idea is relegated to the trash can, the act of getting the thought started is worth the effort. Of course the audience must be willing to listen and willing to have an open debate and that, unfortunately, is not always the case. When an unpopular opinion is expressed publicly, whether is right or wrong, does not matter, it can carry a high personal price. This is something I recently learned the hard way.
My former church had been going through rough times. The internal issues, which are too numerous to list here, but which were, in my opinion, not being addressed. The Session was, again in my opinion, too concerned about not hurting feelings or not offending someone than they were in doing the work they were supposed to be doing. Now I must be clear here that this is not a condemnation of any individual member on the Session or in the church—the problem was one of the organization as an entity. There were strong members of Session but the Session as a whole was unwilling to look at the problems. Membership growth had stalled, if not declined; weekly attendance was falling; the number of people removing their names from elder ballot was rising; and the minister was being blamed for all of this. Sermons were, according to those dissatisfied, “too intellectual”, “too long”, “not exciting”, and a host of other things.
The church, over my objection and against my vote, removed the minister and then pronounced the problem was solved and we needed only a healing period. I was ready to leave then, like many of my friends did, but I stayed in hopes of being able to get things back on-track. However, what followed were group discussions and surveys which resulted in little and ignored those of us who were not into group therapy. Further, those like me were being told that we needed to get with the plan. But I had a finger on the pulse of the church membership and I knew that roughly a third of the church members attended so sporadically that they were clueless as to what was happening. Another third was happy because they “got their way”. The final third was still hurt, not happy with the things were going, but were either sticking it out to try to make things better (like me) or were sticking around because they did not feel comfortable going to another church.
Recognizing this I chose to write an article for the church newsletter. I had written them in the past and they often would stimulate some thinking. The article was entitled “A Message to Garcia” and referred to the story by Elbert Hubbard which recounted the struggles of Rowan to deliver a message to General Garcia in the Spanish-American War. I pointed out that there were those of us who were still not healed and that problems remained the church. I acknowledged that there were also Rowans’ within the church who were trying to deliver the message that all was not well. Interestingly, I also pointed out that the motto of our church was “Open hearts, open minds”, in hopes that the message would be heard.
What I found was that the church seemingly no longer had an open mind. The reactions to my article ranged from “I was wrong, everything was fine”, to “who is Garcia?” There were also those who came up to me and thanked me for saying what needed to be said. Rather than stimulate debate it raised defenses of those who wanted to pronounce the church healed. Further, it was stated that if I had concerns I should take them to the Session and not publish such articles. There was even brief discussion of having Session or a committee review articles before being published. Call it what you will but in my book the church with open minds was seriously discussing censorship.
The price I paid was coming to the conclusion that it was time to leave. I hated to leave; I had really hoped that things would turn around and get better. I joined another congregation in town and have been very happy ever since. They put God first in the church and their membership is growing. My old church has seen little to no growth and even fewer members are leaving their names on the ballot for elder elections. They now have a new minister and I truly pray things get better. However, before I left, the interim minister resigned. I have this hope because there is a need for such a church and because I still have friends who attend there. There are also some friends who attend there, share many of my thoughts and concerns but, for whatever reasons, are not comfortable joining another church.
I still agree with Admiral Stavridis and John Adams, but I am now keenly aware that reading and writing do not necessarily result in thinking, and there may well be a high personal cost associated with the publishing.
Posted by robertgreen at 1:57 PM | Comments (0)
May 30, 2008
Candidates for Stated Clerk of the PC(USA)
My previous post indicated my slight preference for moderator of the PC(USA), but the other position to be filled in a few weeks is Stated Clerk. Thankfully Clifton Kirkpatrick has decided to not stand for re-election and I am extremely thankful for that. I do not think the moderator can make significant changes to the church, the stated clerk can—and what Kirkpatrick has done has not been good.
The Rev. Kirkpatrick is extremely left-leaning and, in my opinion, has been the major reason for the PC(USA) being irrelevant in the nation today. His views and opinions expressed on behalf of the General Assembly have resulted in tremendous membership losses and I think the discounting of any stances the church takes. If it is anti-Israel, anti-Republican, and usually anti-Republican, then Kirkpatrick has been for it.
The Rev. Gradye Parsons has been nominated to stand for the position by the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee but I am not sure I could support him. Admittedly I do not know him, in fact I know almost nothing about him, but I do know that he is the current associate stated clerk, and has been for the last years, and that puts him too close to Kirkpatrick.
Who is my favored candidate? Well that would be the Rev. Edward H. Koster who has decided to stand as well. He has a varied background, including being a graduate of the Naval Academy, service in the Navy in Vietnam, and have several other degrees. It is difficult to say what he would do but he does not appear to be an insider which is plus for me. I also suspect that he would listen more the members in the pew and less to the staff in Louisville.
If only I could vote.
Posted by robertgreen at 12:53 AM | Comments (0)
Candidates for Moderator of PC(USA)
It appears we now have four candidates for moderator of the PC(USA). They are:
Willaim “Bill” Caleb Teng (www.billteng.com/home/)
Roger Shoemaker (www.rogershoemaker.com)
Carl Mazza (www.carlmazza.org)
Bruce Reyes-Chow (www.mod.reyes-chow.com)
I do not get a vote so my opinion does not really matter much and I’m not sure who I would vote for if I could vote. I have looked over their web sites and read their response to questions posited by publications such a Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman. All seem to have a slight liberal bent which is not a problem and is really something I expect in church leaders. The problem is when a slight liberal bent becomes a radical liberal bent as we have seen in some moderators of the past.
The moderator also has little power in setting policy when you really look at it. They come and they go with elections and their terms limit the impact they can have on the church. In some cases these short terms are a positive thing, in other cases the terms need to be longer.
If I had to vote, I think I’d tend toward Carl Mazza right now. He seems interested in doing what is best for the church and not for some special group. His response to the question “Should departing congregations be allowed to leave the PCUSA with their property without penalty? Is one I like. He said “Our Christ-centered mission is most important, and our love and respect for one another. Our property is useless if these are not first.” (This question and answer is from the May 2008 issue of The Layman.)
In no way do I think leaving the PC(USA) I the solution to the problem but I do understand those who feel the need to leave. The attempts by the PC(USA) to keep the property of the congregation seems spiteful given the rapidly declining membership in the PC(USA). I do understand the Book of Order and accept that the property is held in trust but let’s face it, most church property is bought and paid for by individual congregations.
Posted by robertgreen at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)
March 4, 2007
VERNON BROYLES AT IT AGAIN
This month’s Presbyterians Today once again contains another telling column by Vernon Broyles. His column is titled “Where is forgiveness?” but he is blinded by his own liberal bias and never really gets around to the title of the column. Who is supposed forgive whom in this column?
Lent, for me anyway, is a time to focus on the sufferings of Jesus Christ in preparation for celebration of his crucifixion and resurrection. For Broyles however, his thoughts turn to “…the transition of leadership in Congress, the struggle over what to do next in Iraq, the fallout surrounding the shameful mishandling of Saddam Hussein’s execution, and the warm, passionate tributes to President Gerald Ford as he lay in state.” Quick someone, tell Vern that Ford was a Republican. He was one of those he seems to hate so much.
Good old Vern then goes on ad nauseam about the execution of Saddam. Vern, Saddam was executed by the government of Iraq. He was taunted and teased by his fellow Muslims, remember, the religion of peace. I agree that the taunting of Saddam was wrong and should not be tolerated, but it was not done Presbyterians, nor even by American’s. I have no idea why he brings this up in his article.
He then gets off vengeance. Yes, Vern vengeance is the Lord’s but where does the “[y]et for vengeance’s sake 3,000 young Americans are dead, tens of thousands maimed physically and emotionally, and even more Iraqis are gone forever” come from? Sure, I’ll agree that some of the Iraqis are vengeful but this is not what he means. He goes on to say that we should call on our leaders to seek a new spirit of openness that will yield to reconciliation. Perhaps we can call on the United Nations to help here. Ooops, I forgot, we’ve been there, done that.
Posted by robertgreen at 12:47 AM | Comments (0)
March 3, 2007
PC(USA) AND PROPERTY
I remember a few years ago speaking with my then Presbyterian minister about the differences of the denominations in how we recite the Lord’s Prayer. Many ask to be forgiven of their “trespasses” but we Presbyterians ask to be forgiven for our “debts”. Yes, of course I realize they are the same but I found, and still find, the differences in language interesting. His response to me was that as a church with Scottish roots, we really don’t mind if someone chooses to walk across our land, but they had better not mess with our money.
At the time it was just a funny thing to say. But now that some PC(USA) churches are trying to leave the denomination, I notice that his words were prophetic. According to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA), property does not belong to individual churches but is held in trust for the use and benefit of the PC(USA). If you are interested you can read more in the Book of Order, G-8.0100.
Over the last several years, the PC(USA) has been drifting further and further to the left, according to many of us. They have become downright rabid liberals on some issues such as Israel and the war in Iraq. I have personally been offended countless times by liberals Vernon Broyles, III and I won’t even begin to talk about the Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick. Let’s just say that on a fairly regularly basis, I write my Senators and Representative in Washington asking them to ignore some ridiculous letter that has been sent “on behalf of the church”.
In her editorial, Presbyterians Today editor Eva Stimson mentions that “[o]nly if the parties are willing to talk to each other, can a negotiated settlement be reached before a heated legal battle ignites.” What Ms. Stimson fails to realize, or at least fails to acknowledge, is that there have been talks. There have been talks for many years but those churches who wish to leave obviously do not think they have been heard. I am not a member of a church that wishes to leave the PC(USA) but I assure that as an individual, I do not believe my voice has been heard.
As a result of this leftward drifting, some churches, who have been fighting for years, are now attempting to leave the PC(USA) and join other reformed denominations. The property clause is now being brought out as a threat if nothing else. Some of these churches, by the way, have voted to leave the denomination by near unanimous votes, perhaps 98% vote to leave, 2% vote to stay. The property issue has become so heated that it made the cover of this month’s Presbyterians Today magazine.
One of the reasons some churches want to leave, and there are several others, is that they do not believe the current PC(USA) leadership holds the traditional values regarding marriage that are held by their members. They further believe that the Book of Order requires ministers to “live in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman…or chastity in singleness.” The complete Book of Order reference is:
G-6.0106 b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.
Now, it seems to me that, regardless of what you may think about homosexual relationships, the Book of Order clearly forbids them among ministers. There have been several attempts to change this rule and I’m sure there will be more in the future. But in the meantime some churches have chosen to ignore or reinterpret this clause. The PC(USA) under Clifton Kirkpatrick has elected to ignore, according to the churches that want to leave, its duty to uphold the constitution of the church.
It is this same church leadership that fails to live up to their duty and enforce the so-call chastity clause that seems hell-bent on enforcing the property clause. In fact, while the chastity clause can be interpreted in different ways, there is no allowance for a different interpretation of the property clause.
The property clause has not been without controversy. When the Southern and Northern Presbyterian Churches decided to reunite and form the PC(USA), there was an eight year period during which the previously Southern churches could vote and be exempt from the property clause. However, those that chose to not become exempt, those who essentially voted for unity back in the 1980s, are now paying the price. And the lesson for all other denominations out there is to not give up the property of your congregation’s church if at all possible. You never know what will happen to the church in the future, and I assure you that the PC(USA) of today is not the PC(USA) of the 1980s thanks, in my opinion, to the likes of the current stated clerk, and some radical Moderators of late.
John Sniffen’s article in Presbyterians Today "Church Property-who owns it?" says that the “PCUSA property policy is based on belief in the importance of a unified body of Christ.” There is only one problem with this statement: these churches wish to join other reformed denominations, they are not turning their churches into roller rinks; they wish to remain part of the “unified body of Christ” just not as members of the PC(USA).
If the PC(USA) were growing at record rates, I would be one of the first to argue that property should remain in the PC(USA). However, we are not growing at record rates, in fact we are hemorrhaging members at an ever increasing rate which raises the question of what would the PC(USA) do with the property if they kept it? And in spite of what PC(USA) may lead the general public to believe, the reality is that most churches are built with and supported by funds of the local congregation. As a rule, money does not flow from the top down in the Presbyterian Church; it flows from the bottom up.
But Sniffen accidentally stumbled upon what may be the solution this problem. He mentions that in response to a request from the New Wineskins Association, one group that wishes to leave the PC(USA), the Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick replied “we are bound to uphold the constitution of the church and do not have the power to unilaterally set aside any portion”. If Kirkpatrick would honor that statement for all of the sections of the constitution, we just might not be where we are now. Unfortunately for the church, Mr. Kirkpatrick does not seem to have trouble overlooking certain portions of the constitution when if befits the liberal cause.
Posted by robertgreen at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)
June 18, 2006
TURN LEFT AT THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Dateline: Home Study
Turn Left at the Presbyterian Church by Jim Roberts, WSJ, Thursday 15 June 2006, p. A14
Jim Roberts is the chairman of the Committee to End Divestment Now, which means the liberal, elite leadership of the PCUSA will automatically dismiss his column without ever reading it. That would be a shame because he makes some good points.
First, the divestment plan that passed in 2004 was done with little to no discussion. Now that there is a strong movement to rescind that decision, there is a call from the liberals to "study" the issue. I hate to say it, but why it is so important to study the issue now but it wasn't two years ago? But, if they want to study then study the issue; let's rescind the decision, return to status quo ante, and then decide whether it needs to be implemented.
Second, it seems clear the call for divestment is clearly not what the majority of those in the pews want. I have not counted but a quick perusal of overtures before the General Assembly shows the number against divestment far outnumber those that call for divestment. That may, just may, have something to do with the ridiculously large loss of members. It may just be me (certainly the PCUSA leadership does not agree with me) but I think people tend join organizations, including organized religion, they share common views and beliefs with, and they leave those where their personal beliefs become out of sync with those of the organization.
Third, divestment is just wrong. It harms everyone, good and bad. Apartheid collapsed but how many people suffered from boycotts before that happened? Did the boycotts truly bring about change or was it simply time for a change that was brought about by international pressure?
I hope the GA will end this divestment debate and perhaps save the church in the process. But I have zero faith in the leadership to do what is right.
Posted by robertgreen at 1:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
MORE ON DIVESTMENT BY PCUSA
I received the following email the other day and post it here perusing. The General Assembly meets in 2 days and will decide on this issue. The decisions seems pretty simple for me...if Al Jazeerah thinks it is ia good idea then we should do the opposite.
Ted Belman at Israpundit aptly summarizes the situation in the Presbyterian Church USA as they approach their General Assembly to debate again the Israel Divestment Resolution. I will be in Birmingham for the debates that begin Friday June 16 and to the extent possible I will attempt to report my observations.Larry Rued
Presbyterian Church USA
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1438PCUSA is counting the days
Filed under: Front Page, USA, Israel, Palestinians, peace process
As Presbyterians count the days until their General Assembly meets in Birmingham, Israpundit provides this insight of the Israel Divestment Movement within the Presbyterian Church USA. (PCUSA)Two years ago PCUSA leaders caught the world by surprise when they overwhelming voted to start a process of divesting from corporations doing business with Israel.
Israpundit, along with hundreds of others in the blogosphere, have shown through extensive analysis the inherent bias and misinformation used by PCUSA leaders to promote and afterwards defend its divestment action. They also showed the genesis of the resolution.
For example, Seraphic Secret Reveals Secret Divestment Tactics
This important note, with some shocking revelations, just came in from a concerned Christian reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Perhaps the most stunning revelation here is that someone who is working towards divestment, has been mailing out Norman Finkelstein’s most recent book to hundreds of Commissioners of the Presbyterian Church USA’s General Assembly. Finkelstein, for those who might not be aware, is a notorious antiSemite who camouflages his pathological hatred under the guise of a benign academic antiZionism. He and Noam Chomsky are twin Kapos.
Whomever is mailing out this loathsome creature’s book is indeed making use of the most diabolical of antiSemitic tactics: using a Jewish traitor against his own people.
Also, Israpundit posted Deception at the root of Israel’s de-legitimation
Stop the ISM reports in The ISM is a cult and not to be tolerated that
“The ISM was originally set up by leadership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the primarily Christian Arab and communist wing of the PLO, with Yasser Arafat’s blessing in 2002. It was designed to ally with foreign anarchist and anti-capitalist groups in the West in a common goal of making worldwide revolution that would include the dismantling of the Jewish state of Israel as a top priority.”
The handiwork of that endeavour can be witnessed in the recent anti-Israel resolutions the following groups have adopted; World Council of Churches, CUPE, NATFHE, PCUSA
Here is how the pro and anti divestment forces in the PCUSA seem to line up going into the General Assembly beginning June 15.
PCUSA leaders want to continue the divestment process and create a working group to study the Middle East issues for another two years. In contrast, PCUSA churches sent 34 overtures to the General Assembly with two thirds calling for divestment to be rescinded or suspended now!
Supporters on each side of the divestment issue
Let’s first look at the organizations and individuals supporting the PCUSA leaders. They include Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, Global Exchange, End the Occupation, Norm Finkelstein, International Solidarity Movement, Palestinian Solidarity Movement, Sabeel and Friends of Sabeel NA, and the Socialists. These organizations are on the fringes of society.
The PCUSA churches demanding an end to divestment now have the following organizations and individuals in their camp. The Democratic National Committee opposes divestment from Israel. Members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives have stated their opposition to divestment. (No Congressperson supports divestment.) The mainstream Jewish groups include the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Hadassah, American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee, B’nai B’rith International, National Council of Jewish Women, and Union for Reform Judaism. Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Prager are two of many nationally known commentators opposing divestment.
It could not be clearer.
PCUSA leaders are aligned with radical fringe groups in their quest to demonize Israel through a divestment movement. Many of these radical organizations giving moral support to the PCUSA leaders not only demonize Israel, but also call for Israel’s demise.
PCUSA churches demanding an end to divestment are aligned with mainstream organizations and individuals.
Past actions by each side of the divestment issue.
Actions speak louder than words and for the PCUSA leaders we know: In October 2004 the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) met with Hezbollah terrorist leaders and one committee member had this to say: “I’d like to say that, according to my recent experience, relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders.”
In February 2004, before the PCUSA approved its Israel Divestment Resolution, top PCUSA leaders Clifton Kirkpatrick and John Detterick were on a fact finding tour of the Middle East. In a subsequent speech by Detterick he told his audience. “The delegation visited Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Egypt. They met with fellow Christians and government officials, including, among others, the President in Lebanon and the Prime Minister of Syria (no Israeli officials were available).”
PCUSA leaders find it difficult to talk with or to even locate Jewish and Israeli leaders.
PCUSA churches seem to have no difficulty meeting with all parties in the Middle East as reflected in a recent trip report by a group of Presbyterians from churches across the USA.
“Completing a five-day fact finding mission throughout Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, a group of eleven Presbyterians announced divestment is flawed and called on the PCUSA’s voting commissioners to rescind the policy. The eleven member fact finding mission met with a broad cross section of religious, government, business and NGO leaders including: Pro-divestment Palestinian activist Naim Ateek, Director of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center; Coptic Orthodox Patriarch Archishop Anba Abraham; Former Israel Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau; Beit Hagefen Arab-Jewish Center Director General Dr. Moti Peri; Former Israel Housing Minister Natan Sharansky; Jerusalem Post journalist Khaled Abu Toameh; Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav; Uzi Dayan, Israel General and Former National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; Shfaram Mayor Ziad Yassin; Jaffa Institute Executive Director Dr. David J. Portowicz; Israel National Security Council Deputy Director for Foreign Policy Eran Etzion Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs Scholar in Residence Justice Reid Weiner; Municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo Deputy Mayor Yael Dayan, Director of International Relations Eliav Blizowsky; and Israel commentator Ehud Yaari.”
Money is an issue in the divestment debate
The Middle East resolutions passed by the 216th and prior General Assemblies have created a network run amuck of headquarters staff, GA committees, and outside organizations receiving PCUSA funding. The amount of money spent by PCUSA leaders to organize and now defend Israeli divestment is in the millions of dollars. As the estimates show, PCUSA leaders have directed 4% of the national budget to staff, committees, and outside organizations dedicated to promoting a propaganda attack on Israel.PCUSA leaders seem to have no conscience spending the church’s money in promoting their flawed and biased attack against Israel.
Sources.
Israpundit commends the work by volunteer Presbyterians who have created websites and networks to inform their fellow members about the Israel Divestment Movement being promoted by the leadership in their church.Those Presbyterians are:
Bearing Witness
Committee to End Divestment Now
Concerned Presbyterians
divestment, Israel, Palestinians, PCUSA, peace process, PRESBYTERIANS, USA
Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:58 am |
Posted by robertgreen at 5:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 11, 2006
MORE EMAIL ON THE ISRAEL DIVESTMENT
I also received this email on the divestment issue.
The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) General Assembly (GA) will be meeting June 15-22, 2006. One of the many contentious issues that will be debated at this General Assembly is the Israel Divestment Resolution approved at the 2004 GA. As a PCUSA elder, I would like to commend some excellent websites on the Presbyterian Divestment topic. 1. In 2004/2005 I managed a petition calling upon the PCUSA GA to return in a special session to rescind the divestment resolution. More than 2,200 PCUSA members, elders, and ministers signed the petition. You may find the comments left by these Presbyterians helpful in any commentary you may write.2. Presbyterian elder, Will Spotts, has created the Bearing Witness website. I particularly commend his compelling and comprehensive analysis, Pride and Prejudice: The Presbyterian Divestment Story. Elder Spotts also wrote an insightful commentary on anti-semitism, If it Walks Like a Duck...
3. A coalition of Presbyterian elders and ministers created “The Committee to End Divestment Now” I commend their in depth and complete analysis of PCUSA divestment issues.4. The American Interfaith Institute’s Faiths for Fairness project provides additional information. I particularly commend your attention to the letter listing the biased actions of the PCUSA church leaders.
In the ensuing days I will forward relevant news regarding the Presbyterian’s Divestment from Israel Resolution.
Larry Rued
I've not really seen much from the official PCUSA sources on this issue but I am not really surprised. The elite in Louisville is, by and large, out of touch with the church and reality. Although Presbyterians are historically well-educated, questioning individuals, I get the feeling the Louisvillians do not much care for hearing other points of view.
Posted by robertgreen at 11:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
EMAIL RECEIVED ON PCUSA AND DIVESTMENT
I received the following email several weeks ago but did not get it posted. It appears that there is some significant support for divestment so here is another opinion.
As an elder in the Presbyterian Church USA, I wholeheartedly agree with James Rudin's comment: “It was the culmination of decades - not years, but decades - of hostility toward Israel and Zionism, not by the rank-and-file members of these churches, but by some of the leadership,” said Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious adviser for the American Jewish Committee, where he staffed the interfaith department for 38 years." The extensive research done by myself and other laity in the PCUSA confirms our leadership has spent millions of dollars in nuturing networks hostile to Israel. Unfortunately, most Members in the Pews of the mainline protestant churches, even today, remain unaware of what their leadership has been doing. Can I ask for your help in getting the word out to these uninformed? My fellow PCUSA elder, Will Spotts, has prepared an analysis of the 34 overtures that will be debated at the upcoming General Assembly. The vast majority of those overtures oppose divestment. Larry Rued http://floridajewishnews.com/articles/content/view/424/52/ Divestment roils Jewish-Presbyterian tiesWritten by Rachel Pomerance - JTA News Service
Friday, 19 May 2006
ATLANTA, May 11 (JTA) - As Presbyterians across America gear up for their biennial assembly next month, the legacy of the last such meeting is still roiling the Jewish community and the church’s own members.Two years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA passed a resolution calling for “phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.”
Those who long have followed Jewish-Protestant relations weren’t surprised.
“It was the culmination of decades - not years, but decades - of hostility toward Israel and Zionism, not by the rank-and-file members of these churches, but by some of the leadership,” said Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious adviser for the American Jewish Committee, where he staffed the interfaith department for 38 years.
The passion ignited by the divestment resolution at the last General Assembly is likely to erupt again at the June 15-22 meeting in Birmingham, Ala.
What happens there will have a lasting impact on the already strained relationship between Jews and the entire Protestant community. The estimated 3 million Presbyterians in the United States influence the other white mainline Protestant churches in this country, whose members number more than 20 million.
Presbyterians are considered the “conscience” and reason of the Protestant community, serving as something of a “swing vote,” Rudin said.
Indeed, after the Presbyterians’ 2004 resolution on divestment, several other Protestant communities took up the issue. The Methodists decided to study their options; the United Church of Christ, also known as the Congregationalists, endorsed divestment but did not create a process to enact it; the Episcopalians considered but rejected divestment; and the Lutherans rejected a divestment resolution, and instead passed a resolution to invest in cooperative ventures between Israelis and Palestinians.
What will happen in Birmingham is anyone’s guess, though both Presbyterian and Jewish officials predict that no immediate action on divestment will be taken.
According to Ethan Felson, associate executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, “the prevailing wisdom” is that a recommendation proposed by the General Assembly committee to appoint a committee for continued debate on divestment, without halting the divestment process, will pass.
Soon after the resolution was passed, the group’s committee charged with assessing the church’s stock portfolio for potential divestment expanded the criteria of companies to include companies that support Israel’s presence in the West Bank; its separation barrier; settlement building and violence to either party in the conflict.
The committee is still in its investigative stages. It has already begun initial talks with three of the five companies in question. The Presbyterian Church says it has targeted the following companies for these reasons:
* Caterpillar, because the Israeli military uses its equipment to demolish Palestinian homes and construct roads for Israeli settlers in “the occupied territories”;
* Citigroup, due to charges that it has transferred funds to Palestinian terrorist groups;
* ITT Industries, for supplying communication devices to the Israeli military used in “the occupied territories”;
* Motorola, because it also supplies the Israeli military with communication devices, and takes “advantage of the Israeli government policy of delaying or prohibiting the importation of modern equipment into Palestine”; and
* United Technologies, for providing helicopters to the Israeli military that have been used in attacks against suspected Palestinian terrorists.
More than $65 million is at stake - the combined shares of Presbyterian Church stock in the aforementioned companies. The MRTI committee has made no requests for action by the companies, said a church press officer. The meetings were about “fact finding” and “information sharing,” she said.
The more immediate question is whether the church will continue to go down the divestment path or reverse course.
To some extent, the issue can be viewed as a struggle between the denomination’s ministers and laity. According to an internal Presbyterian USA poll taken in November 2004, more laity - some 42 percent of members and 46 percent of elders - oppose divestment, compared with 28 percent of members and 30 percent of elders which favor it. Meanwhile, pastors favor divestment by 48 percent to 43 percent and specialized clergy favor it by 64 percent to 24 percent.
Furthermore, the church said that the poll showed that “despite widespread media attention,” most Presbyterian laity were not even aware of the decision of the 216th General Assembly to “begin a process of phased, selective divestment” of companies profiting from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
But it would be hard to imagine that anyone heading to Birmingham could miss the subject, given the sheer number of overtures, or proposals, on divestment submitted to the church by regional presbyteries for the upcoming assembly.
Nearly one-fifth of the 137 proposals to be considered at the assembly address divestment. Some want to press forward with the divestment process, many others aim to rescind the original resolution and express serious concern about the damage the issue has done to Jewish-Presbyterian relations and the church’s reputation.
The overtures come before a committee, which will condense them into a single resolution or propose an alternative to present to the assembly.
Some 3,000 clergy and lay people are expected at the assembly. Of these, 534 individuals - half clergy, half laity, are eligible to vote on the overtures.
Given the wave of overtures to reject divestment, “one would hope they would see that as the will of the people,” said the Rev. John Wimberly, pastor of Western Presbyterian Church in Washington.
Wimberly is on the steering committee of Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish and Christian Relations, a group that has pushed hard to further overtures against divestment.
However, “this issue has become the ‘in’ issue,” Wimberly said. “It’s the issue of the left today in the Presbyterian Church and it gains a kind of life of its own.”
Asked about the issue by JTA, Clifton Kirkpatrick, chief ecclesiastical officer of the Presbyterian Church, said it has been “very painful that in our effort to secure peace and justice for all,” the church has hurt members of the Jewish community, for which the church has “deep respect.” The Presbyterian Church is committed to both good interfaith relations with Jews and Muslims while pursuing “peace and justice in the Middle East.”
Some devoted to Jewish-Christian relations have made overturning divestment a priority. They include the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, a network that long has worked with Jewish and Christian supporters to promote Israel’s cause.
The group is hosting a May 18 conference on divestment at the Central Presbyterian Church in New York City and coordinating a Presbyterian mission to Israel later this month.
There’s “a real groundswell of opposition that’s occurred within the church, and it’s very widespread,” said Jim Roberts, a Presbyterian from San Diego, who heads a committee of volunteers and a Web site called “End Divestment Now.”
Roberts’ group argues that divestment is rooted in bias and flawed theology, and considers the divestment push a breach of the church’s principles of fairness and bottom