WWW.KIRTELEWIS.COM

in this first episode, i enjoy and talk theology shop with Dr. Rev. Joy johnson.  TO learn more about dr. joy, check out this bio link at the sacramento area congregations together (Sac ACT) website.

Driving with Dr Joy

Kirt Lewis

Download

Armchair Imagineering

Church $ State: Part 1 - The Public Subsidization of Religion

Kirt Lewis

Download

Nothing converts faith to religion quicker than a perceived need for power or money.  Here on this glorious Easter Sunday, I want to talk about the impact of the latter of these--money--on religious institutions here in America, especially as it pertains to its relationship with the government.  You see, a "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" relationship has existed between the church and Uncle Sam since the earliest days of America's history, one that seems to fly in the face of what Thomas Jefferson called the "wall of separation between church and state".  Be forewarned that the facts you will be exposed to in this two part series will likely result in a less than glorious feeling next time you are about to drop something in the offering plate or look at your paycheck to see how much taxes were taken out.

praying all the way to the bank

Most people are familiar with the old saying, "laughing all the way to the bank".  Well, I would argue that much of what is happening with both charitable donations and public subsidies to religious institutions could best be described as 'praying all the way to the bank'.  Now I'm not implying in this statement that those employed as clergy or staff in religious non-profits are just rolling in the Benjamins.  That certainly wasn't my experience during my seventeen plus years in vocational ministry!  Rather, the original expression is meant to communicate the idea of a person, organization or company earning a significant amount of money at far less cost to themselves than they are willing to admit or possibly for an ulterior purpose they do not want revealed.

tax breaks for religious congregations

The reality that the public subsidizes things is not controversial.  We subsidize basic infrastructure, public safety, museums and libraries, and the salaries of those who represent us in government just to name a few.  I am also not here to argue against the public subsidization of private organizations that partner in the delivery of common social services.  I personally feel there are allot of positive examples of public-private partnerships that are resourced in part by taxes collected at the local, state or federal level.  Many of these private organizations even have a religious identification.  What might be surprising to some is that we here in America publicly subsidize expressly religious organizations and activities.  This is done primarily through tax "expenditures" or what are more commonly referred to as tax 'breaks'.  According to the Government Accountability Office, "Many analysts consider tax expenditures to be federal spending channeled through the tax system..."  In a 2013 study done at the University of Tampa, the "low ball" estimate was that religious congregations benefit from these tax breaks to the tune of seventy-one billion dollars annually.  Beyond income tax, getting a pass on property taxes is the second largest money-saver for congregations.  One can only imagine how much property the Pope owns in the United States and how much funds is diverted as a result of these tax breaks from sharing in the cost of local municipalities.  Included in the seventy-one billion is 1.2 billion in subsidies for clergy parsonages, like the one vigorously defended by Pastor Rick Warren in his six year battle with the IRS.  When you add in the additional lost tax revenue due to people claiming their tithes and offerings to churches, mosques, temples and synagogues as "charitable donations", the actual figure is over eighty-three billion.  That means that congregations have received a 715 billion dollar tax break over the last ten years after adjusted for inflation.

However, public subsidization of religious organizations and activity is not limited to just tax breaks.  They also come in the form of grants.  This is especially true in higher education.  Conservative Christian colleges and universities are deeply concerned about the prospect of loosing significant public funding should Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 be more strictly enforced.  Currently many are granted exemptions, which allows them to legally discriminate in their admissions process based on religious grounds while the schools benefit from receiving Federal Pell Grants.  Now they want to ensure that they can continue to discriminate based upon their conservative views of sexual identity, even if a prospective gay or lesbian student affirms their general statement of faith and is seeking a non-ministerial liberal arts degree.  In expressing their fears over losing federal funding for their sectarian institutions, Dale Kemp of Wheaton College admitted that, "40 or 50 or maybe even 60 percent of their budgets are really coming from the federal government."  In my own backyard here in Northern California, William Jessup University is a recipient of this exemption, the end result being that 39% of their student body for the fall of 2016 received Pell grants.  According to Federal public records, the university took in a total of $2,102,801 in Pell grants during the 2015-2016 academic year so that they can, "In partnership with the church...educate transformational leaders for the glory of God."  No wonder the President of William Jessup, John Jackson, so vehemently opposed 2016's California Senate Bill 1146, legislation that would have resulted in the loss of a similar state grant had they not allowed gay and lesbian students to attend the school.  Of course the external messaging was that this opposition was motivated by the desire to preserve their student's "freedom of religion".  I believe we heard this line before in the 50's, 60's and 70's, a la Oral Roberts University.

private giving

Aside from these public subsidies, Americans give allot to their houses of worship.  In 2016 they gave over 122 billion dollars.  That's over double what Americans gave to education, the second highest category for private sector donations.  In the end, financial gifts to churches, mosques, etc. constitute 39% of all charitable giving.

where does the $ go

So the obvious question that most people want to ask is, where does all this money go?  Well my forty plus years of church life coupled with my nearly two decades of service as a pastor and social ministry leader means that I probably know a thing or two about church budgets.  Beyond my own experiences and anecdotal recollections, there is a strong consensus in the 'industry' what big buckets most expenses fit into.  An article in the blog for the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church, citing a Christianity today study, broke down the most notable expenditures as such...

• 50% - Personnel costs, including salary, benefits, and it should be noted about 4% for taxes

• 22% - Property expenses including mortgage, insurance and utilities

• 10% - Ministry expenses such as youth and children's programs

• 5% - Missions to include supporting oversees missionaries

whats the r.o.i.?

After asking where the money goes, the next question people should ask is, "What are we getting for this investment?"  Well first of all, people shouldn't be automatically skeptical because the largest percentage of income goes to personnel.  That's pretty much always the case in every industry and as I said earlier the compensation is typically very meager.  But what is the outcome?  And does it justify a combined public and private annual investment of 205 billion dollars?  In terms of tax policy and public subsidies in the form of tax breaks and grants, the argument for continuing these is that houses of worship provide communities immense social benefits.  As an article by Focus on the Family states, "Churches and religious organizations, like other charities, provide a social benefit to society. They minister to the needy and poor in their communities, and they provide an influence on society that helps to reduce crime and encourage good citizenship."  Now obviously I would agree that "churches and religious organizations" benefit society.  There might also be some negative costs as well.  There were allot of so-called 'good church-going folk' in the era of Jim Crow and I have a feeling that black Americans in those parts might take issue with the 'social benefits' of the racist ideologies that were often reinforced from the pulpit. But that is a bit of a rabbit trail right now.  The question is, do the benefits at least add up to a 205 billion dollar investment?  Especially as it relates to public subsidization, I would also think that we should be asking how accessible to the general public are these benefits?  As we already discovered earlier, religious colleges and universities are very happy to take public funds but often do so while only allowing those who adhere to their religious beliefs and practices to benefit from this public investment.  Add to this the historic advantage that Christianity holds as the faith held by the majority of Americans, and how is this not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

While this legal question is immensely important, I want to return to the outcomes.  The previously referenced Focus on the Family piece bases its thesis on, I would argue, very thin and dubious 'facts'.  For example, they talk about the money saved from preserving marriages through church counseling, but conveniently leave out that the divorce rate among conservative Christians is arguably the same if not higher than their atheistic or agnostic counterparts.  So let's just say that is a wash.  Is there 83 billion dollars worth of church staff and volunteer time, gift-in-kind, and programmatic expenses into ministering to "the needy and poor" in their neighborhoods and cities?  Let's just do a simple exercise to speed up the process, and this exercise comes in the form of a very legitimate dare.  I dare clergy and churchgoers to ask this question: When it comes to your church life, on what do you spend your time, talent and treasure?  I believe that an honest answer to that question for the vast majority of religious congregations will be that they spend nearly all of it on expressly religious services that almost exclusively benefit their members.  This is certainly my experience.  I often tell people that my disenchantment with vocational ministry came with the realization that most of my activity ended up being dedicated to providing religious goods and services to consumer Christians.

a closing though and intro to part 2

In closing, I have heard many times a question posed to churchgoers that is meant to challenge them to have a meaningful impact on their communities.  It goes like this: "If our church were to disappear tomorrow, would anyone who does not worship here notice?"  Again, for the majority of religious congregations out there I think that an honest answer to that would be, "Many if not most would not."

Now I'm not trying to demoralize those who attend a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue.  I suppose I do hope that a secondary byproduct for those who do read or listen to this piece is that they seriously reexamine their budgets.  But the main question I am trying to raise is this: It is both legally appropriate and pragmatically effective for congregations to be the recipient of such generous public subsidization?

In Part 2, we will return to look at examples of how the government gets their back scratched by the church.  I will then conclude with recommended policies that I actually think will benefit both faith and our broader society in the end. 

click here to go to part 2

A Review of Dan Rather's What Unites Us

Kirt Lewis

Download

It seems like when it comes to politics and public discourse, we Americans are prone to exaggeration.  For example, I like how every time there is a Presidential election it is "the most important election of our time."  After a while, it all feels like 'crying wolf'.  Over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about how polarized we are as a country, that we are perhaps more divided now than ever.  Is this another example of our proclivity towards over-dramatic and inflated claims?  Well certainly a little something called the Civil War might have us beat when ranking our most conflicted moments in the history of 'the great experiment' of American democracy.  But can we say that this is another significant period of time in our nation's history where we are straining to yet again determine our identity and achieve a closer realization of the ideals we claim to corporately affirm?  I believe that it is.  In fact I would argue that the controversial issues that are being discussed are actually symptomatic of stubbornly historical divisions; the political polarization has done nothing but surface them again.  There is a resulting deep heaviness running through the hearts of many of us who call this place home.  Beyond that, some are truly suffering as a result of our identity crisis.  Who are we as 'Americans'?  What do we hope to become?  Any conversation that looks to answer those questions will inevitably lead to the discussion of another term and topic of heated debate: patriotism. Enter Dan Rather and his long time collaborator, Elliot Kirschner.

an iconic journalist and his '2 cents'

In the history of American mass media, there have been a handful of journalists that have taken on an iconic role.  While certainly not to the level of his predecessor Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather certainly became a household name for a good period of time, especially for my generation and older.  He, like others, have not been immune to controversy, but that is not the focus here.  Rather it is to share my brief thoughts on his and Kirschner's 2017 book, What Unites Us: Reflections on Patriotism, especially as it relates to the highly polarized time in which we live.

From the beginning, a distinction is drawn between true patriotism and that of nationalism.  In his own words, Rather's basic thesis on 'patriotism' is dependent on nationalism being a foil.

It is important to not confuse "patriotism" with "nationalism." As I define it, nationalism is a monologue in which you place your country in a position of moral and cultural supremacy over others. Patriotism, while deeply personal, is a dialogue with your fellow citizens, and a larger world, about not only what you love about your country but also how it can be improved. Unchecked nationalism leads to conflict and war. Unbridled patriotism can lead to the betterment of society. Patriotism is rooted in humility. Nationalism is rooted in arrogance. (Pg.15)

The rest of the book consists of him and Kirschner discussing our nation's aspirational values as they are applied to specific issues.  So for example, under the value of 'freedom' they look at voting and the role of the press, or under the value of 'responsibility' they examine the state of public education. 

The Dog-Eared Review

In many ways, the book feels more like a memoir, with each topic finding a connection to a personal or professional experience.  In doing so I definitely learned some new things about Mr. Rather that I had not known before.  But how useful was it to furthering dialogue on the broader topics of patriotism and identity?  Personally, I would recommend it as an excellent discussion starter of sorts.  It feels like the kind of book that is best dissected in a reading group.  In an era in which families, communities, and ultimately a nation is becoming more and more a complex of confused identities, What Unites Us and a discussion around it could be one of many tools to help draw people back together.  So in conclusion, I give it two dog-ears.

CLICK HERE to learn more about the website, including the Dog-Eared Review scoring system.

first time to the 'help me understand' podcast?  I would encourage you to take a few minutes to listen to this short introduction to the series before you listen to this interview.

Meet Jawad Khawari

Kirt Lewis

Download

Captured image via The Guardian.

new to this series?  Please make sure to go back to the BEGINNING with part 1.  you can find all of the operation iraqi freedom journal entries under the 'my life so far' category

Operation Iraqi Freedom Journal Part 4

Kirt Lewis

Download

In this installmenT, I share my original journal entries from the first half of April 2003, along with comments to clarify my original notations and additional reflections given that next month marks the FIFTEEN-YEAR anniversary of this moment in history.  Most notably, this would be the month I finally entered Iraq.

April 1st and 2nd: No entries.

April 3rd: The Mopp 4 Fiasco!

While my memory is a bit fuzzy, basically somewhere in the camp someone freaked out because they thought they had found a trace of a biological or chemical weapon.  The entire camp was ordered to go to “MOPP 4”.  As a reminder, MOPP stands for Mission Oriented Protection Posture and basically it relates to the various layers of special clothing we put on to “protect” us from exposure to a nuclear, biological or chemical agent; there are 4 levels with the 4th being completely suited up–garb, gloves and gas mask.  Anyways, Chief shrugged it off and told us to just hand out in the tent.  I can’t recall if it was this time or during another SCUD warning that he memorably said, “If any of you put on your gas mask, you’re a pussy!”  Later a maintenance 1st Sargent came in the tent completely suited up and he freaked out when he saw us all lying around, playing cards, reading books, etc.  We got a good laugh out of it after he left, but I think Chief might have had a talk with the Col. (first of many I am sure) regarding the importance of following orders “from above”.

April 4th: Baghdad (Formerly “Saddam”) International Airport taken.  Fighting in the outskirts of Baghdad.  3 soldiers killed in suicide bombing.  Another three killed from a Ft. Sill MLRS unit.

This was the first time we heard of soldiers lost from our own home post.  Unfortunately, many more were to come.  If you are counting, at this point it has been 17 days since the war began.  It seemed at this point that victory (at least for the conventional part of the war) was imminent.  We are still in Kuwait.

April 5th:  Room clearing/urban warfare training.

Not sure if Chief knew that MET-Alpha was heading out soon, but we did some training that day.

April 6th: See Geraldo in the chow hall!

This was my only celebrity sighting of the war. Some of you might recall that Geraldo eventually got in a load of trouble just a few days later when he described the location of the 101st Unit with which he was an embedded reporter.  He was sent back to the US not long after that.

April 7th: No entry.

April 8th: MET-Alpha launches minus 4.

We finally got word that we were heading north (flying on a Chinook).  We got packed up early in the morning, a rucksack essentially for a couple of weeks supply of clothing and MREs.  This was it…or so I thought. As were loading up on the back of a five-ton, Sargeant Veach called me along with Penieche, Bourassa, and Deleon out of the truck.  He then told us that Col. MacFee wanted to go on the mission along with several other reporters.  We were going to be flying up to Baghdad (or close to it) to inspect what was reported to be something suspicious hidden in the water of the Tigris River.  This was going to be the big moment when we found “the smoking gun” that would begin to justify the whole war.  Unfortunately, because the higher-ups and reporters wanted to be there for it, there wasn’t enough room in the chopper for the whole team, so the four of us would be left behind and reunited as soon as possible.  I can’t recall if Chief came by to apologize before the team pulled away on the truck to the airfield.  I was extremely disappointed and angry.  I recall walking back into the tent and throwing my gear down next to the cot.  I take Chief at his word that he had no choice on this call.  It gave me just one more reason to dislike Col MacFee.  The stuff in the Tigris? Well as you can imagine it turned out to be nothing.

April 9th:  Saddam statue torn down in Baghdad by Iraqis with the help of US forces.  Some calling it a day of liberation.

This was symbolically the end of the conventional war in Iraq though it would be three weeks before President Bush gave his famous “Mission Accomplished” speech.  It is really painful for me to consider that we are now almost fifteen years later and to look back at all of the violence and loss of life we have seen since then.  There were moments during the early days of the war when there seemed to be a strong sense of hope that better days lay right around the corner, as seen in this special CBS report...

April 10th and 11th: No entries.

April 12th: Jump TOC to Tallil.  MET-Alpha "Lost Boys" and MET-Bravo take Chinooks.  Hydraulic fluid!  Hot landing, Deleon almost blown away.

"Jump TOC" means we left or 'jumped' our Tactical Operations Center from Kuwait into Southern Iraq, specifically what we knew at the time as the Tallil Air Base.  Today it is know as the Ali Air Base.  It is located close to the city of Nasiriyah, which is where some of the fiercest fighting was seen in the war just a few weeks earlier.  My understanding at the time was that it was to become the first major air logistics center of the war.  As someone who got his bachelors in Biblical studies, I have to admit that it was really amazing to be in this location.  Within eyesight was the Ziggurat, an ancient temple which was originally located next to the city of Ur, believed to be the birthplace of Abraham.

"Lost Boys" is the nickname that me, Bourassa, Penieche, and DeLeon gave ourselves after having been split up from the rest of MET-Alpha.  The reference to "hydraulic fluid" had to do with the fact that there was a small but persistent drip of some kind of mechanical fluid the entire flight to Tallil.  I recall asking one of the crew members if we should be concerned, but he assured me that this was common.  I'm not sure how much that comforted me.  As far as DeLeon being almost "blown away", this was easily one of the most hilarious moments of my time overseas.  What is meant by a "hot landing" is that the Chinook is not going to cut its engines and we are supposed to unload all of our gear as fast as possible so it can get the hell out of there ASAP.  DeLeon was grabbing the last few bags when the Chinook powered up to take off.  I remember looking back to see him getting slammed with the rotor wash and for a minute I thought he was going to go full Merry Poppins.  

Cpl Siefkes looking 'stressed'; organized chaos best describes how we packed the Chinook.

April 13th: Main body arrives late at night.  Big lightening and thunder storm.  I had guard duty 4-6am.

"Main body" refers to the rest of the Task Force.  As far as roving guard duty, this would be the first of several times I would be tagged for this task, both here in Tallil and eventually at the base where we stayed in Baghdad.  I recall it being very quiet and peaceful to be honest.

April 14 & 15th: Put up lots of tents (7+?).  Last one is ours ("Lost Boys").  Slight wind/sand storm.

Most of the tents we put up were huge, what we called 'GP Large', GP standing for General Purpose.  The "Lost Boys" tent was as 'GP Small'.  I'll show pictures in the next post.  The sandstorm was very mild, but that was all about to change in a big way.

In the next installment, Part 5, we will actually pause on reviewing the journal entries. Instead, we will look at one of my most pleasant memories from my deployment—that is, the letters from children I received.

Defining Faith v Religion Part 2

Kirt Lewis

Download

Chains are interesting.  As a metaphor, they can communicate many things.  The strength of interconnectedness.  The protection of that which is valuable.  More often than not, they seem to have the negative connotation of bondage.  Chains restrain and keep us from going where we want to go or at the very least leaving where we presently reside.

In Part 1 of Defining Faith v Religion, we looked at how religion is obsessed with defending what little it knows, where faith, in contrast, holds its current convictions with open hands while embracing the constant exploration of the unknown.  As I shared last time, the former is likely motivated by an understandable but dangerous human lust for certainty.  When definitive answers are demanded in the present, the desire to continuously grow in knowledge vanishes before the sacred duty to defend 'absolute truth'.  This leads us to the next pair of divergent characteristics of faith and religion, surfacing deeper motivations than that which were revealed in Part 1.

religion and control

Why does religion demand definitive claims to knowing ultimate truth?  So it can likewise demand unconditional obedience.  In the worst of religious environments, 'believers' are not even allowed to question 'the truth' without real consequences.  However, there are some that will tolerate the occasional opinion or 'interesting' conversation.  But when that opinion crosses over the intellectual line into actual behavior, this is when religion shows its true colors.  Such disobedience is met with discipline and ultimately expulsion from the 'fellowship'. This religious totalitarianism or fundamentalism can, in terms of its engagement with those outside of their community, run along a spectrum.  This can range from claiming total dominion and requiring complete adherence to their religious code as civil law such as with the Taliban in Afghanistan to requiring submission to a shorter list of their moral standards along with an unspoken affirmation to their inherently superior position in society such as Evangelicalism in the U.S..  Whether it is hard or soft tyranny, either way it is clear 'who is in charge'.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DOGMA AND CONTROL

In our previous look at the defining characteristics of religion, I had mentioned that I suspected some kind of fear lay behind the clinging to dogma.  Here is where religion's intellectual claims to eternal, universal truth, along with its demand to behaviorally conform in keeping with their truth, share a common anxiety--that is, the loss of a determinable existence.  In other words, it is the fear of a loss of control that drives religion's apparently unquenchable thirst for position and power.  This is ultimately enshrined and consolidated in religious institutions, or in some cases in the public State should said religion be officially recognized as the assumed foundation for whatever country's government.  These institutions help to further the myth of certainty and control.  One can understand then how dangerous those people are who dare question the established orthodoxy and order.

Faith and FREEDOM

So there are two responses to the unknown: fear or faith.  When confronted with uncertainty or doubts about that which we presently think is true, or when confounded with entirely new questions, faith responds with honesty and curiosity.  But what does faith do when it perceives it is operating in an environment beyond it's control?  Faith counters with trust that manifests itself in a love of liberty.  Faith, therefore, is not concerned with maintaining control; it is passionate about learning to find pleasure beyond the purview of our own understanding and circumstances.  

Some of you might be questioning this: "Can there be such a faith community?  Wouldn't that throw into constant question the very beliefs and behaviors upon which our commonality has brought us together?"  My honest answer to this would be, yes!  But the only alternative is to maintain churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples that are filled with people hallowed out of the unpredictable realism that makes humanity beautiful.  All that remains are skilled players on a stage of religious pomp and circumstance.  If that is what you wan't, than be my guest and continue to defend this.  But at least be honest and drop the word 'faith' from any of your labeling, because in actuality you are operating as a purely religious congregation.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

While this might seem like a diversion from the topic at hand, I wanted to close with an analogy.  Those of you who know me well know that I am not an America worshiper.  That aside, there is something beautiful in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence which seems especially appropriate given its reference to the Divine.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Beyond the assumed sexism of "all men", there is historically and presently plenty of hypocritical distance between our actions as a nation and these stated truths upon which we are supposed to be founded.  To that end, the document continues to be aspirational.  Still, for those of us who call this country home, or for those of you in other countries that have similar values, don't we assume that it is possible to maintain some sort of identifiable unity and common good while allowing for great diversity as seen in each individual's "pursuit of Happiness"?  I would argue that anything that constitutes a 'faith' will allow for the same.

the future of faith and religion in America

While I can't speak for other parts of the globe, it has been widely reported that here in the U.S. there is a massive exodus, especially among younger generations, from affiliated religions.  I'm personally one of them after concluding that American Evangelicalism is far more religion than it is faith.  Some religious prophets of doom have bemoaned this trend as proof that America is rejecting its Judaeo-Christian faith, which was, in their estimation, the source of our great 'blessing'.   I think it is one of the best indicators of a better future, one that I hope will include a faith that is full of fearlessly curious questions and trust-fueled free choices.

click on this link to continue on to part 3 of this series

Is That a Drug or an Alien Planet?

Kirt Lewis

Download

So I'm watching T.V. and--here's a shocker--a pharmaceutical company's drug commercial comes on!  You know how the rest goes.  There are images of people looking sad, missing out on life because of 'X' chronic condition, followed by a musical transition of sorts signaling the introduction of 'X' miracle drug.  Now people are smiling, couples are happy again, adults are prancing around with kids or grand-kids depending on the typical age one is whenever they have whatever they have.  Like Dorothy waking up in Oz, the entire color pallet might change once he or she starts popping the pill to paradise.  Either intermingled throughout the last part of the commercial or crammed in at the very end is a litany of medical factors that would disqualify you from using the good stuff in the first place OR the twenty other side effects you will experience if you do fortunately qualify.  For taking care of your singular nagging illness you might experience a plethora of other un-pleasantries, ranging from diarrhea to death.

welcome to planet 'XELJANZ XR'

So none of this commercial surprised me; like so many of us we are very familiar with the formula.  But the name of the drug was what caught my attention.  'XELJANZ XR'?  Sounds like the name of an alien planet that the Guardians of the Galaxy should visit in Volume 3!

Next stop for the Guardians of the Galaxy...Xeljanz XR?

Then it dawned on me.  My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think that all these pills sound like cosmic sci-fi destinations!  Did big pharma secretly hire George Lucas!?  I felt that this was worth further exploration.  So to test my hypothesis, I found an article listing the top ten most advertised prescription drugs in the United States in 2017.  Humira?  Lyrica?  VIAGRA!?  Somebody in marketing was tapping into their inner Gene Roddenberry!  Well, I should say that I found my theory to not be universally true.  The drug called Trulicity sounds more like the name of Jay-Z and Beyonce's future fourth child than a terrestrial body.

the moral of the story and my favorite parody

According to a 2013 study by the Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center, "Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and more than half take two..."  Now this is no laughing matter for those who suffer from chronic diseases and are desperate for any relief.  But the very same study found that anti-depressants represented the second-most prescribed medication.  No matter what the specific reason, it can be safely said that we Americans want to feel good, or at least better than we do right now.  So whatever they name the drug--whether it sounds like the kind of place Captain James T. Kirk would find his next girlfriend or the obscure handle for the next celebrity couple's progeny--I'm sure that the billions pharmaceutical companies invest in these advertisements will be richly rewarded by American consumers.

OK, so one positive from this onslaught of drug-pushing commercials is that they've served as ample fodder for social media and late night comedians.  So I thought I would conclude on a lighter note with my favorite drug commercial parody via Dwayne Johnson and the SNL crew.  After all, learning to laugh at ourselves might be the quickest way to help us realize our societal insanity.

Defining Faith v Religion - Part 1

Kirt Lewis

Download

Writing about faith and my ongoing journey towards understanding what that means was a major inspiration for creating this website.  The number one area where I explore this is in the 'Faith v Religion' series.  Experts in public discourse often say that you should begin by 'defining terms'.  While I didn't quite begin by doing that, I want to return to that now.  As is obvious from the series title, 'Faith VERSUS Religion', I understand and use these words to represent opposing beliefs, values and behaviors.  I believe that 'faith' and 'religion' each have two primary characteristics and that the embrace of these characteristics is a matter of spiritual life or death.  While I will again speak from the background of my own experience within a subset of Christianity, I would like to suggest that this conversation is relevant to any faith or life philosophy.

children and the stars

There are two questions that my three-year-old daughter will routinely ask when she sees a place on the T.V., or in pictures or just driving around.  The first is, "What is that?"  The second is, "Can I go there?"  One night when we were out looking at the stars, she even pointed up at the moon and again asked, "What is that?"  "The moon," I answered.  She, of course, replied, "Can I go there?"

Now how I answer this question is of infinite value and speaks to the heart of the first two and opposing characteristics of faith and religion.

religion and dogma

I've come to believe that a fundamental characteristic of religion is an idolatry of answers.  It's understandable even if it is dangerous in the end.  Human beings love answers.  They bring us comfort and a sense of direction.  Now please don't misunderstand these statements to mean that I fully embrace a totally existential world view--that is, that all truth is completely subjective and the creation of ultimately unknowable psychological factors.  I think I can know some things.  The entire basis of me communicating opinions on this website assumes some degree of relative certainty in what I perceive to be true and good.  The problem is when that process of coming to those kinds of conclusions is irevocably closed.  In religion, somewhere along the line someone(s) made definitive statements that were no longer open to debate and in some cases even discussion.  This is the codifying of dogma.

Merriam-Webster

I experienced this in my own religious tradition of evangelicalism when I was studying theology at Multnomah Bible College (now University) and Western Seminary.  Both educational experiences traditionally close with some kind of seminar class in which you write 'position papers' on your personal beliefs and convictions.  Now understand that at the outset a prerequisite qualification for you even attending these schools is the affirmation of, for example, the World Evangelical Alliance's 'Statement of Faith' or a clear demonstration of predetermined Christian 'values' and behaviors, such as maintaining what is presented as a biblical, heterosexuality.  The same is required by all faculty and staff, therefore ensuring a theologically homogeneous environment.  So really it is assumed that the conclusions you come to in your 'personal' statements upon completion of your studies will be the ones with which you started.  The end result is a pervasive preoccupation to consistently state and defend that which we already know to be true while refusing to honestly question your current thoughts and perspectives and altogether ignoring the vast unknown.  It's ironic that this all takes place while affirming both a belief in the inherently finite abilities of humanity in contrast to an infinitely all-powerful, all-knowing, and mysterious God.  This is why I have concluded that any form of dogma is actually the practice of idolatry.

There is, as I see it, two types of responses to the unknown.  One of them is fear.  I suspect that the motivation behind religion's coming to these kinds of dogmatic conclusions is some kind of fear.  What kinds of fears will be a discussion for another time, though we will focus on one in particular in Part 2.

One last thought before we turn to faith: Let's not make the mistake of limiting dogma to traditionally recognized religions.  Atheists can become just as dogmatic and in doing so are showing themselves to be quite religious.  No matter what your religious or philosophical or scientific opinions, we must all be on the lookout for the idol of dogma.

faith and curiosity

In contrast to this is faith, which is rooted in the other potential response to the unknown: curiosity.  When asked recently what exactly I believed in, I shared with a friend that my creed is the question mark.  Faith, in my opinion, is a harmonious blend of humble conviction with a fearless and free exploration of the unknown that produces a courageous and limitless love of the other.  As the late British philosopher, Alan Watts, once said,

Irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. Faith is, above all, openness--an act of trust in the unknown.

Many years ago when I was in Bible college, I experienced the death of a couple of close family members.  This, along with an extremely high academic load and other ministry responsibilities, led to my first encounter with anxiety attacks.  Running alongside the physiological fears that come with this condition, I began to ask serious questions about my faith.  This was practically a traumatic experience given my conditioning to understand 'faith' really more from the religious mindset I have sought to, in part, describe here.  Even though I would ultimately return to the safe confines of religiosity, I did briefly flirt with faith.  In fact, I told people that, "My faith is only as strong as I am willing to question it."  While it has taken many years to break free, I now feel I have found a faith that is far more vibrant than anything I could have ever written on a position paper.

Which brings me back to my answer to Ellie's question that night as we gazed out at the vastness of space and the moon glowing in the sky.  When a child asks a question like, "Can I go there?", they are really asking for permission to explore.  I want Ellie to have the kind of wide-eyed wonder and childlike faith that perhaps Jesus had in mind when he reprimanded his disciples and told them to "become like children" (Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:13-16, et al).  So I turned to Ellie and said, "I believe you can."  This is how faith is born.

click here to go to part 2

Free Range Justice

Kirt Lewis

Download

I want to take a few minutes today to talk about social justice and chickens.  Yeah, that's right, I said chickens!  When I talk about social justice, the focus is always on one species, the human kind.  But it is estimated that we share this planet with 8.7 million other species.  So for just a moment let's demote ourselves from being the center of the world of living things.  In doing so, we might just learn something about ourselves and how we can be more kind to, well, everyting.

embracing my poultry roots

I was born in the town of Petaluma, California.  In fact, my family on my mom's side goes back four generations in this town located approximately forty miles north of San Francisco.  Nowadays it is more of a bedroom community, but it used to have the legendary reputation as the "egg basket of the world", at one point producing 10 million eggs a year.  Unlike my mom, uncle, grandparents and other Nissen relatives who lived in Petaluma and the surrounding Sonoma County communities during it's golden age as the capital of domestic fowl, this town had largely begun its transformation to a commuter suburb by the time I entered the world at the now bygone Hillcrest Hospital.  And I actually was just born there and then brought home to the very suburban city of San Rafael to its south.  Petaluma was the cool place we would occasionally drive to visit my grandparents and their small farm that sported a few chickens but mostly fruits and vegetables.  All that to say that I was not exposed to the grim realities of farm life like my ancestors.  Whether it was butter, eggs, milk or beef and chicken meat, I just saw the 'end product' down at the local grocery store.  As with all of us who live far away from the livestock that produce the food and liquids we depend upon, we don't have any real sense of their existence other than perhaps the novelty of a petting zoo at the county fair.

I'm still a CARNIVORE but...

Now some of you who do not know me might be thinking that I'm leading up to a moral call to embrace a vegan lifestyle.  Let me assure you, I am currently a carnivore, though I will say that the more I give this thought the more respect I have for those who have made this dietary commitment.  But if you are not there yet like me, I wonder if we can at least take a step back from our suburban bliss and consider some unpleasant realities.

You see, while there were no barns and roaming chickens in my neighborhood growing up, we did have other living creatures.  Our family had dogs, cats, goldfish, hamsters, hermit crabs and a parakeet or two.  And I remember how I felt as a young boy when any of them would get hurt or sick and how heartbroken I was when, for example, our long-time fury family member, a black Lab named Duke, took that last, slow walk down a hallway at the local humane society.  And while obviously none of these pets are considered culturally as a source of food, I remember even my mom sharing stories about how she and her older brother grew fond of animals on the farm who almost certainly would end up on the kitchen plate.  Even then, they had names and were treated with loving care.

I don't want to know

I think it can be safely said that when it comes to most Americans and the food we consume, we have one unspoken thought about the process it took for that sustenance to end up in our mouth: "I don't want to know."  The assumption behind that is that if we did know it would probably spoil our enjoyment of whatever it was we were trying to stuff down our throat at the time.   So our willful ignorance preserves our culinary bliss.  Here is where I could share with you a bunch of articles and videos on how chickens are treated in the mass production of eggs.  But you can easily do that research in just a few minutes on Google or YouTube.  Let's just say it is disgustingly cruel and without a doubt will leave you with a bad taste in your mouth next time you reach for a carton in the fridge.

a better way: introducing 'Bullsh*t Free Eggs'

I have a theory that when we devalue any living thing it places us on the slippery slope of devaluing all living things.  The end result is a culture that is numb to cruelty and where 'the end justifies the means'.  Conversely, we can begin to rebuild a sense of basic compassion and value for all life by starting with something as simple as the chickens that make us eggs.  That's where I would love to introduce you to the good people at Vital Farms.

conclusion and next steps

In conclusion, the manner in which us humans treat other living creatures, and ultimately the entire physical environment our survival depends upon, says something about our own nature.  And while it might seem a far cry from addressing some of the grave injustices we commit against our fellow human beings, perhaps in learning to treat kindly our feathered friends we might learn to act the same way towards one another. 

So let's say you agree with me that we should value every living thing and want them to enjoy the quality of life nature intended them to enjoy.  How can we start to apply this when it comes to those cool little bock-bockers who give us delicious eggs to eat?  Well in an earlier piece I introduced one of the most effective tools for achieving social reform--that is, our wallet.  Let me suggest that one place we can start might be in choosing to buy some eggs from a company like Vital Farms next time we are at the grocery store.  Now this is where the rubber meets the road and our American addiction to cheapness will be challenged.  But isn't getting a little bit of our soul back worth the few extra bucks we will spend next time we pick up a carton of eggs?  If it isn't then with no disrespect to another animal we depend on, I only have one more thing to say: that's bullsh*t!