The Lutheran Zephyr

Daily Prayer for Transfiguration of our Lord

I have updated the Daily Prayer Page to include readings and prayers for the Transfiguration of our Lord. 

Let us pray.

Who can best beat McCain?

We have to beat this irresponsible guy, or by 2012 we'll have troops on the ground in Iran . . . and Lord knows where else (and to think that I voted for him and gave money to his campaign in 2000!).

The Dems have an uphill battle against McCain, but Obama would have a better chance than Clinton.  The GOP base - which is cool towards McCain - would make it their life work to defeat Senator Clinton.  But Senator Obama does not inspire in them the same kind of ire.  The conservatives - and their money and organization - will not get as involved in an Obama vs. McCain race, making it more likely that the Dems retake the White House in 2009.

Did the Post read my blog?

I'm sure the folks at the Washington Post don't read my blog, but an editorial in today's paper excoriating Virginia State Senator Ken Cuccinelli for his mean-spirited anti-immigrant bill (Senate Bill No. 339) echoes two of the points I made a few weeks ago.

But the Posts editorial is much better written.  Darn it!

The Post editorial makes three simple points about the bill (which would allow employers to fire workers for speaking languages other than English while on the job):

• the bill is xenophobic, contributing to a dangerous anti-immigrant atmosphere
• the bill is overkill, making speaking other languages in the workplace an equal offense to substance abuse and lying about past criminal history
• the bill penalizes workers, not employers, even though it is the responsibility of employers to hire workers who fit the job description

(I made the first and third points, along with a few more, in my previous posts.)

To learn more about Cuccinelli's anti-immigrant bill, go back and read my two posts on the topic (¿Se Habla Inglés? and English Only in the Workplace) and also the editorial in today's Post, Second-Class Citizens.

I've already contacted my State Senator about this bill.  Have you?

Daily Prayer, Epiphany 3, a day late

Sorry for the late update to my Daily Prayer Page - sick kids and a complicated work and family schedule this week pushed blogging to the back burner.  But the page is now updated with readings and prayers for the days surrounding the Third Sunday after the Epiphany (Epiphany 3), a week that includes:

• Conversion of Paul (Friday, January 25)
• Commemoration of Timothy, Titus, and Silas (Saturday, January 26)
• Commemoration of Lydia, Dorcas and Phoebe (Sunday, January 27)
• Commemoration of Thomas Aquinas (Monday, January 28)

Let us pray.

Sermon prep: A Face-to-Face God

On the front page of Saturday's Washington Post is a nice piece about a local Boy Scout troop that recently had eleven of its members earn the rank of Eagle Scout. Such a feat is unprecedented, scouting leaders say.  I know from my experience in working with youth that Eagle Scouts are few and far between.  One reason is that achieving the rank of Eagle Scout requires a ton of work.  And another reason is that, well, scouting really does not have a strong appeal to today's teens.  From the article:

Scouting has rarely been cool. But in a world of iPods, traveling soccer clubs, 24-hour cable television and Wii, Boy Scout oaths and three-finger salutes seem more than a little dated.

I love the contrast between the "cool" of contemporary culture and the "not-so-cool" of scouting - it is the kind of contrast that we in the church face as well.  In my experience the church too often complains about its declining cultural stature while responding in two counterproductive ways:

• becoming inflexibly entrenched in "traditions" that are nothing more than cultural legacies from the 1950's, or
• poorly appropriating the coolness of culture - marketing glitz and multimedia - in hopeless attempts to appeal to a new generation. 

Neither strategy will get us anywhere.  But perhaps we can learn from this troop of Boy Scouts.  Why did these eleven teens choose to make time for anachronistic scouting oaths and three-finger salutes at the expense of Wii and soccer clubs? 

As you read the article you sense that these eleven boys - whose misbehavior and tantrums when they first entered Boy Scouts gave leaders little hope that they'd achieve anything - formed a shared identity and built a bond that kept them together and helped them achieve what would have seemed impossible a few years ago.  This group stuck together not because of the appeal and entertainment value of video games, iPods, or any other wizbang technology gadget.  No.  It was much more simple than that.  They had scouting, and they had each other.

The meat of any group endeavor - be it religious, civic, or of a hobby interest - is in the face-to-face sharing and meaning making that happens when people come together around a common interest. What makes a scrapbooking event memorable and meaningful is not necessarily the completion of a project, but the sharing and interaction that took place during the evening.  The baseball games that I love to attend are much more meaningful and memorable if I go with someone, someone with whom I can share in the ups and downs of a dramatic game.  Experienced alone the game is just not the same.

So too with faith.  Faith is best shared and experienced in the simple face-to-face encounter with others and with God.  The glitz of websites and videos, or the intentional shape of curricular and devotional materials can be helpful tools, but they are no substitute for the personal encounter with God and each other (see my recent post My First Nooma Video).  Perhaps we need to focus less on the tools and the techniques of our ministries, and more on the meat itself - the face-to-face encounter we share when we gather as the Body of Christ, and the Face of God that is revealed to us in those encounters.

In this Sunday's Psalm (Psalm 27:1, 4-9) we read:

"Come," my heart says, "seek his face!"
Your face, LORD, do I seek.

In the Gospel text for Sunday (Matthew 4:12-23) Jesus comes face-to-face with Peter, Andrew, James, and John, calling them to be disciples.

In the Epistle (1 Corinthians 1:10-18), Paul contrasts the eloquent wisdom of the world with the foolishness of the cross.  We are not in the business of worldly eloquence, he says, but in a calling of Christian foolishness.

Face-to-face, personal, authentic encounters with God and with each other might run counter to the wisdom of technology and multimedia marketing tools.  But it was to a simple invitation, offered face-to-face, that Peter, Andrew, James and John responded.  And it is with just a morsel of bread and a splash of wine that we encounter God, face-to-face, at the Table. 

The simple stuff of a face-to-face God.

Throwing Mud

I'm listening to the CNN Democratic debate and I'm just getting sick.  The mudslinging, the arguing about old, obscure votes, the accusations flying left and right . . .

It's just awful.  God help our country.

My First Nooma Video

This week at my internship cluster meeting I saw my first Nooma video (Rhythm), the highly stylized video reflections from Rob Bell, a leader in the new generation of evangelicals.  Both from the introduction it was given and from what I had heard from many other sources previously, I was supposed to be impressed, overwhelmed, moved and otherwise wowed.

It was . . . alright.

The highly stylized production quality was incredibly distracting to me.  The folks in the video didn't look very real to me at all.  They all seemed to have walked off the pages of an airbrushed Abercrombie and Fitch catalog.  With their Starbucks coffee cups, über hip clothing, and perfect hair, I was confronted with a crowd of people who seemed just a bit too "cool" for me.

And then there are the odd camera angles.  Sometimes Rob Bell is looking at the camera.  Sometimes we see his profile.  Sometimes we see the back of his head.  Despite the angle, however, we usually can catch a glimpse of his fashionable glasses and overstyled hair.

Let me be clear - the spoken text itself was pretty good.  Rob Bell's message is a personal, passionate and fresh message about faith and the life of discipleship.  As a printed text his words would have been a pretty good devotion. 

It only gets a "pretty good," however. From his website description of this video he writes:

Maybe it’s through trusting Jesus and living the kind of life he taught us to live – a life of truth, love, justice, compassion, forgiveness, and sacrifice – that we have a relationship with God.

What Rob Bell is telling us is that our relationship with God may be a product of the way we live our life.  But I wonder if I'm truly capable of doing these things - living a life of truth, love, justice, compassion, forgiveness, and sacrifice - without a relationship with God in the first place. 

Well, that's the kicker.  Contra Rob Bell, my relationship with God is not dependent upon how I live my life.  God has a relationship with me no matter what - that's just God's nature, and that's why we baptize infants.  God loves that infant and has a relationship with that infant even though she doesn't live a life of truth, love, justice . . . it's just eating, sleeping and pooping for her. 

But God doesn't care.  God just loves. 

What Rob should have told us is that our life of truth, love, justice, compassion, forgiveness, and sacrifice is possible as a joyful response to the love of God, a love that came to us before we were even formed in the womb, before we hear the Word of God proclaimed, before we ever made a decision for Christ or a decision to sleep in on Sunday mornings.  Before any of that, God loves us.

And this love of God is best shared not through a funky video or a great website or any other technology.  No.  This love of God comes to us incarnate, in the flesh and blood of our brothers and sisters who are "little Christs" (as Luther put it) to us.  That is, this love of God comes to us in relationship - raw, real, authentic relationship.  Yes, this video series is an attempt to present a raw, real and authentic faith, but at the end of the day such a faith is nurtured not in front of the television, computer monitor or digital projection screen, but in face-to-face encounters, in community, in the Body of Christ.

The Body of Christ, given for you.  The Blood of Christ, shed for you.  Thanks be to God!

English Only in the Workplace

Yesterday I railed against an English-only bill introduced into the Virginia State Senate by Ken Cuccinelli (R, Fairfax).  My critique yesterday was based on a report in the Washington Post.  And though I largely stand by what I wrote yesterday, after finding the full text of the law - Senate Bill No. 339 - I'd like to offer a few clarifying thoughts.

The Post article led with a provocative - and perhaps misleading - statement:

A Republican state senator from Fairfax County has introduced a proposal that would allow a boss to fire employees who don't speak English in the workplace, which would make them ineligible for unemployme nt benefits.

I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem to match up with the text of the bill, a proposed two-sentence insertion into the current code for Disqualification of Benefits (existing text of current code in normal type, proposed text in italics):

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked 30 days or 240 hours or from any subsequent employing unit:
. . .

2. a. For any week benefits are claimed until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment, if the Commission finds such individual is unemployed because he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

b. For the purpose of this subdivision, "misconduct" includes, but shall not be limited to:

. . . .

(5) An employee's inability or refusal to speak English at the workplace, in violation of a known policy of the employer that requires employees to speak only English at the workplace. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

The Cuccinelli bill states that an employer could fire an employee who cannot or who refuses to speak English in the workplace "in violation of a known policy of the employer that requires employees to speak only English at the workplace."  The Post article did not cite this "workplace policy" caveat, which to me is significant.  After reading yesterday's article I had the impression that Cuccinelli's bill would allow employers to fire non-English speakers irrespective of whether English is necessary for their job or a stated company policy.  The Post made the bill sound worse than it is.

But the bill is still lousy.

As I wrote yesterday, this bill

• is largely unnecessary, for under current law employers can already fire workers who cannot speak English if their job requires them to do so (ie, a job performance issue);
• contributes to a dangerous and racist anti-immigrant atmosphere here in Virginia;
• denies unemployment benefits to working class residents under questionable circumstances, stalling the upward mobility of immigrant working class residents;
• provides a tax break for companies who engage in sloppy hiring practices.  If an employer has a stated English-only policy, why are they hiring non-English speakers in the first place?
• Not included in yesterday's post, but in the Washington Post article, is a legitimate concern that this law could make it illegal for employees to speak in another language at any time, even on breaks.  This is a problem.

Read yesterday's blogpost to see details on the above points, and please contact your elected representatives in Richmond and urge them to vote against this bill.

¿Se Habla Inglés?

In the Virginia State Senate Ken Cuccinelli (R, Fairfax) has introduced a bill allowing employers to fire workers who do not speak English, exempting the employers from paying higher unemployment taxes stemming from such firings, and denying unemployment benefits to workers fired under this provision (see Washington Post article Bill Targets Workers Who Speak No English).

This is a lousy bill on many levels.

As the Post article highlights, Virginia employers can already fire employees who work in positions that require English skills but who cannot effectively speak the language.  This bill doesn't give such employers any new rights that they don't already have.  On this score, the bill is not needed.  But this bill is much broader, allowing employers to fire any non-English-speaking workers irrespective of whether English-language skills are required for the job. 

Secondly, this bill contributes to a growing anti-immigrant atmosphere.  Language skills highly correlate to race and national origin, two factors employers cannot use in hiring or firing decisions.  As such, this bill would allow employers to use language as a thinly veiled proxy for firing based on racial or national origin bias.  (And who determines if the employee speaks English at an adequate level?  The employer?  That hardly seems fair.)

Thirdly, this bill would deny unemployment benefits to workers fired for their inability to speak English.  Legal residents - both citizens and non-citizens - would be denied the economic safety net of unemployment benefits under this proposal.  Not only would such a person lose their job and income, but also a major source of government assistance - only for their inability to speak English (not for poor job performance, mind you).  How is that good for promoting the upward mobility of the immigrant working class?

Additionally, this bill provides cover for employers who engage in sloppy hiring practices (if you're firing someone for not speaking English, why did you hire them in the first place?).  In the article Cuccinelli claims he's coming to the defense of the business sector. 

Cuccinelli, who says companies are increasingly hiring people without face-to-face interviews, said he is just trying to protect employers from paying higher taxes because of unemployment claims.

Hiring without face-to-face interviews?  Presuming such hirings are based on telephone interviews, how do you not assess their language skills on the phone?  And if a telephone interview is not even involved, why is the government in the business of insuring such sloppy hiring practices against future unemployment tax increases? 

As it is currently written the tax code rewards companies who hire and keep their employees.  That is, the tax code provides a modest penalty to companies who fire workers - such firings could result in a higher unemployment tax for the employer.  Lets call it the Firing Tax.  Cuccinelli's bill would cancel the Firing Tax, reducing whatever incentive might exist for employers to be more selective in the hiring process, allowing unscrupulous employers to hire and fire without concern for taxes or the welfare of the employee.  Such a bill, especially when targeted at linguistic (i.e., ethnic and racial) minorities, is irresponsible.

If you are a resident of Virginia, please contact your State Senator and Delagate and tell them that Senator Cuccinelli's bill is lousy.

UPDATE: I posted some slight clarifications, and text of the proposed bill, in a new post: English Only in the Workplace

Daily Prayer around Second Sunday after Epiphany

The Daily Prayer Page has been updated to include prayers and daily lectionary readings for the days leading to and flowing from the Second Sunday after the Epiphany (January 17 through January 23).  This is a busy week, as it includes several commemorations and a festival:

• January 17 - Commemoration of Antony of Egypt
• January 18 - Festival of the Confession of Peter
• January 19 - Commemoration of Henry, Bishop of Uppsala
• January 21 - Commemoration of Agnes

Let us pray.