Faith in Context

Will E-publishing Destroy Libraries?

There is a conflict underway that has the potential to destroy public and university libraries as a concept. The publishers of E-books do not want to sell their materials to libraries and allow multiples uses. They are insisting on collecting a fee for every time someone looks at a publication. In other words, they want to collect tolls instead of deliver a product.

This is a departure from publishing practices going back some 200 years. The fact that a book or periodical purchased by a library will have multiples users has long been accounted for in the fact that libraries have always paid more for both individual copies of books and periodical subscriptions. What the publishers now want goes beyond that precedent. They want to collect a toll every time anyone looks at a publication. This unprecedented demand creates an untenable situation for any library and threatens the freedom of information that is a bedrock value under-girding public libraries and educational institutions.

Of course, the libraries could simply purchase hard copies of publications and avoid the problem. But, more and more titles are published only in E-book format and not available in hard copy. And, more and more readers are using only E-books.

Will this conflict lead to a culture war between the sub-culture of traditional, academic research and analysis on the one hand and the culture of new technology on the other? Or, will someone create technology that effectively makes it impossible for E-publishers to lock out non-toll-payers?

An in-depth analysis was published in this morning's edition of The Washington Post here.

American Religious Profile: New Data

A new Gallup Poll has been released asking Americans about their religion. Remember, this is not based on official membership lists, but this is the self-identification of a random sample of adults across the country.

A third of American adults identify themselves as Protestant or with some Protestant denomination. One in four (24 percent) identify themselves as Catholic. Two percent identify themselves as Jewish and one-half of one percent as Muslim. A total of 17 percent said that they identify with no religion or simply refused to answer the question (15 percent and two percent). The others identified with many small religions generally considered not Christian.

A 57 percent majority clearly sees themselves as Christians, but the United States continues to edge closer to a time when that majority will disappear. It is a melting icecube. Despite the claims of some propagandists, the U.S. was never a Christian nation, always valuing religious liberty and pluralism over the established faiths of Europe. But in the 20th Century it did come into a time when the majority of Americans identified with one Christian denomination or another. How long will that consensus last?

American Catholics Hear a New Liturgy Today

This weekend the revised liturgy is being introduced in Roman Catholic parishes across the English-speaking world. It is the first time that the English version of the mass has been revised since it was introduced after Vatican Council II. One of the major changes in Catholic religion made at that council in the 1960s was conducting worship in the language of the lay people. Incidentally, this was a very old issue at the time which got its start during the Protestant Reformation.

Many Catholics in America and Europe believe that this revised English liturgy simply re-introduces ideas and language from the old Latin liturgy; that it is a triumph for conservative Catholics who would like to erase the changes resulting from Vatican II. Bishop Donald Trautman, former chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on liturgy was quoted in USA Today earlier this week labeling the new liturgy "elitist" and incomprehensible to the average Catholic. He sees its introduction as prelude to a "pastoral disaster."

Much of the change in the liturgy involves the insertion of English translations of the old, Latin mass. There is a line-by-line comparison available on line if you want to see all of the details, most of which is obscure to anyone not trained in theology and church history. It includes more direct statements of a number of ideas that were never officially removed from Catholic theology, but have been largely ignored by pastors and people in recent decades.

This event demonstrates how difficult it is for religious institutions to reform themselves. Tradition has a power all its own. The center of gravity seems to always shift away from the "new thing" that the Holy Spirit may be calling God's people to and back to the old paths. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that suffers from this disability.

A Season of Apocalytic

It seems that this is a season of apocalyptic themes. Harold Camping, the founder of the Family Radio Network of Christian radio stations, finally gave up after repeated announcements of dates on which he was sure from his careful study of the Bible that Jesus was returning. The latest was in October. A cult in Peru was equally certain that Jesus would return on October 15. There is growing spectulation about the fact that the last year in the Aztec "long calendar" is thought to be 2012 by many scholars although they are uncertain as to what that means. Now a new movie is out entitled Melancholia which one reviewer calls "a zombie apocalypse film."

Why so much focus on apocalyptic? It reaches way beyond the six percent of the population that usually thinks about this topic; the small number of Christians who have great interest in speculation about the end of time despite the fact that in Matthew 24-25, Jesus makes it clear that He does not approve of such speculation. He simply declares that "no one knows," that even as Messiah, He did not know when the second coming is scheduled. The most authentic Christian teaching on this topic is to live each day as it is the day; to be constantly prepared for the end of time no matter how short or long the time.

Is all of this attention to the apocalyptic simply the result of the economy? After all, it is for millions of families the end of their world as they've known it. The forces of good and evil are involved in a great, climactic struggle. It appears that before they are done there is a good chance that the politicians will destroy the American dream, and that is the end of the world for the large numbers who believe in that dream more than they believe in God. Or, are incapable of differentiating the two. Or, is there something else going on here? What do you think?

The Next Generation Begins

One of the most common questions that I am asked; "When does the generation begin that follows the Millennial Generation?" Some demographers have placed the end of the Millennial generation (today's teens and young adults) as early as 1994. Others suggest somewhere in the middle of the last decade. I think we now have concrete data to support a clearer answer.

Demographers usually place the markers for the beginning and end of generations based on demographic events, not cultural or political events. After all, this is demography, not sociology or political science. The Pew Research Center released a new study yesterday that provides the best candidate I have seen for a demographic event that can serve as a marker between the Millennial generation and the generations following it.

It is possible that this next generation will become known as the Great Recession Generation. Of course, it is too soon to know what label will stick. That will only become known over the next 20 or 30 years. The year 2007 had a record high number of births in America, more than 4.3 million. The next year the birth rate started a downward trend that continues. Provisional data for last year indicates it is down to a little over 4 million.

The simple answer as to why is that mothers and fathers have responded to the bad economy by having fewer babies. But, that may be too simple and explanation. An alternate theory is that the economy is down, in part, because Americans have lost the will to take risks and responsibility for communal relationships (family and civic) and the economic downturn as well as the dropping birth rate are both symptoms of something deeper.

My instinct is that we have arrived at the marker between generations and this new generation (currently three years of age and under) will most likely end being called the Recession Generation, at least initially. I confess my thoughts are much influenced by the multiple reports from economists of all stripes which predict that the Great Recession will last a decade or longer. If the economy somehow pulls out of the current depressed mode in the next two or three years, then the label won't stick. A generation lasts more than a decade and future events could change perceptions.

You can download the full report from the Pew Research Center here. I am interested in hearing other conclusions.

One Thing You Can Do About Slavery

Prism, the journal published by the Sider Center, stated recently that the total number of people in the world who are currently in slavery (not using the word as another way of describing political oppression) is larger than it ever has been in human history. This includes people in sexual slavery as well as labor slavery. These situations are probably distant from most of my readers, but there is one thing you can do about this evil, and this is not about fund raising.

Join youth groups, congregations and individuals around the world this weekend in fasting and prayer for those who are enslaved. A graduate student of mine in Canada started this concept last year thinking that a few church youth groups she is connected with would join in, and found that through social networking it exploded around the world. So this is the Second Annual Weekend of Fasting and Prayer to End Human Trafficking. Pick a time frame that works for you starting on or after 12 a.m. September 23.

For more information use this link. No matter where you are or what you are doing this weekend, you can do something for "the least of these" with whom Christ identifies fully.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Memories of what happened ten years ago bring me back to the haunting question of the time. It still remains largely a mystery. Why do some people have such hate for those who believe differently that they think God has authorized them to kill?

This is not a Muslim problem, despite the slander believed by some. Christian fundamentalists bombed the Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City before Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In fact, it seems most religions have a very small percentage of people who are insanely, violently zealous. There are Christians willing to kill people they disagree with over abortion despite the fact that Jesus clearly taught us to "turn the other cheek" and not resist evil with evil.

Ultimately this kind of hate does not come from God. It is not about piety or devotion in any religion. It is rooted in evil. It is a marker of all the God is against. There is a word for this in all religions; sin. Anyone who thinks they can rid the world of sin by resorting to violence or injustice is overcome by the very thing they are supposedly fighting against. It is like the old folk tale of the tar baby. The more you hit it, the more you are stuck in it.

The only thing that is victorious over sin is divine love. God chooses to struggle against sin by extending mercy, forgiveness and grace because He is wise enough to know there is no other way to actually overcome sin. Hate and terrorism ends when I decide to quit hating those with whom I disagree on the most profound topics, the most cherished truths.

Why do they hate us? Because we hate them. The only thing that disconnects this vicious cycle is when we choose to join God's side and love the hater. That takes far more courage, a far more fearless moral stand than anything else. The Son of God gave His life to demonstrate this reality.

Who is Lying about Social Security?

Governor Rick Perry has said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a "monstrous lie." Perhaps this is just political BS and should be ignored by anyone serious about religion and moral values. For one thing, it is unclear to me precisely what he thinks the "lie" is; what is untrue about the idea that future generations will have the same benefits that the law calls for and are provided to senior citizens today?

It is true that the Baby Boom generation, the front edge of which is turning 65 this year, will create a problem because there will be for a period of time a smaller population paying taxes and a larger population getting benefits. That problem has been examined in tens of thousands of pages of careful studies and it can be fixed with a small increase in taxes, an average of less than $200 per year per taxpayer. It will leave the United States still with the lowest taxes of any industrialized country.

The interesting thing is that the right-wing politicians who have made speeches similar to Governor Perry's all say that they do not intend to change any of the benefits for the people (like me) who will become eligible for Social Security in the next decade (or longer, depending on the specific speech). What that means is that they are not proposing to fix the "bubble" described above. They are talking about changes that have to do with the situation decades down the line when the larger Millennial generation will be the taxpayers and the smaller Gen X will be those going onto Social Security. Why use the contemporary problem to argue for changes that will not come into effect until the problem is passed?

One possibility is that this entire effort is fundamentally dishonest. The real purpose of rhetoric against Social Security is to attack a plan that some politicians do not like because of the basic concept itself not because there are any real economic problems associated with it. Another clue that this might be going on is the total lack of any description of an alternative. What does Governor Perry propose to replace Social Security with? A previous Texas governor who became president proposed to modify Social Security by allowing individuals to put money into a type of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) instead of paying taxes into the Social Security program. This was dropped after analysts across the political spectrum agreed that it did not solve any real problems; it did not improve anything. It only gave a relatively small percentage of the population with very high incomes a more lucrative retirement.

Frankly, I agree that individuals with sufficiently high incomes ought to be allowed to put money into an IRA instead of the Social Security fund. And Social Security benefits ought to be paid only to people who have incomes below a reasonable ceiling. But, if you look at the numbers you will see that this is simply a trade-out. It does not change any of the major facts in the situation.

What is the moral meaning of this issue?Is there anything about this item that is not simply politics? I believe so. It seems to me that when politicians like Governor Perry say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a lie, they are lying. They are engaged in a propaganda technique that dates back nearly a century called "the big lie." (Look it up in your high school civics textbook.) It is simply this, if you assert something loud enough, often enough and with sufficient conviction, then it will appear to be true even if it is totally lacking in factuality.

In the early 1970s there was an effort to get senior citizens signed up for Social Security and Medicare. I worked in that effort and talked to thousands of seniors, going door to door in inner city neighborhoods. I have seen the kind of poverty and suffering that existed before the Social Security and Medicare programs became as entrenched in American society as they are today. I do not want to go back to that kind of America. I do not know why anyone would want to go back to that kind of America.

I share Governor Perry's biblical worldview which makes him even more morally culpable in my opinion. There is an objective reality which is outside the control of politicians or wishful thinkers or opinionated people of any kind (including myself). If we have no social insurance plan in America, people will suffer. Telling young people that there will be nothing for them, therefore they should vote to close down the program is truly a monstrous lie. It is manipulating them into creating the lack of benefits in the future. Can a politician convince you to shoot yourself in the foot? Is it moral for him to try just so he can get himself elected?

We Are At a Demographic Tipping Point

For some time now demographers have predicted that America will eventually become a country that no longer has a white majority. The latest census data released last week shows that for newborn babies we are already at that point. When the count was taken more than a year ago, 49.8 percent of infants in their first year of life were not white, and with the natural progression of births over the last year it is certain that the number has pushed past the 50 percent marker.

Each year, as the babies of 2010 become toddlers, then preschoolers, elementary school children, teens and finally young adults, this wave will move across our demographic landscape. Eventually it will reach 50 percent of the entire population. We now have a generation gap that is ethnic in nature.

I am familiar with generation gaps. I am from the first wave of Baby Boomers and I grew up watching a cultural generation gap ripple through our society. Some of my contemporaries might say that I helped cause the wave and did not just surf it. Now my grandson is riding a new wave.

William Frey, a leading demographer at the Brookings Institution, says that this new demographic wave "my exacerbate existing cultural generation gaps, as older, largely white generations may be slow to recognize the promise of this change." Such careful, academic language! We are already seeing reactionary convulsions.

What does this mean for religion?

The most immediate reality is that children's ministries and youth ministries are becoming largely ethnic minority activities. Even in historically white congregations, most of the people in Kindergarten are going to be people of color. Or, there will be very few, if any people in Kindergarten. Youth groups will soon enough have the same reality. There are parts of the country where this will not be a reality for another generation; the Northwest and the Upper Midwest. At the same time ethnic minorities now make up more than 40 percent of the infants in more than half the states.

Increasingly church growth cannot be a reality without the inclusion of ethnic minorities. Congregations that want to grow will have to embrace people of color and immigrants. That will force them to come to terms with the essential unfairness and enormous red tape of our immigration laws. Just as that issue has caused deep conflicts in our nation, it will cause conflicts in congregations. Christian fellowships will be tried to the core and we will find out what their true character is.

Moral Consequences of Economic Decisions

The economy and the political agitation around the national debt has forced all Americans to make decisions. Who is paying attention to the moral consequences of those decisions?

If a state legislature votes to stop paying for certain kinds of hospital care and as a consequence respirators are turned off and a number of people die, are the lawmakers who voted that budget cut guilty of murder in God's eyes?

If I hire a man at $12 an hour and I know that in my community full-time employment at $12 an hour will not pay the rent on the least expensive apartment available and as a consequence the man sleeps in his car (which is old and in ill repair), leaves the windows rolled up because it is cold outside and dies from carbon monoxide poisoning, am I guilty of murder in God's eyes?

If the national Congress votes to cut funding for emergency food programs and as a consequence 10,000 babies die from malnutrition over the next year or two, are the politicians who voted for that budget cut guilty of murder in God's eyes? What if I voted for one of those legislators because he promised to keep my taxes down, do I share in that guilt?

Or does God give a free pass for anything that is necessary to balance the budget? Does God not require any moral accounting of the decisions that are necessary to protect the savings that I have, or keep taxes down or encourage job creation in our country and keep the economy going?

Maybe you are not troubled by these questions. Does God think about them? People of faith have always taught that He expects us to think about moral consequences. Is that an idea that we are now free to discard?