Home-Training

I'VE MOVED!

2009-01-01T14:02:00.001-05:00

Or at least, everything's in process... It won't feel like home until I get all my pictures up.

I've decided to consolidate my web presence (more to the point, I finally found someone who knew how to set it up the way I was hoping to). Soon usefulperhaps.melvinbray.com will redirect to the new spot. For the time being (and thereafter), find me at MELVINBRAY.COM.

The Day After

2008-11-04T15:49:00.009-05:00

published on God's Politics...

As the 2008 Presidential campaign draws to a close, I've become increasingly less concerned about the specific outcomes of election night and more concerned by what we will have positioned ourselves to accomplish the day after. What are our prospects for success in meeting the tremendous challenges we as a country now face, when we've painted our countrymen and neighbors out to be devils and villains? How do we commit ourselves to meaningful action for the good of all God's creation and not become immobilized in our bickering over who is most right? I'm almost afraid that too much damage has been done: the fear mongering and race-baiting and name-calling and prejudice rationalizing. How do we begin to engage one another and work together if indeed I am (by your definition or my own) a tree-hugging, homo-loving, abortion-permitting, other-embracing, terrorist-empathizing, socialist-leaning un-real black man, whom you've been socialized to resist at all costs?

As I write, a song invades my consciousness, refusing not to be heard. I believe it echoes a way forward through this mess we’ve made for ourselves. The song is "Belfast to Boston," by James Taylor (listen). It's been my prayer for peace for about two years now…

There are rifles buried in the countryside by the rising of the moon.
May they lie there long forgotten, 'til they rust away into the ground.

It's a song of grace: blood bought, divinely inspired, blessed assurance that as followers in the way of Jesus we are not condemned to give as good (or as poorly) as we get. We can give better. Yes…

Who will bend this ancient hatred: will the killing to an end?
Who will swallow long injustice: take the devil for a countryman?

We can. This is the grace that is ours. "Freely you have received; freely give," Jesus says.

continue reading on GP>>>

Good Art Gives--But Doesn't Always Sell

2008-07-22T01:15:00.002-05:00

published on God's Politics...

I've been on a real art binge of late. Reading, watching, listening to, experiencing and creating as much as I can. Good art isn't just creative, it's generative, that is it inspires creative acts in others. It gives us hands to shape the world in new and living ways. And I've been thinking a lot about how much this world we share needs more of it.

Like any other act of love, I believe art is fundamentally contributive, not transactional. It's not an if-you-do-this-I'll-do-that proposition. By my experience, as soon as it becomes transactional, art more often than not simply becomes entertainment. The difference is the bottom line. The bottom line in entertainment is to perpetuate the transaction. At least they're honest about it, those who transact in performance art. They call it "the biz," show business: business being the operative word. I was chatting with an Atlanta-based artist friend of mine, Patdro Harris, who used to choreograph for Stevie Wonder. He mentioned Stevie once noted that the great thing for him was that when he broke on the scene in the '60s the industry and the public were transacting for the very art that was stirring inside of him. Sadly, that is not often enough the case. More often, people transact for (give back to) that which affirms and leaves them right where they are, good, bad or indifferent. Art—love—says, "Even if you don't give back to me I'm going to give to you, and it's going to be an attempt to seek your best."

read more on God's Politics blog>>> Part 1 / Part 2

Exorcising Our Demons

2008-03-18T14:00:00.013-05:00

published on God's Politics...

If properly understood, Senator Barak Obama's remarks today at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA, constitute one of the most significant and honest public addresses ever made on America's 400-year struggle with race. Had we heeded DuBois' 1903 prophetic warning, The Souls of Black Folks, it may have found voice in the 20th century. There is a conversation America has, literally in some cases, been dying to have. That conversation is not in favor of any particular presidential candidate. Please don't relegate and dismiss it on those grounds. However, it is unlikely that we would be so inescapably confronted with such issues outside of a person of color experiencing some measure of success in a bid for the highest elected office in the land.

In her God's Politics post, "Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective," Diana Butler Bass implored us to listen better to one another. Now let me suggest something to listen for. The thought is simple, but the lesson is not: Not everyone has experienced America in the same way. And we must lay down the self-absorption that makes us think this doesn't matter, if we are ever to begin to appreciate each other.

Permit a timely example. If you are not Black, you may not know that the Black church is the theatre in which Blacks have historically exorcised their demons—with the pastor as both theologue and thespian embodying the collective process of redemption for his/her people every week. Initially, church was the one place we could go that we weren't under massa's whip, which is why we relish it. Eventually, it became the center and sustainer of our community. So most of us understand Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a way that may escape others.

Church equaled life for us. Where else could we go to exorcise the demons of injustice and intransigence? Where else could we go to exorcise the marginalization and invalidation, the defeat and depression, the struggle and scorn? Where else could we go when our children asked—as my daughter did while coloring just the other day—if Jesus were brown or white? My answer was that he was born to Jewish parents, people of color, whom we usually refer to as olive-skinned. And her heartrending response at 5-years-old was: Why can't he be white? In all the pictures, he's white!

Where else could we give cathartic voice to our inner demons in hopes of being transformed like the phoenix into "the better angels of our nature?"

Continue reading on God's Politics blog>>> Part 1 & Part 2

An Inward-Outward Strategy for the Black Community

2005-09-29T08:19:00.001-05:00

Is it me, or is any other Black person sick of the polarized debate over what exactly it is that Blacks need to overcome in America in the 21st century?

On the one hand you have the black neo-conservatives—the first beneficiaries (young and old) of the rights, privileges and opportunities gained in our struggle to overthrow American apartheid—who are convinced that the only things now holding Blacks back from upward mobility in America are self-destructive habits, the refusal to assimilate and an unwillingness to work hard enough. On the other side are your dyed-in-the-wool liberals who, having waged war and won some hard fought legal and political battles to tear down the overt trappings of institutionalized racism, are fully persuaded that what continues to hinder Black upward mobility in America are the more covert inner-workings of a die-hard racist social, political and economic order. Does anyone else see how much of a false dilemma this debate creates? The debate itself, for Blacks, is totally counter-productive and beside the point.

As long as the debate is either/or, Blacks will never make progress. As long as its "self-reliance" versus "societal restitution," the black community will be a house divided against itself. The dominant culture is the only one that benefits from this either/or strategy—either Republican or Democrat; either liberal or conservative; either middle-class or poor; etc. The African-American community needs an "Inward-Outward" strategy.

I must be honest and acknowledge I was not chiefly compelled to write this out of a mounting distain for liberal politics. Although I believe liberalism has some very real, even dangerous, limitations, at least it's oriented toward social and economic benefit for all (okay, most). Conservatism on the other hand seems unapologetically more and more oriented toward social and economic benefit for those "who deserve it". That is what compels me to write. I am dismayed by the homage Black conservatives pay to the politics of the corporate- and power-elite in hope of or reimbursement for the privilege of aspiring to the ranks of either.

Don't get me wrong, Black conservatives' concerns regarding the impact of self-destructive behavior on the Black community certainly have merit: in an internal discussion of our community's impediments to success. But to continue to paint with broad strokes upon the imaginations of the American public images of a self-serving, pathetic, lazy Blackness that references less than 20% of who we are; to imply that this is the only, or even primary, public discourse that needs to be had; or to imply that internal improvements can somehow satisfy our legitimate concerns regarding external economic opportunity is in a word—self-defeating.

Conservatives have a lot to say about the Black condition in America:

They often say that the economic limitations thwarting blacks in America are rooted in the much touted statistic that 70% of black children don't have both parents in the home.
They often assert that the breakdown of the family and the erosion of personal responsibility can be historically linked to the rise of big government.
They often argue that civil rights automatically translate into adequate, if not equal, opportunity.
They often purport that everyone regardless of race or creed has the liberty and freedom in America to chart his/her own social, political and economic destiny.
They often reason that regardless of how this country was founded, now that Blacks can hold office, own property, start businesses and otherwise be in positions of authority, there are no real impediments to legitimate societal improvements.

Let me pose a few questions that I hope would cause one to re-examine the unqualified veracity of some of these claims:

When exactly was it that the black family was considered "intact" in America, and what was our social/economic status at that time? How has that status changed since then?
Before we chalk up the break down of the family to the often rehearsed but never substantiated (except anecdotally) detrimental rise of big government, can we even consider the more easily documented impact that the 2nd World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the return from each might have had? Black males were disproportionately represented in each; significant numbers were indisputably denied medical/mental-health care; and many were systemically deprived of promised educational benefits and employment opportunities upon their return.
What does "equal rights" to a piece of pie really mean when the entire pie was divided up before you were even allowed to sit down at the table?
What does economic "liberty" mean for a person starting at zero who needs capital just to provide for his most basic of human dignities—food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, work, education—and is constrained by the laws that govern the place where he finds himself to solicit each of these necessities (or at least the first 5) from the very society that made a conscious decision to start him at zero? How is that "liberty" different than that of those who started with an inheritance, flat out stole one or were sustained until they amassed one? (Not that the first person just can't do for himself, but how is it different?)
If white proprietors take some land, borrow money from a white-owned bank (where they will later invest their earnings), start a business on that land, put together a majority white board that writes the bylaws and establishes all organizational policies, establish exclusive relationship with virtually only white vendors, market to primarily white customers, produce a product that is of use or can only be afforded by the middle-class, nonetheless hire a black CEO and CSO, integrate middle management and even employ 70% black labor, WHO IS IN POWER (racially speaking)? To whose economic benefit will the operations of this company accrue? How many people—not just of color, but of a mind to recognize and want to rectify the power disparity—would have to be brought into the organization (and on what levels) to affect change? How is this analogy different from most predominantly black cities (i.e., New Orleans)?

Some conservative assertions are insidious. They are repeated so often that over time they become uncritically regarded as truth. Conservatives' attempts to draw a straight line between two-parent homes and economic prosperity are what teachers of rhetoric would call non sequitur. The fallacy of logic is that there are too many variables and too many exceptions. Two unemployed or underemployed married parents can make just as little as one unemployed or under-employed parent. To put it in mathematical terms: having two parents in the home may be a corollary to economic prosperity (in as much as brushing one's teeth might also be :-), but it's not a postulate.

The same critique applies to the often repeated Black conservative appeals to the greater "dignity" of our progenitors. Though we honor and learn from our grandfathers who would rather have worked menial jobs than accept what they believed to be a "hand-out," the fact that they did is part of the reason why their grandchildren are still struggling today for those 6 human dignities. To argue any differently is to engage in another fallacy of logic known as ad homonym. What might have been different if our grandfathers saw "hand-outs" as "grants" or "subsidies"? Our economic system has seldom rewarded folks for their "dignity". The truth is simply that our economic system needs someone to do the menial tasks, and our grandfathers obliged.

Conservatives' concerns, though very valid considerations of internal realities, overlook the answers to most of the questions above. These questions have to do with how the Black community has in the past or might better in the present engage the external realities that also impact its socio-economic well-being in America.

America OWES... (it may never pay up, but) it owes the African-American community some things: only because it has systematically denied them those things. Freedom is precious, but it was only a beginning. The vote is important, but it was only a small lateral step. Access to the same institutions as whites was only a small lateral concession as well. The equality that America owes (but may never pay) all historically disenfranchised persons within its borders is a redistribution of all real property that those same persons worked to generate. That's where "equal rights" and "liberty" in a socio-political sense actually begin. That's the external work that must continue to be done while at the same time we tackle our internal concerns. Neither may ever be achieved, yet both must never be overlooked.

The home-training that seems particularly applicable here is that the oppressed should never allow their oppressor to dictate their agenda. Or as I once heard a Jamaican mother say, "De spida caun't tell de grashoppa how high jump an' where." Grasshoppers should also probably be leery of advice from those who climb into spiders' webs of their own accord.

Step in the Name of Love

2005-05-13T22:35:00.000-05:00

I never had any intentions of making Home-Training a political series. So allow me to make a hard right and touch on a subject that speaks more to the heart than to the mind. Love.

When I watch movies or TV shows or listen to the radio, I am usually dumb-founded and often disgusted by what it seems most of us call love. Anyone on the outside looking in would think we were Neanderthals the way we treat one another in the name of love. It's pitiful. It's sad. Nonetheless, we celebrate our emotional depravity in our music and our movies and our other so-called art. It reminds me of something Frederick Douglass wrote about music on the plantation where he was raised:

"The thought that came up, came out—if not in the word, in the sound;—and as frequently in the one as in the other. They would sometimes sing the most pathetic sentiment in the most rapturous tone, and the rapturous sentiment in the most pathetic tone."

That's often how I feel when I encounter the mess that we try to pass off as love—whether it be friend to friend, man to woman, church to community or nation to nation. I just want to shake my head. But then I realize that's no kind of responsible reaction to the degredation and ignorance, arrogance and cynicism, hostility and violence we've already begun to pass on as a legacy to our children... in the name of love.

Understanding the interactive, relational, cooperative nature of love, we would do well to be more intentional about how we raise our kids to live love. The Good Book initially refers to the first two lovers as simply man and woman. Maybe such simple designations were used not by chance. Maybe they reveal more about who we were created to be than meets the eye. Maybe they represent an ideal towards which we would do well to strive.

Consider what happens when we raise our children to be other than simply men and women. Many parents want their little ones to be always 'ladies' and 'gentlemen'. They raise them to be oh so proper and oh so mannerly, with a very good sense of their own ‘specialness’. But notice how this can adversely affect their practice of love. They often think that all they have to offer is gold… to be treasured and guarded, easily hoarded or used as currency to secure the desires of their hearts. Quite often, with no malicious intent whatsoever, gentlemen and ladies find themselves sitting back waiting for love to be given to them, not realizing that love is only received by those who involve themselves in it. Their love is a favor to be earned or rationed out in pity. But real love is moved with compassion, not pity. And 'love' that must be earned is not love at all: it is a feeble imitation at best. For when anything is done that displeases or disappoints or sorrows or angers, which quite often happens, even more often when one has a sense of entitlement, favor masquerading as love soon vanishes.

Something equally disastrous happens when our little ones grow up to think they are THE MAN or THE WOMAN. They begin to think that their stuff is much too good for anyone to ever deserve. Yet in them is little of the inhibitions of propriety and decorum that characterize gentlemen and ladies. They freely “use what they got”—albeit to the same selfish end—“to get what they want.” THE MAN and THE WOMAN just happen to be a little more honest—or maybe it’s more aware—of their selfishness. What they may by chance call an act of love might be better described as a reward or a return on an investment. Eventually every relationship gets evaluated and re-evaluated through the same cynical prism: “What have you done or what can you do for me?” And when the answer comes back, “Nothing,” dead weight gets cut loose.

In the beginning God created the first two lovers as simply, honestly a self-accepting, self-respecting man and woman. Having just come from the hand of their Creator, they were able to grasp—or maybe unable to overlook—a truth about themselves and their purpose that the gentlemen and the ladies, THE MEN and THE WOMEN of this world just don’t get. They recognized themselves (all that they had and all that they were) as gifts created for each other’s happiness and pleasure. And it seems to me that only in the sunlight of this very simple acceptance of one’s self as no more and no less than just a man or just a woman can love blossom and thrive between two people.

Here’s some home-training for us. If we would raise our children to see themselves as gifts who will only find meaning and significance “making love” with others (please recognize that the context in which I am speaking has nothing to do with sexuality), they may actually have a chance to share the joy that Adam and Eve abandoned when being a gift ceased to be enough for them.

If we're going to sing about love... let's sing about that.

Those Most Pivotal "Moral Values"

2004-11-10T07:50:00.000-05:00

The term "moral values" strikes me as a strange yet deceptively accurate expression.

The word "moral" usually refers to humanity's universal sense of imperative concerning what we ought and ought not do. In a phenomenally perceptive collection of radio addresses bound as the book Mere Christianity, atheist turned theologian C. S. Lewis (one of my favorite writers) describes morality as "the directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule," he contends, "is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine."

Morality is not solely the purview of religion. Our understanding of morality tends to be most informed by our religious beliefs, but is seldom completely defined by them. Thus, many persons who recognize the moral imperative have no specific religious affiliation nor ascribe to any one set of religious doctrines. Though people may have very different takes on all the specific rules that make up this code of conduct we call morality, I would suggest (and I'm in good company when I do so) that morality is a very definite thing.

This business of values, however, is quite a different thing. There is no accounting for what one may value. In fact, many value things that are not very good for them.

Take for example my father. In a conversation we had about two weeks ago, my father told me that his doctor would like to see him lose some weight. Dad went on to say that he has no problem with the idea of losing weight. His problem is, he confesses, that he likes his cake and ice cream just a little too much. My father values his sweets—I can't blame him—but his experience does reveal something about the nature of values. Values have no intrinsic connection to that which is right in preference to wrong, nor to that which is healthy in place of unhealthy, nor to that which is noble rather than cowardly, nor that which is just as opposed to unjust. More often than not Values are quite amoral, sometimes even immoral.

The confusion over and blending of morality and values is, I believe, often perpetuated by well meaning religious leaders and public figures who command some measure of moral authority. Take for instance Dr. James Dobson, renowned for his work on behalf of families. Dr. Dobson, keenly aware of the corrosive impact that immorality has played in the breakdown of the family, has made it his business to combat that immorality, even in the political arena. Instead of continuing to define morality in legitimate familial terms, Dr. Dobson has also tried to define morality in terms of a narrow set of political outcomes he personally values. Can you begin to see where the confusion occurs? This moral authority using moral terminology tells the millions of families who have come to trust his moral judgment that the moral thing to do on behalf of their families' moral health is to put people in public office who will legislate a selective set of family, cultural or religious values that he happens to approve of. By doing this he only undermines the relevance of a real morality in the political arena.

Values, everybody has them; we live by them, but no reasonably modest person would ever seek to equate his values with that which is ultimately the measure of all values—morality. That would be preposterous. Values are too susceptible to variables such as time and place, public opinion and IQ, what one may have had for lunch today and whether or not it agrees with him. Some parents may encourage their athlete sons or daughters to jump at the first opportunity to play professional sports. "You can always go back to college," they may say. However, for my friend Tennessee who was scouted by the Major Leagues coming out of high school, it was the same as it was in my own home, "You're going to college," no questions asked. "Education first" may be a "family value," but few would call it as a moral precept. There was a time in America when slavery and Jim Crow were the law and the religious custom of the land. That was definitely a "cultural value" at the time, but God forbid that it would be considered part of a morality. People value what they want to value, what they like, what serves them. Thus, to talk in terms of "moral values" at best merely denotes a few virtues one particularly appreciates. More dubiously, however, it often refers to the one or two ethical concerns that one wants to highlight or prioritize above all the rest—making so-called "moral values" little more than a selective morality.

According to exit polling, the 2004 election hinged on voters perceptions of the candidates "moral values". Those who voted for the winner, President Bush, said they did so primarily because of his "moral values" as they relate to abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the place of religion in politics. Consider each issue in terms of its moral content. Abortion is undoubtedly a moral issue, but not one that can be completely legislated against without violating at least three other moral principles. Homosexuality may be a moral issue as well, but discrimination, not validation, is the issue that homosexuals are asking their politicians to redress at present. Although I own one, I concede that there is absolutely no moral mandate for gun ownership. And religion and state have always made immoral bedfellows. Whereas anxiety over these four issues may in some cases be predicated upon moral concerns, these four issues don't even begin to constitute a majority of the moral concerns for which there could be an effective political response. Nonetheless, because of the generous interpretation of this sly terminology, "moral values," conservatives are currently seen as having a monopoly on morality in the political arena which I believe presents a lopsided view of reality.

C. S. Lewis suggests that we may be able to better understand the importance and workings of the whole of morality if we think of ourselves as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. "Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on." Liberals seem particularly preoccupied with the first and at times concerned with the second, while only occasionally giving lip-service to the third. Conservatives—particularly those whose conservatism is inspired by religious conviction—seem primarily worried about the third, leading them to want to legislate the second, while giving little more than lip-service to the first. Both miss the necessity of the whole.

I do not believe conservatives and liberals are as far removed from each other as it sometimes appears. They're just approaching the matter from opposite ends of a spectrum that has, if acknowledged, much common ground. Again Lewis is extremely insightful (and says it so much better than could I):

"You may have noticed that modern people [most likely the liberals of Lewis' day] are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, "It can't be wrong because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick with the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.

What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up on paper rules for social behaviour, if we know that in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realize that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.

But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself."

How can one help but see why liberals and conservatives continue to annoy and collide with one another. To use Lewis' metaphor, Republicans seem clear on where their going and the importance of tidying up their own ships—both admirable qualities. In fact Republicans are so concerned with tidying up that they're willing to legislate it for others. (Sailors have a name for seamen who seek to dictate the terms by which other men's ships should run. I believe they call them "pirates". I don't believe piracy is such a good thing.) Democrats, on the other hand, seem almost exclusively concerned about us all getting to our destination together and treating each other well along the way.

Despite the disconnect, I see some real potential for synergy here. We just need to determine which moral imperatives are best served in a political context. Whereas, like it or not, making abortion the least attractive choice for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is most effectively handled in the religious and social arenas, we should recognize that poverty in a society as rich as ours is indeed a moral concern that can be mitigated politically. The first step then is to assess where we are. Next we must describe how we believe things should be. Then—and this is the crucial step—all parties have to voice the values that they would like to see upheld in creating the desired outcome. From that point it's just a matter of setting public policy that gets us from where we are to where we want to be. The synergy occurs when the laws are written so that they don't violate the deeply held convictions of either group. This kind of cooperation is itself an act of morality.

It is my Uncle Ralph who I have to thank for the specific piece of home-training that comes to mind as I write on this topic. My uncle taught me, "Don't miss the forest for the trees." I'm not sure those are words he ever used, but the sentiment was definitely conveyed. The idea as it applies to this topic is simply that morality must be honored as a whole. Unless we are willing to deal with morality as a whole—honoring all three aspects as best we can in any and all situations—then we haven't really demonstrated the respect we claim for select pieces and parts. I believe our individual understandings of morality, however flawed or incomplete, must continue to play a substantive role in our public policy decision-making. At the same time we must recognize that selective morals used as political footballs are not really morality at all. They are quite the opposite.

"If You See a Good Fight Get in It"—Abortion

2004-11-03T09:26:00.000-05:00

This essay is mainly for religious people—particularly in light of the re-election of President George W. Bush. This notion that religion or "family values" or "cultural conservatism" equals morality or that religious fervor automatically translates into just public policy or that the morality of self-interest and domination is morality at all is absolutely misbegotten.

In the political debate over abortion, I am neither exclusively pro-life nor pro-choice. I am what one might call "pro-choice for life" or if you prefer "pro-life thru choice"—a position I would bet that most people hold. They may not use the same terms to describe it. They may not have thought it through in the same way. But absent a strong, most likely religious conviction to be otherwise, pro-choice while an advocate for life may perhaps be the most moral position one can take.

You may ask, "What does it mean to be 'pro-life thru choice' or 'pro-choice for life?'" Well, it's a relatively simple concept. I believe in promoting life. I believe in it so strongly that I have always, even as a teenager, encouraged young women I knew who were considering terminating a pregnancy to have their children. I believe in life so much I have vowed that should an unwanted pregnancy arise in my home I would encourage that family member to have the child, and I have prayed that I would be able to treat the child as my own, regardless of the circumstances of conception. I believe life is sacred, and it is our responsibility as stewards of the life we've been given to do all we can to preserve, perpetuate and enrich it.

At the same time, I believe that the choice of whether or not to go through with a pregnancy can only be between a woman and her God. Abortion presents an almost unique moral conundrum in that it pits one set of generally and individually accepted moral principles against another. As a Christian, I do not believe we can violate one principle to preserve another. We cannot violate the freedom of choice and the dignity of personhood to preserve the sanctity of life. The three are too closely intertwined. If priority has to be given it must be given to the choice of the person most intimately involved. For those who may have a hard time with this, scripture teaches that she is the one who will have to stand in judgment and give an account of her life to her Creator.

At the risk of being offensive, I must confess that I struggle to understand how a thoughtful and reasonably humble person—particularly a person of faith—could take any other political position. As far as I can parse the issue, I just don't understand how a woman's right to choose can be anything but sacrosanct. Now don't misunderstand; I believe the choice for an abortion is in many, if not most, instances self-centered and therefore wrong. I believe it's that potential element of selfishness that would make abortion in most cases an act of murder by definition. However, by what delusion of omniscience could I discern the degree of selfishness in someone else's decision and thereby preempt or punish the offender? My Christianity is the very thing that constrains me against such arrogance. I recognize the moral imperative to analyze the right and wrong of abortion, I just can't imagine how we can in good conscience seek to enforce our conclusions. How could such egotism be of God?

As for the question of when does life begin, with no definitive empirical evidence we could argue that until time is no more. Perhaps a more useful question is, "When does a fetus become an individual (able to thrive on its own)?" There is a definite point at which this happens. Perhaps anti-abortionists should focus their efforts on securing legal protection for the unborn from that point on. In spite of all its potential to be more, prior to that point a fetus is nothing more than an extension of the mother's body, and herein lies the rub.

At present, what anti-abortionists are really advocating is the right to impose their will on an undeniably legitimate individual (the pregnant woman) for the sake of one who has yet to become an individual (the fetus). Though I truly appreciate the nobility of wanting to protect the unborn, exercising that kind of control over another human being sounds just a little too reminiscent of chattel slavery to me. To force a woman to carry to term, yes, it brings into the world a new life, but it also serves to objectify women, and the question that it instantly raises is, "At what point do we stop?" How could such tyranny be of God?

In my humble opinion this is really the crux of the political debate over abortion. Even if you believe that abortion is plainly wrong, you cannot rule all abortions illegal without treating pregnant women as less than full persons. This is, I believe, the issue that anti-abortionists have yet to deal with. It is the reason I would bet that most people are like me: pro-choice yet in favor of life. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I have yet to meet someone who is actually pro-abortion. "Pro-abortion" is just a marketing term to demonize the opposition. I believe most of us simply recognize intuitively that we have no right to treat women as less than the autonomous, self-determining persons they are. Isn't this the type of reverence that is of God?

The other issue that I believe anti-abortionists—surprisingly even religious ones—fail to contemplate is the issue of quality of life. Though it is definitely hard to say, and rightfully so, there is little virtue in existence for existence sake. I imagine most religious persons would agree. In fact, religion is predicated on the idea that life should and can be better based on the choices one makes. Yet in saying unequivocally that all babies should be carried to term, the anti-abortionist totally disregards the circumstances into which a child may be born or the conditions under which the child was conceived. Would such disregard be of God?

Let me use an extreme example to illustrate the point clearly. Who would be self-righteous enough to say that Negro mothers were wrong to jump overboard with their newborn babies in their arms during the Middle Passage as opposed to allowing their children to be subjected to the horrors of chattel slavery? Even the most pious person of faith would struggle to lift his or her voice in judgment of these courageous women.

Thank God, no one has to endure the horrors of chattel slavery in America today. Nonetheless, life for many today has its sufficient share of darkness. Using chattel slavery as our outside reference point and backing up from that point by degree, who amongst us thinks himself sufficient to determine the exact point at which the potential good of an unborn child's life will outweigh the potential evil? I know I don't. I don't know how one would. There is probably no universal way to arrive at a decision, but such a deliberation can only conceivably be made between a person and her God—and for only herself. Even then such a decision is dubious at best.

One simply cannot make the decision against abortion for another person. That is the very reason why I believe that pro-life efforts are best focused on creating a moral and socio-economic environment in which all can thrive. Instead of trying to usurp a woman's right to be an autonomous, self-determining human being, anti-abortionists could take some personal responsibility for making the choice for life the absolutely most appealing alternative. They could accomplish this by addressing poverty, social justice disparities, lack of adequate health care, living-wage concerns, education shortcomings, under-nutrition, inadequate housing, wealth distribution, etc.—all conditions that would impact the quality of life of the children they are trying to save. Aren't these the concerns scripture teaches are of God?

In focusing our energies thus, society takes a big step away from a public discussion that is irreconcilably contentious to one, as Northwestern University professor and Jewish bio-ethicist Laurie Zoloth would suggest, that is infinitely more constructive. In her interview with Krista Tippett on the NPR program Speaking of Faith, "[Tippet speaking] Laurie Zoloth proposes a new framework for our common deliberations centered on religious values that might be shared more widely, such as duty and justice. 'Rights,' she says, 'are not a religious starting point for discussion.' . . . [Zoloth speaking] What's of interest [to the normative Jewish tradition] is, "What are our duties to human persons? And when do the duties begin? And when do they end? . . . It's a more useful way to think of it. I think pitting maternal rights against fetal rights is not only counter intuitive (ask anyone who's pregnant about that), but going about it [the discussion] with duty . . . honors the reality of what pregnancy is (mostly, for most women it's an act of extraordinary love and one in which the duty of being a mother begins). . . . A duty based system means that the community has responsibilities from the beginning too—to protect, to nurture, to shelter a women who is pregnant already. And then a different sort of duty once the child is born . . . including if she [the mother] does not desire to keep that child, the duty still attends upon the community."

That doesn't mean that dissenting voices should stop trying to show us a better way. We need that. I've been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with a friend of mine who has convinced me that the late-term procedure commonly known as Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) is barbaric, potentially exploitive and has never been found to be necessary according to the American Medical Association. Chalk one up for the pro-life cause; in regards to the need to outlaw PBA, I'm a believer. We just need to do it in a manner that respects women's humanity as well. Humanity is enriched when such progressive synergies take place.

My mother taught me that you “always leave a place better than you found it.” That's exactly what's been missing from the whole abortion debate. Society would simply not be better off if women were to begin using abortion as an indiscriminate form of birth control. The psychological and sociological carnage would be staggering. On the other hand, society is no better off if women are treated as chattel, unable to make decisions concerning their own bodies. Instead of conservatives and liberals trying to push the issue as far right or left as they possibly can, society would be better off if we would, as President Bush suggests (in word if not in deed), work together to "promote a culture of life . . . a hospitable society . . . where every being counts and every person matters . . . one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life." That's just good home-training.

“If You See a Good Fight Get in It”—Gay Civil Unions

2004-10-27T08:56:00.000-05:00

I'm about to offend a whole bunch of people.

(This essay is mainly for religious people. I might be inclined to use different language if I were addressing a different audience with different sensibilities.)

There is simply no such thing as "gay marriage".

(Whether I have offended or excited you, I encourage you to read onyou may find yourself swapping positions.)

"Gay marriage" is an etymological non-entity. There is simply no such thing. Marriage by definition is a sacred, life-long, exclusive union between a man and a woman that has often been acknowledged as significant by the state. It has never been anything else. Various civil governments have acknowledged its significance differently throughout history, but the manner in which they have acknowledged it has never brought into question what marriage is. Thus, by definition, there could never be such a thing as "gay marriage". Such articulation is a misnomer, an oxymoron, a figure of speech, at best.

As a society, I believe, we need to be careful how we use such figures of speech in public discourse. The language we use to discuss and debate issues today will inevitably become the lenses through which our children will understand themselves, their world and their history tomorrow--no matter how inaccurate our language may have been. I don't imagine that homosexuals could do any worse to marriage than heterosexuals have already done, but how do we restore a sense of the sanctity of marriage for our children, if we are afraid to be honest about what it is and what it's not?

However... As strongly as I feel about this issue and as deeply rooted as those feelings are in my faith, in the political debate over legally recognizing same-sex civil unions, none of these opinions matter. (Notice I used the term "civil unions," which is what they are, not marriage.)

In a democracy, if we are going to recognize one life-long love commitment between consenting adult human beings as being worthy of special considerations, there must be a means by which we recognize all. As fellow citizens, we must acknowledge homosexuals' equal rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"--and it doesn't have to be at the expense of our own intellectual, cultural, historical and moral honesty. Civil Rights for homosexuals and what many people of faith believe to be Moral Truth can co-exist.

The refreshingly insightful attorney and social critic, Connie Rice of the Advancement Project, points out, "21st century civil marriage . . . is a legal construct through which we distribute property, create economic communities, determine hierarchies of rights to inheritance, legal proxies and other intimate social goods."

While I disagree with Ms. Rice's use of the term "marriage," her point should not be missed. In the body politick, civilly recognized unions serve more than just a sacramental purpose. Thus, by denying homosexual couples the right to be recognized as a civil union, we deny them a whole range of rights that are fundamental to the workings of community.

As fellow citizens, we owe it to gay and lesbian citizens to redress these inequities--now! Not 4 or 8 years from now, in another election cycle, but right now. (I almost feel strange writing the words "we . . . owe," as if these rights were ever ours to take, let alone give.)

Here's what really upsets me about this whole debate. My mother taught me that you "always leave a place better than you found it." With that kind of home-training it is difficult for me to understand how as a community we can do all this talking about this issue and not be compelled to move toward correcting the glaring injustices. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," is what Dr. King taught us. How can Blacks and Browns and the disabled and victims of sexism and ageism and every other type of -ism stand by and watch anyone fall prey to discrimination? Is it because we believe that our cause is more righteous than theirs?

Some might say, "Yes."

That's where we come to the heart of the matter for most moral conservatives. The orthodoxy of our various faith traditions generally teach us that homosexuality is wrong, sinful, unnatural, an abomination: ergo "homosexual marriage" must be morally wrong. I'm inclined to agree. And if the issue at hand were, "Should our moral code as a nation concede that homosexuality is an equally valid, healthy and honorable lifestyle?" I would say, "Fight on!"

But--you must understand this--that's not the issue! That's only the rhetoric, and I blame both Republicans and Democrats for allowing their rhetoric to disregard totally the critical issue that is negatively impacting the lives of so many.

The issue is simply discrimination. Instead of addressing the discrimination, Republicans have launched a two-prong propaganda assault to obscure the real concern. The first, a stop-gap measure, is to suggest that this is a states' rights issue. This encourages states with more conservative constituencies to take steps not to acknowledge same-sex unions sanctioned by another state. The truth is Republicans know that such inequitable treatment can not indefinitely hold up to the scrutiny of legal review.

Their greatest coup so far has got to be what has happened here in Georgia. Republicans have succeeded in getting a referendum on the ballet that reads, "Shall the [GA] Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?," yes or no. Republican state Senator Mike Crotts, who authored the resolution calling for the referendum, specifically requests in his resolution that only this language be used on the ballet knowing full well that the full text of his resolution goes much, much further. If passed, his referendum will outlaw not only the notion of "gay marriage," but what is conspicuously omitted from the ballet is the language of the resolution that makes it illegal for homosexuals to receive any rights (i.e. hospital visitation, property distribution, etc.) by virtue of being in a committed relationship and the inability for GA courts "to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship." What?! (If Mr. Crotts intentions are so virtuous, why must they be brought about through such deception?)

At the same time, Republicans have also put forth legislation to amend the US Constitution, supposedly again in "defense of marriage." The reason for this is clear. As it stands now, the 14th Amendment to US Constitution reads, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Georgia's Gay Marriage Amendment would undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, this is not a states' rights issue, and Republicans fear this. I'm no historian, but I was taught that the whole Constitutional Convention compromise regarding states' right was supposed to be in the furtherance and protection of individual rights, not in opposition to individuals--unless we are to assume that in preserving states' rights the framers of the US Constitution were seeking to preserve for themselves their own little fiefdoms where they could make and apply laws the way they wanted with no oversight. Furthermore, I'm no legal scholar, but it seems to me that the very existence of the 14th Amendment establishes the federal judiciary as the final arbiter in issues of discrimination. If states could be trusted to sort out matters of discrimination in the best interest of its people, there would never have been a need for a 14th Amendment because the states would have granted full citizenship rights to people of color voluntarily. Knowing all this, the Republican rhetorical strategy has been to use language to inflame people's moral passions while working behind the scenes to create a more favorable legal climate for their cause.

To be fair, Democrats have done little better. Their answer to the all out Republican assault on civil liberties has been to label the matter of same-sex civil unions as a "wedge" issue. Would someone please tell me what exactly that means? Aren't all political issues "wedge" issues for someone or another? And while Democrats are running around pronouncing, "Republicans are just trying to use that as a wedge issue," the Republican agenda is moving forward.

Both parties should be ashamed of themselves. And we, ordinary citizens, should be ashamed for not demanding better from our politicians. As civil servants, our politicians should be bending over backwards trying to make sure that even in defending marriage--which I'm all for--gays and lesbians are better off tomorrow in terms of their civil rights than they are today. We owe it to our fellow citizens. We owe it to ourselves. We owe to our children who, as moralists, we say we want to protect. Homophobia as constitutional law is a dramatically more dangerous legacy to leave to our children than homosexuals as full citizens.

Again, Connie Rice outlines the crux of our responsibility as fellow citizens so instructively:

"Anytime you have a group that is singled out for the stigma of unequal treatment and for the bias and irrational reactions of folks who are just "uncomfortable" but are willing to let their level of comfort determine someone else's rights, that's when [we] . . . have to step up and say, 'This makes no sense!'"

"The Global Test"

2004-10-14T08:06:00.000-05:00

I thought we were in the clear. After all, it’s been 2 weeks. But then I received this from one of my conservative friends:

Only a conservative! (They’re effective, I must admit.)

This stems, of course, from the assertion made by Sen. John Kerry during the first of only three 2004 Presidential Debates:

“No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test . . . that passes . . . the global test . . . where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

In agony, you could hear him reaching . . . reaching . . . for a simple descriptor like “sniff”. The sniff test—“yeah, that’s the ticket!” Everyone would have understood, and no one could have accused him of setting new public policy. But true to form, Sen. Kerry couldn’t find the simplest way to describe the concept known to psychologists and statisticians as “face validity”. He had to make up a whole new way to discuss the matter! In the third and final debate with Pres. Bush, Sen. Kerry almost compounded his difficulties by explaining his global test comments with the statement, “We ought to pass a sort of truth standard.” Not that I disagree with him, but such suggested legislation simply begs for even further explanation.

So John Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth—what’s new? We all know that when he leaves his script he’s likely to stumble and fumble all over himself. It’s not because he’s not an intelligent person, for we know he is. He puts most politicians to shame, I’m sure, when you have the time to sit down and listen to him. There is no doubt Sen. Kerry is extremely bright and well informed, but he is not the cleverest politician on the block. He’s just not that quick-witted fellow—like, let’s say, John McCain.

John McCain is the master of the quick quip, while at the same time coming off as if he’s given some requisite thought to the subject matter at hand. John Kerry is just not that guy. (I can’t think of an instance during his campaign thus far that “quick” would have been aptly used to describe him.) Mind you, there is no shame in being contemplative and deliberate in one’s conversation as opposed to mentally nimble and verbally quick (“Jack be nimble, Jack be quick; Jack [should have] jumped over” the hot button issue that may cause him to lose the election!). In some respects I’m the same way.

I too try to be thoughtful. Often in my thoughtfulness I see so many shades and layers to an issue, and I want to communicate them all. I want to walk people through the same mental process I went through . . . over the course of several days or several weeks of thinking about a thing. Trying to condense that process down into one powerful, moving declaration is, quite frankly, difficult. My wife got all the wit in our family. So I think I understand where John Kerry is coming from, but I digress (as Sen. Kerry is also prone to do).

In the mist of the first 2004 Presidential Debate, out of nowhere John Kerry introduces to American politics the concept of “a global test”. (Now what did he go and do that for! As if we don’t have enough meaningless catch phrases flying around in American politics already!) Sen. Kerry suggests that before the US chooses to act in a preemptive manner—somehow trying to beat the bad guys to the punch without making us the bad guys—that we should weigh the prudence of our actions by whether or not they past “the global test”.

In all fairness I think Sen. Kerry did a decent job of explaining what he meant by providing a context of his “global test” faux pas. Nonetheless, he better be glad he was debating the President that night and not the President’s political strategists, Karen Hughes or Karl Rove or even Vice Pres. Dick Cheney. Either of them would have wiped the floor with him, explanation notwithstanding. All Pres. Bush could muster at the time was a schoolyard mocking which didn’t pack much of a punch.

In the partisan politics of the moment the significance of Sen. Kerry’s suggestion of “a global test” might very easily be overlooked. But not by this political observer, oh no. The moment I heard it my interest was peaked. True to my own pensive nature I immediately began to imagine all the ideas that must have been floating around Sen. Kerry’s mind at that very moment.

For instance, Sen. Kerry may have been thinking about how cleverly the Bush Administration had manipulated its language in making its case for invading Iraq so that their rationale had more to do with how they made their listeners feel as they discussed the war and less to do with evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Saddam Hussein. Listen to the language they used. Saddam Hussein was again and again characterized as a gathering or eminent “threat.” We heard these same descriptors repeated verbatim week after week by every spokesperson of the Bush Administration. The adjective that accompanied the term “threat” seemed to grow more ominous as the weeks passed, but the use of the word “threat” was consistent. As far as I can remember, only persons outside of the Administration would use what they thought to be synonymous terminology, but I don’t recall hearing Powell or Rice or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush make more than inadvertent use of another term like—oh, let’s say, “danger”. “Threat” was their descriptor for Saddam Hussein, and they were sticking to it. There was a reason for that, and I’m sure Sen. Kerry (being the thinker that he is) knew it.

Whereas in ordinary conversation the terms “threat” and “danger” mean basically the same thing, in politics the precedent has generally been that “threat” is used to describe an adversary who if given the right circumstances and resources might do us harm, and “danger” is used to describe an enemy who is pursuing the opportunity and resources to do us harm. (We all remember the movie Clear and Present Danger, don’t we?) Thus, by continually reiterating the message, “Saddam Hussein is a threat,” the Administration was able to inflame our emotions without really being factually dishonest. Even now, instead of apologizing for emotionally manipulating the American people, the Bush Administration continues to take the approach that if we can say it enough times we came make it true—no matter what “it” is. I imagine something like this was on Sen. Kerry’s mind when he proposed the need for a “global test”.

Or he may have been considering the monstrous ramifications of our actions in light of the comments of Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, who declares, “There’s nothing about ‘preemptive war’ in their [the Bush Administration’s] strategy. ‘Preemptive war’ means something. It has a meaning in international law and is on the boarders of legality. ‘Preemptive war’ means the use of military force to counter an eminent, ongoing attack when there is no time for deliberation and no choice of means. That’s ‘preemptive war’. So if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States and the US shoots them down that’s ‘preemptive war,’ generally considered legitimate under international law and the UN charter. There’s nothing like that in what they’re talking about. When they say ‘Preemptive War,’ they mean the supreme crime of Nuremberg—namely aggression. And to disguise outright aggression—unprovoked, without pretext, without authority—to disguise that as ‘preemptive war’ is simply grotesque.” But somehow we expected to be supported in our arrogance by the league of nations. Maybe Sen. Kerry couldn’t help but be appalled by this realization when he acknowledged the need for a “global test”.

Or he may have been thinking of the frightening racial and religious implications of the US going after the leader of a sovereign nation whose only commonality with Osama bin Laden was that he was also Arab and Muslim. In one fell swoop, no matter how unintentionally, the Bush Administration had made the War on Terror look like a war on Arabs and/or Orthodox Muslims. Masquerading US aggression toward Iraq as a part of the War on Terror only lends credence to the false claims of bin Laden in the minds of frustrated and frightened followers of Islam. Not to mention the fight back instincts that kick in when anyone of God’s children feels singled out and oppressed. Perhaps Sen. Kerry empathized with the need to reassure Arab and Muslim peoples that our anger for 9/11 was not directed at them but exclusively at the terrorists who perpetrated the acts.

Whatever he may have been pondering at the moment of his “global test” gaffe, though he often takes the extended route getting to it as I have in this essay, Sen. Kerry reminds us of what it means to be a good neighbor in the global community. Not simply because we are the last super power left and don’t want to be perceived as bullies, but also because in many respects we are the creators that global community. The Roosevelts championed the formation of a United Nations. It was our persistence in opening international markets to our country’s businesses that galvanized the cause of economic globalization. Like it or not the US founded the Global Community as we know it today. And the Jewish, Christian or Islamic traditions that inform our sense of right and wrong unequivocally promote that he/she who creates something ought to take responsibility for it. That’s just good home-training.

As I reflect on my own home-training, I am reminded of The Golden Rule. My mother taught me that you should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Author Stephen Covey taught me what this actually means: one should treat as important that which is important to other people, which will incline them to do the same in return. That’s what it means to be a good neighbor; that’s what having a global test, a standard of truth is all about. If as US citizens we want the privilege of raising our families in peace, if we want to be respected abroad for the freedoms (of religion, of sovereignty, of democracy, of due process, etc.) we cherish, if we desire for the rule of law to become a universally acceptable principle . . . we must forever extend that same empathy to others.

The only difference between a terrorist and a tyrant is that the tyrant has the power that the terrorists wish they had. Maybe “the global test” is the last safeguard to keep us from becoming the very persons we fear.

Living Out Loud… Quietly

2004-10-11T17:09:00.000-05:00

I’ve had my share of recognition in life yet have never really understood or valued it.

For a few years I had the weekly privilege of appearing on local public TV. In fact, I was awarded an Emmy® for the work I did in my first year (it was all downhill from there).

As a result of my time on television (the show was MindBusters, a homework-help program) I was once given the greatly undeserved honor of being stopped in the middle of the street by a van of school children in order to sign autographs. Go figure.

I have received praise as a teacher and a principal in my brief career.

I have even made it into the local paper at least 3 times, and I am proud as a black man that not once was it for something negative.

All of this has happened before the age of 30.

Still I have never been motivated by the opportunity to gain recognition. My motivation has always been to have as meaningful an impact as I possibly could on the lives of those I work with. Thus, I had no trepidation when I was inspired to leave my job as a principal of a small private school and launch a home-school tutoring initiative to make home-school a more viable option for thoughtful parents—particularly parents of color.

I cannot say that my father has shared my lack of anxiety regarding this most recent endeavor. In fact, he has been more than a little concerned about my non-profit endeavors over the years. From early on he made it known that he preferred me to be a doctor or a lawyer or a businessman—something where the pay were good, my position were secure and I were duly recognized for my efforts. I think he saw in me the potential to be great at something, and he didn’t want me to miss out on it.

Me, on the other hand, I have always wanted to be a pastor, a teacher or some other type of social service worker. Even for the brief time that I did consider becoming a doctor or a lawyer, it was only to serve the people who could least afford it. And it’s entirely my mother’s fault.

My mother has always been a care-giver (at least for as long as I have known her). Kids often bring home animals, to which their parents sigh and shrug. As a kid, I would come home to find that my mom had invited the such-and-such family to stay with us for a while. When it wasn’t that, it was watching her go shopping for seniors (when we sometimes didn’t have much food ourselves) or riding with her to take so-and-so to the hospital (when often we were low on gas) or sharing money with another single-mom (when we seldom had enough for ourselves). For all of this and much, much more she has seldom, if ever, received any recognition, but that has never mattered to her. She has always been content just to serve: as if the opportunity to do so held within it its own reward.

So there I’ve been all my life—torn between my parents’ dreams for my life. On the one hand there’s my father who loves to see me shine. On the other there’s my mother who wants me to make a difference. Coincidentally, I now find myself tutoring two young men who represent both ends of this spectrum. One has lived his short life thus far chasing the dreams of stardom that have become the aspirations of so many. The other’s compulsion to be of assistance runs so deep that it has at times gotten him into trouble.

My own home-training has given me the divergent perspective to understand both of them. However, in order to have the depth of impact I hope to have on both of them, I could no longer teeter-totter between my parents’ seemingly opposing philosophies about life. The Good Book says one must honor both his father and his mother. What was I to do?

What I have found is that I don’t need balance; what I need is range—the ability to function out of the mix of the two philosophies that is most appropriate for the situation at hand. That will be the only way I can reach and teach both my students how to develop the range in life they’ll need. Now I see that the sometimes divergent views my parents have aren’t as mutually exclusive as they once seemed to be.

How does this small epiphany regarding my own home-training translate into practical living thus far? Well, I’m still working that out. One practical manifestation of my newly discovered range is this series of essays. I’ve decided that it would be selfish of me to put all this work into growing kids into healthy, wholesome, balanced, intelligent and mature adults, committed to making positive contributions to the world; to watch it pay off time and time again; and to not share what I’ve witnessed with others. The trifling and worthless gets plenty of press.

Even though the impact I’m seeking to have is a quiet, long-term investment, I want to live out loud with it. It’s a simple life—guided by principle, driven by purpose and filled with virtue—but from what I’ve seen it’s the only type of life worth living. It’s the only play at “greatness” I plan to make. So like the old gospel song says, “This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine… Let it shine... Let it shine… Let it shine!” Who knows? It just might catch on.

Because I Said So

2004-10-04T13:56:00.000-05:00

“I decided the right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn‘t a mistake!” —President George W. Bush

Like many of you, I was sitting there glued to my television set last Thursday evening engrossed in the first Presidential “non-debate” of the 2004 election season. I had long awaited a square-off between the Republican incumbent and his Democrat challenger. I was more than a little perturbed at the reports that actual debating had somehow been negotiated out of the 2004 Presidential Debates, but I was interested in what would become of the evening nonetheless.

Throughout the evening I remained somewhat amazed at how quickly each candidate was able to maneuver the answer to any question right back to his best stump speech catch phrases. I must admit I was also a bit annoyed at Pres. Bush’s lack of eloquence in doing so. It’s tough enough to listen to two people say the same things over and over again for an hour and a half. The least they could do is vary it up, use different words, finesse it a little.

Upon hearing for about the seventh time Pres. Bush’s derision of John Kerry’s criticism that Iraq was “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” I couldn’t help but ask myself, “What’s the big deal? Why is he bringing that up yet again? So what Kerry criticized the war? Isn’t that what opponents do? Why does it bother Bush so much?” And it did bother Pres. Bush a great deal. He spoke with increasing, audible and visible disdain regarding Sen. Kerry’s opposition to the war.

Then all at once it hit me. I began to reconstruct in my mind the statements Pres. Bush had made thus far about Sen. Kerry’s disparagement of the war:

My opponent says . . . the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what‘s the message going to be: “Please join us in Iraq. We‘re in a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the ‘wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?’” . . . I know how these people think . . . They‘re not going to follow somebody who says, “This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.” . . . You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them coerced and the bribed. That‘s not how you bring people together . . . Now, my opponent says he‘s going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He‘s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can‘t change the dynamics on the ground if you‘ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.

Everything suddenly seemed so clear. At different times I have believed Pres. Bush to be a tyrant, a dictator, a fascist, but in this moment of quite unexpected commonality I realized that Pres. Bush like myself is simply a daddy! I could hear in his statement about Prime Min. Allawi, how he truly feels about himself. He takes no real issue with the merits of John Kerry’s criticism—he never once in the debate offered evidence in rebuttal of Sen. Kerry’s characterization of the war—what Pres. Bush takes issue with is the criticism itself. How dare Sen. Kerry ever question Daddy’s decision to go to war?!

Now, of course, Pres. Bush’s aversion to being challenged is nothing new. It’s a matter of public record. It’s partly the reason his people worked so hard to ensure that the debate didn’t involve a third party candidate or any real debating. It’s the reason that protestor’s aren’t allowed within visual distance of any place the President appears. It’s the reason he is so adamant about preserving the unchecked powers that the Patriot Act has granted to our Executive Branch of government. Pres. Bush truly believes that he is on the side of right and as such should not have to justify himself. He has even said as much. In an interview with Bob Woodward he declared, “I’m the Commander. See, I don’t have to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

None of that was new. What was new for me was that—for the first time—Pres. Bush actually made some sense to me. In that brief moment I understood where he was coming from. He’s a daddy. As a daddy myself, I understand the daddy mentality when I see it (“Great minds…” and all that).

In my home, I like to think that my word is law. I love that line from the movie Crimson Tide, “We are here to preserve democracy, not to practice it.” To a daddy’s mind that’s exactly how a home should run. On days I’m feeling especially good about myself I strut around my home issuing orders, fully expecting that all who hear will fall in line because “Daddy” has spoken. Now, mind you, we call that attitude “entitlement” which is just another word for pride, and the Good Book reminds us that “pride comes before a fall.” Besides, my daughter is not quite 2 yet so she can barely understand me (but looks at me with the deepest pity in her eyes). The young folks I work with, who are often in my home, are teenagers so half of what I say barely rates for them. And my wife… well, she’s my wife. Thus, even in my home, the one place I want to believe that “because I said so” is generous as far as explanations go, even as Daddy I find myself explaining certain things, if for no other reason, to ensure that things around the house are done on the strength of relationship and not simply out of fear.

As surprising as it is for me, I can understand Pres. Bush's “Daddy mindset”. But George W. Bush is President of the American people; he’s not our daddy. This means Pres. Bush has no right to resent Sen. Kerry’s criticism of his decision to invade Iraq. That’s what members of a democracy are supposed to do—challenge each other to be better today than we were yesterday. Even as John Kerry did his fellow soldiers fighting in Vietnam no disservice by opposing that war and telling the truth about its atrocities, he does his fellow citizens (even those presently fighting) no disservice by speaking out against this current war in Iraq. If anything, speaking out renews our hope that democracy in America is alive, even if not quite as well as we would like it to be.

For me, it’s just basic home-training. Momma always said, “The world doesn’t owe you anything.” Who would ever step out of his home expecting that he were going to be treated with the same deference that his family gives him? When kids do this, we tell them they need to get over themselves. What should we tell parents—who double as world leaders—who do it as well?

Stuff We May Find We Need

2004-10-01T10:59:00.000-05:00

Back in the day (as my generation is apt to say), when a young person used to cut-up in public, the old folks would shake their heads in disgust and question the child’s home-training. Well, I’m not sure enough of that still goes on.

Over the years what’s considered appropriate behavior from children as well as adults has taken an extreme turn for the worse. People seem to act in the most outlandish manner, and then, without a hint of irony, defend their right to do so. Take for example the behavior of Omarosa on The Apprentice last year. It was deplorable. Or consider Paris Hilton. She’s famous (not infamous, mind you) for behaving like a tramp. Not that there haven’t always been people who have conducted themselves in a less than admirable fashion, but there was a time when you knew for sure their behavior wasn’t admirable. Back then if as a young lady you were attracted to the bad boys, at least you recognized they were “bad”. Nowadays there is no clear denunciation of things that are way off the mark.

We live in a society where even our leaders try to justify indefensibly reprehensible behavior. Thus, we have a US Senator who resists taking a definitive stand on any subject for fear of the repercussions running for the Presidency against an incumbent who is so arrogant that he can’t relent even when his choices cost others their lives.

There may be a lot of reasons that we find ourselves in such a pitiful state. We may be still suffering from the backlash against an American culture that for 400 years built its morality on prejudices and fears and out-right self-interested lies. We may be experiencing the natural consequences of our parents’ generation’s attempt to pretend that everything was relative. The society in which we now live may even be the result of us selling out our collective soul to the Almighty Dollar to the extent that some might credibly argue that America no longer has a culture, only an economy. At this point it’s probably a confluence of things.

There was a time when the only time you saw kids come out the house looking or acting any-ol’-kinda-way was when they didn’t have a mom or dad to show them better. Today you see little boys running around looking like little girls with pigtails in their hair! And neither they nor their parents have any shame. I know I sound like an old fogy. I would probably make my grandfather proud. Old fogy or not, there was some definite merit to how my grandfather thought and lived. There’s merit to recognizing that there is a decent way to treat people. There’s merit to knowing that there is a respectful way to talk. There’s merit to acknowledging that there is a certain way that in polite society we should deport ourselves. One of our greatest challenges is that folks have lost sight that there actually is a “certain way”. Every civilization—with the possible exception of our current one—has recognized the importance of passing on their culture—their “certain way”—to the next generation. I think we need to get back to that. I believe what we’re missing is some good, old-fashioned “home-training,” for home-training is the vehicle through which culture is best passed on.

Thus, I have begun a series of social commentaries which I will call (what else?) Home-Training. These are just my humble thoughts and feelings on things I see happening in this world in which we are seeking to successfully raise our children. It is specifically because I have children and am profoundly concerned with the type of people they will grow up to be and the world in which they will have to live that I believe I have a great enough stake to voice my concerns, comments, questions and/or criticisms.

These are simply my best surmisings. May they offer more light than heat. I do not offer them as the final words on anything, but rather may they promote the intelligent discourse surrounding the issues that affect our daily lives, instead of adding to the nonsense that currently runs rampant and, at times, seems to hold sway over our communities and our nation.

In the words of Dr. Cornel West, may together we find that “love that allows us to criticize as well as embrace, to empower as well as to correct, to listen as well as to speak, and in the end, to ennoble as well as be ennobled” by each other.

Melvin Bray, Author of Home-Training

2004-09-28T22:41:00.000-05:00

Melvin Bray, author

Education
Bachelor of Science in Language Arts Education, Oakwood College, Huntsville, AL

Educational experience includes comprehensive studies in psychology and theology.
Certifications include GA Secondary Educator, State of Georgia; Leadership Education Foundation Teen Leadership Course Leader, M. B. Flippen & Associates/Leadership Solutions; Community Organization Leader, the NonProfit Training Institute and Expert Business Consultant, SmarterWork.
Recently read books include The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Shabaaz and Haley, The Dream Giver by Wilkinson, Things Fall Apart by Achebe, Shelter for the Spirit by Moran, Reverence: Restoring a Forgotten Virtue by Woodruff

Career
Consultant in the area of humanitarian and social service programming [1999-present]
Founder & Director of Kid Cultivators, Incorporated [1999-present]
Principal of Atlanta New Century School [2002-2004]
Host of MindBusters for WPBA30 Atlanta [1997-2000]
Teacher of Language Arts at Booker T. Washington HS [1996-2000]
Student Staff Member of Young Life Huntsville, AL [1995-1996]
Teen Director/Asst. Education Director of the Boys & Girls Club of Huntsville AL [1994-1995]

Honors
Husband of Leslie, father of Jaya / Gifts from God
Stellar Teacher 1997 – 1998 and 1998 - 1999 / Booker T. Washington HS
EMMY™ for Outstanding Achievement as an Individual Performer 1997/ NATAS

2004-09-28T16:18:00.000-05:00