Growing up

Yesterday, I read a truly troubling NY Times story about a MySpace hoax that led to a young girl’s suicide. The tragedy grows as the story unfolds. A young woman thinks she has found a wonderful boyfriend, their romance blossoms via email and IM time, then he cuts her off and tells her the world would be a better place without her. The “boyfriend,” however, was the 47 year-old mother of a one-time friend of the young woman, and mom wanted to snoop on this young woman to see if she could learn why the young woman no longer wanted to be friends with her daughter. The mom and her daughter actually laughed to a neighbor that they were going to “play” with the young woman. The “play” turned tragic when the young woman hung herself following the breakup with her “boyfriend.”

What would make an adult feel such behavior was appropriate? To make matters worse, the mom doesn’t feel she really did anything so wrong since the young woman had made suicide threats before.

Popular media have talked a lot about “helicopter parents” over the last year or so. These parents seem to have decided that there is no way any difficulty is going to befall their children, so whether it’s a bad grade or the end of a friendship, they are going to make it their business to take care of anyone who would dare create any unpleasantness in the life of a daughter or son.

I certainly don’t advocate the emotional wounding children/young people “for their own good,” but the fact remains that we have to learn how to interact with people as part of our maturation process. The teachable moments following the breakup of a friendship, or the receipt of a bad grade, are places where parents can educate offspring about the nature of relationships, or empower them to deal directly with situations with persons in authority. Taking over these tasks for children just leaves them without the tools necessary to advocate for themselves throughout later life.

We don’t have a lot of information about Jesus’ childhood, but the mere fact that he came as an infant and moved through the stages to reach adulthood should demonstrate that God’s desire for humanity is that they have time to learn how to live whole and healthy lives. If we are to learn how to love our neighbors, we must understand how to interact directly rather than relying on surrogates who separate us not only from understanding others, but understanding ourselves.

Imagine

CNN recently ran a special on the wounded service personnel returning from the war in Iraq. Specifically, they were focusing on the difficulties faced by the most seriously wounded in getting appropriate disability funds. For example, soldiers with traumatic brain injury were being told that their injuries were only serious enough to warrant small payouts, even though most of these soldiers will never be well enough to hold down full-time jobs. Given that many are in their early 20s, they face a lifetime of economic difficulty.

I wish there were no reason for a standing military, but I cannot foresee a future without one. Therefore, I think we are morally responsible for considering how such a military force should be staffed. It is all too easy to say this is a “voluntary” force, as though that fact somehow makes the system an egalitarian one.

The reality is that most of the enlisted personnel are from low-income backgrounds. They join the military because they see it as a way to escape an almost inevitable future of remaining low-income wage earners. Many pundits have noted that this war is unusual in that it seems much of the country continues on without any disruption, seemingly unaware of the details of the war. I cannot see how it could be otherwise; the movers and shakers don’t have to really think about the war because it is being fought, in a sense, by proxies, young people with uncertain futures rather than the sons and daughters of captains of industry.

If a draft had been established for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have been out of those countries years ago. Middle and upper-class families would not have stood by as their children, full of promise, returned with life-changing injuries that would prevent them from seeking the lives they had longed for. But when we have stand-ins, it is all too easy to placate ourselves by saying these people want to serve, rather than admitting to ourselves that they needed to serve if they wanted to try and grab a slice of the middle-class pie.

If the billions of dollars being spent on this war effort were redirected to addressing the underlying issues of poverty, or redirected to paying educators adequate salaries so they didn’t have to choose between doing a job that could change the lives of poor children, and making enough to feed a family, or redirected to helping young people break out of the cycle of poverty, imagine how much could be accomplished. Imagine how many lives would be spared, lives of Americans as well as of Iraqis and Afghanis. Imagine how God would feel at seeing us treat all humans as persons of sacred worth.

Thankful?

I’ve continued to think about the death penalty since my last blog. Thanksgiving may seem an odd time to reflect on such a sobering subject, but frankly, I can’t think of a more appropriate time. For so many of us, the privileges afforded us because of accidents of birth - race, socio-economic status, location of birth, etc, - make it unlikely that we will experience the criminal justice system in a negative way. We privileged folks express our thanks for all that we have without seriously considering that our good fortune comes at the expense of others.

Whenever I hear someone argue that African Americans must be overrepresented in our prisons because, well, they just don’t respect the law or want to follow the law, I’m drawn back to a situation experienced by my niece. While being driven by her African American fiancé (now husband), in Winston Salem, their car was pulled over. The officer asked for ID, looked them up and down, and asked my niece if she were OK, as though obviously this man driving her must be forcing her, a Caucasian female, to be with him. The incident took place in the daytime on a major thoroughfare. If her fiancé had responded at all negatively to the stop, I can only imagine what the officer might have done; obviously he perceived a threat and it would have been a short walk from that expectation to finding a reason to give the driver some sort of ticket, or worse.

As long as situations like this continue to occur, we cannot, with any serious understanding, look at the disparity in use of the death penalty or even the basic functions of the criminal justice system, as anything other than racist. As long as that racism exists, we cannot blithely say that no innocent persons have been executed.

Likewise, we cannot look at the disparities in our criminal justice system honestly without asking ourselves what should be done to correct them. If I, a middle-class Caucasian female minister, were arrested under dubious circumstances, I could depend on any number of individuals and agencies coming to my aid. If the very same situation occurs with a young, low-income, African American male, too many people would just say, “Well, that’s just the way things are.”

Until we are willing to take a long, hard look at the racism that is still endemic to our culture, there are any number of persons whose lives will continue to be shattered by wrongful expectations or accusations.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I listened to the radio a lot over recent days because of a flu bug that discouraged me from doing anything but resting in bed! One of the pundits I heard was Michael Smerconish, a conservative radio talk show host and attorney. He was crowing about a recent article in the NY Times regarding the death penalty and its presumed deterrent effect. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html) Smerconish argues that if the (in his view) left-leaning and therefore anti-death penalty NY Times would publish data showing that the number of homicides fall as the number of executions increases, then the numbers must be true. He also argues that the study now makes it impossible for anyone to mount a rational argument against the death penalty because if 3 to 18 lives are saved (or possibly more if other studies are also correct), then we are bound to use it because of the overall saving of lives.

Saving for the moment arguments based strictly on morality, let’s look at the data presented. First, the Times article notes that “Canada has executed no one since 1962. Yet the murder rates in the United States and Canada have moved in close parallel since then, including before, during and after the four-year death penalty moratorium in the United States in the 1970s.” Given this fact, one could argue that the change in rates is based on some other variable. I’m sure there are also comparisons that could (should?) be done with other countries without a death penalty option. Secondly, we aren’t talking about a large data set; there have not been that many executions to track.

The statement Smerconish made that most troubled me, though, was his response to a caller who questioned how many innocent persons may have been wrongly executed. His reply was that there was no proven case of an innocent person being executed. This response would be laughable were it not so sad. He assumes a 100% accuracy rate in application of executions, and there is nothing associated with humanity that functions at 100% accuracy. Fallible lawyers, judges and juries are bound to have made errors, whether we can prove it, or not. Studies have shown that the criminal justice system is skewed based on race, ethnicity and class, so poor minority prisoners who were executed would not have had the resources nor been in the spotlight that would attract persons desirous of proving wrongful execution.

The most persuasive argument to me, however, is that from scripture, where Jesus never advocates the death of anyone he encounters, no matter their offense, and actively works against the stoning of a woman accused of adultery. The Sermon on the Mount is clearly anti-violence. Tony Campolo’s words ring again in my ears: What if Jesus meant what he said?

Justice, or just us?

In watching C-SPAN recently, I learned some new things about the mortgage crisis currently worming its way through our economic system. The panel was comprised of some of the economic advisers to 2008 presidential contenders.

The biggest surprise was being told that our bankruptcy laws are such that someone who owns several houses has some options in renegotiating mortgages so that homes are not lost. This is not the case for persons who own only one home. Obviously, there is nothing fair about such a system; if renegotiation options are available to some, they should be available to all.

The impact of the collapse of the mortgage market will have far-reaching effects. Studies demonstrate that when homes are repossessed, the values of surrounding properties drop. Today, the New York Times also reported on the number of renters who will be affected because the owners of their apartments may have unworkable mortgages now.

As Garret Keizer writes in a essay for “Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel,” love of neighbor as one loves oneself applies to all systems, even economic systems. If, because we own three homes, we want the chance to renegotiate a mortgage to save those properties from foreclosure, we should want a family of four owning one home to have that same opportunity. As Keizer argues, there is no where in scripture where Jesus comes upon someone in need and pronounces something like, “well, that’s just the way life is,” or “God is trying to teach you a lesson.” Jesus creates circumstances for lives to be changed for the best. We should want the same for all person.

Fire, or ice?

I had lunch with a ministry colleague today. We’ve known of each other for a long while, but had never taken time to just sit down and talk.

His church is struggling right now because, as the saying goes, “no good deed goes unpunished.” Because our local homeless shelters will soon be full to overflowing, his downtown congregation had decided to offer its gym as overflow space through these winter months.

After much work to prepare the space, they were told by inspectors that they must have a sprinkler system installed in order to be approved as a shelter. Ironically, the current shelters don’t have sprinklers, but since this is a new usage, they are being asked to adhere to new standards.

It would all be funny if it weren’t so sad. Basically, officials are saying these folks are safer sleeping outside than in a building without a sprinkler system. I’m not sure those in need of shelter would agree that trying to sleep in 20 degree weather under an overpass would be more dangerous than a warm, secure gym. The church had arranged for volunteers who would remain awake during the night, all exits would be continually lit, and no smoking is allowed. That doesn’t sound like a very dangerous situation to me.

As if the building guidelines snafu wasn’t sad enough, the families bringing children to the church’s day care also registered some serious complaints about their children being “exposed” to the homeless. Fear ran rampant; there were concerns about airborne diseases, AIDS, overall safety, etc. Of course, those staying overnight would be released before the children began arriving. Were parents afraid of their children seeing homeless people - in a church?

Maybe both the government’s and the parents’ responses are the same in one regard; both parties would like to just make the homeless disappear. Neither group seems to be very interested in getting to the heart of the reasons for homelessness. They simply don’t wish to be inconvenienced by having to deal with them at all.

Who loves you, baby?

Working on a university campus has its privileges. Among them is exposure to visiting lectures by any number of scholars, all free to the public. It’s a great perk for a pastor.

Recently, however, a speaker was scheduled who troubled me greatly. It seems that it is still acceptable to invite speakers who believe lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons are sinners until/unless they repent and become heterosexual. To make matters worse, this woman has no training in psychology or psychiatry, and yet “counsels” people out of homosexuality. I’m a bit dismayed that a university group chose to invite such a speaker.

Under other circumstances, I would not even give the name of this speaker, much less post a web listing, but her thoughts – and those of her late husband – are so sad that I decided to display them at the end of this post so that readers may check them out. If you read her husband’s post, you’ll see that this “ministry” believes same-sex orientation is a function of demonic possession.

In listening to Joanne’s story, it is clear she suffered a lot of abuse, and for that I am truly sorry. But to determine that – in her mind – a disordered sexual orientation is caused by trauma is simply ridiculous to those of us who grew up in “Beaver Cleaver” environments. Indeed, while I knew I was “different” by a young age, the only abuse I’ve ever suffered was at the hands of presumed Christians who believe that God hates me.

She clearly has a dim view of humanity, a view that assumes original sin in all its worst manifestations. I agree with comedian Eddie Izzard who argues that most sins are in no way original. If you want an original sin, he says, admit to poking a badger with a spoon. There’s an original sin.

I like the thinking of a second century pastor, Irenaeus of Lyons. He believed that God created humans as children, a not unreasonable assumption I would say, given that all the rest of us begin that way! The sin that ultimately occurred was that humanity attempted to grow up too fast, to assume it understood God without having gone through the maturation process necessary to really “get” God. A figure like Jesus, then, gave us someone who could once again show us what it meant to be made in God’s image, and he did go through a maturation process of his own.

Joanne lives in fear of a god who would have doomed her to hell if she had not stopped living as a lesbian. She could not conceive of having a relationship to God not based on fear. As a result, I think, she and others who believe this way cannot imagine treating LGBT people as humans created in God’s image. Instead, she can only interact with them if they wish to denigrate themselves, to insist that there is something wrong about them. She refused to admit there was any scientific evidence showing a genetic component to sexual orientation in humans. Unless she wants to insist that animals, too, have free will to choose a “disordered lifestyle”, then what must she do with the research demonstrating same-sex relations among hundreds if not thousands of animal species?

http://www.life-ministry.com/

http://www.life-ministry.com/thoughtsfromron.htm

Make love, not war?

Veteran’s Day prompted a story from the Voice of America regarding the visitors to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. I read with interest that some of the visitors, people too young to remember Vietnam, are interested in this memorial because of the war in Iraq. While the reporter didn’t expand on this statement, I wonder if the memorial’s architect, Maya Lin, provides a clue as to why young people would be attracted to it. Lin described the memorial’s form as one designed to resemble “a wound in the earth that is slowly healing.”

Wars wound all of humanity deeply. It doesn’t matter if one remembers a specific war because there is one dark thread that binds them all together; humans made in God’s image are destroyed, whether directly by bullets and bombs, or indirectly through the unseen scars of emotional bullets and bombs that wound the souls of soldiers, family members and friends.

Why can we not learn that killing each other isn’t a viable long-term solution to any problem? Resorting to killing means that we have failed to be creative enough and caring enough to look for other ways to resolve our differences. Indeed, it is just that recognition – that the administration moved to war on Iraq rather than relying on good intelligence and diplomatic intervention – that may be driving people to the wall – or perhaps up the wall as well!

I’ve always found it interesting that here in the US we are constantly bombarded by movies where violent acts are the glue holding together often poorly constructed plots. Yet I can not remember a film being given an NC-17 rating based only on violence. Sex, of any type, however, is scrutinized much differently. We seem to be OK with teenagers watching people be killed in myriad ways, but let’s not let them see two people make love unless the scene is carefully edited and photographed.

Hmmm…it’s almost as though we are training our population to accept the normalcy of violence. Some critics have noted that violent video games, played by millions of Americans, are quite similar to games used by the military to desensitize soldiers to killing.

I’m reminded of reading about Bonobo chimps. They have sex constantly, and there don’t seem to be too many rules about partners or positions! But what is also true is that they don’t kill each other. “Make-up” sex takes on a whole new meaning among this species.

Interesting, isn’t it, that we refer to them as animals and hold ourselves up as a higher exemplar of the evolutionary process.

Real priorities

Basically, this is a continuation of the previous post. I just realized today that Bob Jones, founder of the ultra-conservative Bob Jones University, had thrown his support behind Mitt Romney.

Understand me; I don’t have a bone to pick with Mormons as they can decide on how they want to define their faith and how that faith is lived out. But Bob Jones has, in the past, been very unwilling to compromise in choosing support of a candidate. Remember, too, that this is the same university that didn’t even allow interracial dating until a few years ago because they didn’t believe it to be biblical. Suddenly, the same man who would think nothing of chastising Mormons for following a false prophet is now willing to follow a Mormon to the presidency.

Obviously the “strongly held beliefs” of these Christian conservatives are not so strong after all. If they were, these folks would have gotten behind Sam Brownback with financial support as soon as he announced his desire to run. Instead, Sam had to withdraw. And as I noted earlier, Mike Huckabee is now the only remaining Republican candidate who really signs on to the majority of the religious right’s plank, yet there has not been a call for financial support, or days of prayer in his support, etc., etc.

How ironic, too, that in these same days when there is so much conversation about the political designs of the Christian conservatives that we find a number of the highly successful faces – Hinn, Dollar (!), Meyers, etc. – are under scrutiny for how their tax-exempt congregations have managed to leave them living lives of not only ease, but incredible luxury. If just one of these individuals had thrown his/her financial support behind someone like Huckabee or Brownback, that campaign would have been cemented.

I guess there was a greater need for a new jet or another vacation home...all in service to God, of course.

Politics

I’ve been following with interest the conversations ongoing among the religious right concerning support for the various Republican presidential contenders. So it was with some bemusement that I read about Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

This is the same Rudy Giuliani who, during his separation from Wife Two, I think, bunked with friends – a gay couple with whom he is very close. This is also the same Rudy Giuliani who looked particularly wonderful in a drag getup! In looking at the video of the two of them at the news conference, I’ve wondered what was really going on in Rudy’s mind.

I don’t wonder so much about what’s going on in Pat’s mind because, well, he’s issued so many crazy statements over the years that I don’t think many of his conservative religious colleagues find him credible, either. But he has fired an interesting first shot over the bow of the Republican ship as we move toward the 2008 elections. This man still commands the attention of almost 1 million viewers through the 700 Club, so like it or not, he has to be taken seriously.

What are the religious right folks going to do? I think they’re going to follow Pat, not perhaps in support of Rudy, but in support of trying to win at all costs. Some are already parsing statements about Mitt Romney, even as they have to also admit that they find his Mormon faith to be a cult. Others, like Pat, are arguing that national security is such a major issue that “America’s Mayor” would be better than someone like say, John McCain, who actually fought in a war (and who knows the REAL definition of torture!)

Fred Thompson has angered many religious right folks by using an argument against a constitutional ban on abortion typically used by the pro-choice advocates. He is willing to reject the abortion plank of the Republican party, a move no Republican candidate has been willing to do for at least 20 years.

Mike Huckabee is probably the only candidate who fulfills the majority of religious right’s platform, and if he can pull off some primary wins, might be able to get enough traction to create a stir. But if not, he’ll be thrown under the wheels of the bus because at the end of the day, I can’t imagine religious conservatives will sit out the election. They’ll get behind Rudy or Mitt, no matter how much they have to hold their noses.

As a political junkie I’m interested in these machinations, but as a Christian, I am saddened by the fact that these folks are willing to overthrow their stated values in order to get a political win. It’s a pragmatic approach, but not a Christian one.

It’s fine to be a person of faith involved in politics, but the key is whether one can do so without overthrowing his/her beliefs for the sake of expediency. If we cannot continue “to speak truth to power” then our Christian witness is dangerously diluted and we begin to look like any number of secular political players rather than followers of Jesus.

Food for thought

One of the readings for this week's Public Theology class is by John de Gruchy, a white, South African professor of Christian studies. It is a chapter from a forthcoming book, and looks at what it means to be a Christian - and a human.

He taps into thoughts of people like Bonhoeffer and Irenaeus, writers who have greatly influenced my thought in these past few years. Both men stress the importance of the work Christians do in the here and now. Even though they come from radically different time periods, both believed that the point of Jesus being embodied - and us being embodied - is that real life occurs in the relationships we have with each other and God, where we can exercise the attributes of God, e.g. love, self-giving, and compassion in our interactions with each other, allowing ourselves to be fully alive and fully human.

It is impossible to read any of the work of any of these men without recognizing the circumstances of life that informed them. During Irenaeus' life, persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire was taking place. Bonhoeffer watched the rise of the Third Reich. de Gruchy witnessed the violence of apartheid in South Africa.

The church, called to be the body of Christ, did not always perform well in these and other historical settings. As many have noted, Christian communities can become very self-focused and self-protecting, forgetting the radical nature of the early followers of Jesus. I've been thinking a lot about "church" because of the impending retirement of the other pastor on our church staff. As a result of this transition, our congregation will be asked to take a good, long look at itself in thinking about an eventual permanent replacement.

In recent visits with congregation members, I have often raised the question: What is Wake Forest Baptist Church to you? I have not asked for immediate responses because I really want folks to think about their answer. Are we truly committed to "the least of these", to the hungry, naked and thirsty? I think we are, but what does that commitment look like, i.e. do we give to missions programs, or go out in the community and get our hands dirty? Do we sign petitions, or do we work to change systems that institutionalize failure for those on the margins? Is our Sunday worship the culmination of our work together in community where we come together to praise God, or is it a performance of the praise of God?

It can become easy for congregations to be complacent, to be so focused on their internal matters that the work of God comes as an afterthought. Perhaps that's why so many congregations struggle with changes in pastoral leadership; the focus is on a position rather than on the work to which we are called as the body of Christ. Just some food for thought.

A drive for life?

On my way to church this morning, I saw one of the buses used by local churches in picking up children for Sunday School. The churches target low-income neighborhoods where families might not have time or transportation for getting their children to church.

Some years ago, I worked with several local children who very much enjoyed attending one such church, so on a couple of Sundays, I rode with them on their bus. I got into a conversation with one of the bus drivers, a man who had been doing this work for many years, Sunday after Sunday. His volunteer time began around 7 a.m. each Sunday morning, as drivers would gather for prayer before leaving for their routes. He often would not make it back home until 2 or 2:30 that afternoon.

I marveled at the devotion he and the other drivers (they had about 25 buses) had for their work, especially given that about one Saturday a month was reserved to travel each route, visit with the children who normally ride, and recruit others to join. Some would say, “Well, that’s a hallmark of evangelicals/fundamentalists. Their drive to save souls borders on the fanatical, and we (liberals) just aren’t like that.”

Granted, I’m not fanatical about the kind of evangelism these folks do. It is primarily born out of the belief that the world will soon end and that they must do everything they can to save souls for Jesus. I do, however, wish that liberals could catch some of the fire these folks have for giving of their time and energy. After all, they may be focused on heaven, but we should be focused on doing God’s will “on earth, as it is in heaven.”

There is a lot of work to be done in the here and now to alleviate pain and suffering, to give human faces to God’s love for the world. Instead, I find that so many liberals like to think about the needs of the world, but aren’t all that interested in getting their hands dirty. We could use a little bit of that evangelical fire for doing God’s work.

What's good for the goose...

As one of the class requirements for the Public Theology class, we were asked to write an op-ed piece. My draft of the piece was submitted a few weeks ago, and I’ll be getting feedback not only from Dr. Thistlethwaite, but from Charlie Madigan, long-time writer for the Chicago Tribune.

While I’ll share the finished piece on this blog, I wasn’t ready for the draft to make its public debut. One of the reasons I chose the subject matter of torture, though, was because it keeps coming around for discussion, and I didn’t see that fact changing at least through the next presidential election. Of course, the current reason for attention to the subject comes because of the hearings regarding the potential new attorney general, Michael Mukasey.

Apparently, the crux of the problem for Mukasey is that he’s been a good judge, but now that this White House has asked him to come on board, he’s developed a problem with being straightforward, a problem he might have considered ahead of time given some of the things this administration has said/done over its years of power. He cannot directly answer questions about a torture technique known as waterboarding because it’s quite likely that the technique has been/is being used with White House knowledge. For him to openly state that it is torture would open some of our citizens to charges of violations to the Geneva convention, at least, and allow for potential prosecution on those charges.

Administration officials seem to be unwilling to allow the rest of the world a chance to weigh in on what we Americans do. They seem to believe that as long as an American official is doing it, it must be right, a dangerous game to play considering that these same officials would not want other countries to have the same right.

If we really believe in the Golden Rule, or in Jesus’ greatest commandment, we have to be willing to treat people as we would want to be treated, to not do things to others that we would not want done to us. I would like someone in our administration to explain how he/she would feel if American personnel serving in other countries were to be strapped to a board, have their faces covered, then have water poured onto their faces such that it enters their lungs and leaves them believing they will be drowned. If our administration is OK with that, then please be honest with the American public. If our administration is not OK with that tactic being used, then they should be willing to stand up and take the necessary consequences for allowing it to be used against others. And Michael Mukasey, as a judge, should stand for the rights of all.

If he did mean it...

What if Jesus meant what he said? It’s the powerful question raised in my last post, coming on the heels of hearing a sermon by Tony Campolo. And, it is a problematic one, given that we don’t exactly know what he said versus what others had him say, or wanted him to say. But there is something we cannot overlook as we consider the question; Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire because of what he said.

To me, crucifixion makes it impossible for us to domesticate Jesus’ message into some nice, tidy, doctrinal set of teachings. He was a radical and because of that, he scared the powers of the empire so badly that they felt killing him was the best option. If he had simply been a calm, quiet teacher who “kept the peace” as he traveled from place to place, why kill him? Those in power yearn for calm and quiet in their subjects.

No, he scared people in power because his words did not leave people feeling warm and fuzzy and safe, which is often what our worship services devolve into and what our words about Jesus seek to do. (Thanks, Constantine; I think that’s one of your legacies.) Instead, his words caused people to recognize that the world as it was was not the world as it should be; reread the model prayer if you wonder.

Taking Jesus’ words seriously means, in effect, giving up the comfort of place and position that many of us hold by virtue of different kinds of privilege. Taking his words seriously means we will be uncomfortable and unsettled, and unsure of what will happen next. It also means that we’ll shake up the world and cause people to have to confront the inconsistencies and injustices present before them – if they will open their eyes…or, if WE will open OUR eyes.