Extremism in Defense of Liberty...and Oppression

Lately, I've been reading Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion by Herbert Aptheker (1937/2006).  It's the first serious (second generally) history of the rebellion Nat Turner led in 1831.  It's an incredibly easy read, and I highly recommend it.

Needless to say, many things stick out to me from the book.  More posts may come...

For now, Aptheker's writing about "the effects" (i.e. social and legal reactions) of Turner's rebellion captures my mind.  Our best guess is that 60-80 black people joined the rebellion, yet at the time whites estimated as many as 800 armed revolutionaries actively participated and nearly every southern state legislature convened to deal with whites' mass hysteria following the revolt.  After his capture, Turner pleaded not guilty (because he had done nothing wrong) and never said he was mistaken in believing God led him to revolt.  Those facts lead me to my two initial thoughts:

1. Oppressors Live in Constant Fear

We, the people willing to act for social justice, severely underestimate our influence.  One of the false lessons of the Civil Rights Era is that "a movement" requires mass numbers.  I am convinced that movement requires little more than a few people willing to move.  People imposing injustice tend to freak out when directly confronted with resistance.  I am reminded of three biblical stories.  One where Elisha showed his chief disciple the invisible chariots and horsemen of Israel.  The second, when Gideon took a very small army (~300 men) and defeated a much larger army when the enemy soldiers turned on themselves.  And a third, when three lepers marched into the enemy camp only to find it deserted because the enemy soldiers mistook their footsteps for the sound of a large army.  My point, God seems to be suggesting the power of small numbers often in the Bible.

My larger point from Nat Turner is that all oppressors live in constant fear of resistance, even resistance from groups that cannot possibly overthrow systems by force alone.  Men live in constant fear that they will be exposed as vulnerable and not masculine.  Whites live in constant fear that the logic of white supremacy (i.e. justified domination because of superior intellect/morality/numerical majority/etc) will be exposed as a lie [thus The Bell Curve, the Minute Men, the Tea Party, etc].  The rich are petrified of labor coalitions.  The Christian Right is obsessed with "creeping Sharia law." Bush began a war against terror itself.  

We don't often pay enough attention to the fact that emotion is an integral part of every social structure.  Specifically, fear is an inevitable part of every oppressive structure.  That means that one of the contradictions inherent to any system of organization is the emotional vulnerability of the dominant group.  Oppressed people thus always have a structural avenue of resistance, even in the most oppressive and closed systems.

Nat Turner demonstrated that.  For months and even years after his rebellion, whites openly claimed that they could not sleep, were filled with anxiety, and were in failing health due to fear of slave rebellions inspired by Turner.  In fact, several southern governors explicitly stated mass anxiety among whites as the reason for calling emergency legislative sessions in fall of 1831.  This mass anxiety despite there being no clear evidence that a single subsequent rebellion was directly connected to Turner or his co-conspirators.  That oppressors were convicted by their own guilt is proven by two facts: 1) Turner "passed-over" the houses of whites who "did not think themselves better than blacks."  His army only targeted open bigots and slaveowners; and 2) there is some evidence that many poor whites supported the rebellion.  Whites were not afraid they would be targeted for being white; they were afraid because they knew they were targeted for being active oppressors.


2.  Retrenchment Is Not Evidence of Failure

After the Turner Rebellion, whites reacted extremely harshly.  They not only assassinated Turner and his fellow rebels, they also mutilated and murdered innumerable black people (slave and free) with and without trials.  Whites killed at least as many innocent black people as the total number of rebells in Turner's army.  In some cases, white militias lynched black people on the mere accusation of white overseers.  Whites tortured, lynched, and murdered black people without any evidence or even reason for suspicion in states as far from Turner's rebellion (in Virginia) as Louisiana and Kentucky.  Whites tortured innocent black people to the point that whites themselves began criticizing the brutality and fearing they would lose the moral ground in the slaveholding South!  [I cannot imagine the savagery that would move slaveholders even that small step toward compassion.  Our black ancestors are beyond heroic!]  Bunches of municipalities and southern states passed a host of laws tightening restrictions on free blacks and making life even more difficult for slaves.  ... None of this is a surprise, but it leads me to my next point...

For black people, the most obvious immediate result of Turner's Rebellion was increased white oppression.  In other words, black people's lives got worse; in some cases much worse.  Turner, his fellow warriors, and potentially hundreds of uninvolved black people were tortured and killed by whites.  In addition to the rampant mass murder, black people lost [i.e. whites took] the few civil rights they had.  Black people couldn't even legally have church without whites present.  Again, biblical parallels come to mind.  The Egyptians made crazy laws against enslaved Israelites (e.g. making bricks without straw) out of fear of growing Israelite numbers and fear of slave revolt.  Moses left Egypt after reacting to Egyptian cruelty, and the Egyptians reacted harshly to subsequent Israelite resistance once the Exodus began.  ... I bring up the Bible to show that the patterns are old and unchanging.  Oppressors oppress, get scared, generate resistance, clamp down, and ultimately lose.

And here, I think, is another false lesson we have drawn from the Civil Rights Movement.  Activists hesitate too often for fear that their efforts will make life harder for the very people they are fighting for.  This fear among activists is one of the main causes of "analysis until paralysis" and splits among coalitions.  We should understand that activism never causes oppression.  Oppressors do that.  We should not assume that harsh retrenchment is a sign that we did the wrong thing.  Often retrenchment is a sign that mobilization meaningfully challenged oppressors.

Again, the immediate aftermath of Turner's rebellion was death and increased white-on-black terrorism throughout the South.  Not only so, but nearly all the southern abolitionist organizations disappeared following the rebellion.  They reformed in the North, but that meant the thousands of free blacks in the South and millions of enslaved blacks had much less local white support after 1831.  But nearly 200 years later, we see that Turner's Rebellion was a positive and critically important part of the liberation struggle.  If we judged him by the lives of black people in October and November of 1831, we would conclude his efforts a failure on every level.  Now we praise Turner and name city parks after him (e.g. in Newark, NJ).  We recognize Nat Turner, John Brown, and other antislavery rebells as national heroes--certainly heroes among people of color.

Selah.

On Salvation, Spirit, and Grace

I feel compelled to write a note on God's lessons to me about salvation and grace.  (As a side note that has no clear doctrinal connection to this post, Bishop T.D. Jakes preached a great word about dimensions of grace today.  He worked from the story of Hannah, Samuel's mother [I Samuel 2:18-21].  I recommend his lesson to everyone.)

In my quiet times and through years of trials and therapy, God revealed a lesson I have never before understood.  This is my note on it.  Please feel free to comment with additions/suggestions/reactions.  This is as much a recording of the lesson for my future relearning as it is the opening of a conversation.

The lessons are in the Gospel of Matthew:

And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the [fn]leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." .... "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the[fn]leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 6:6,11-12).  

The Pharisees and Sadducees are the teachers of the Old Testament Law.  The Pharisees are the "people's priests," whose sensitivity to the average person and avowed doctrines (e.g. resurrection from the dead, belief in active angels) resonate most closely with our own.  The Sadducees are official priests who run the temple and control Jewish government during Jesus time.  Their privileged position influenced their doctrine (e.g. no resurrection) and promoted abusive temple policies.  As Paul's experience demonstrates, the two camps were enemies.  Nevertheless, Jesus groups them together as problematic because their commitment to focussing on law rather than spirit blinded people to the gospel.  Their kind of legalism is described as "leaven" because the effects of even a little yeast seep through and affect the entire loaf of bread.  In other words, even a little legalism corrupts the gospel of Jesus.

Having warned us about the wrong perspective about the Law and means for salvation, Jesus doubles down on the point:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, [fn]Elijah; but still others, [fn]Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  He [!] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are [fn]the Christ, the Son of the living God."  And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon[fn]Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  (Matthew 16:13-17)

Jesus's question highlights the failings of legal teaching on two levels.  First, the Pharisees and Sadducees are both factually wrong.  They fail to correctly identify the Messiah.  (They also fail to identify John the Baptist as the Elijah who was to precede the Messiah. [Matt. 17:10-13])  Of course, even from a traditional Jewish perspective, failing to identify the Messiah is a HUGE problem.  Second, and most central to the lesson Jesus is teaching, is that the correct answer--that Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the Son of the living God, the Anointed One--is revealed to the disciples by Spirit (i.e. through the Father who is in heaven) and not through legal teaching.  The two failings of the teachers of the law are connected.  Failure to learn through spiritual revelation produces incorrect doctrine--even to the point of missing the single most important thing in Jewish teaching, namely the coming Messiah.  The failing of law is total.

Jesus reinforces the point by immediately anointing Peter on the basis of spiritual revelation ("this is the rock upon which I will build my church" [Matthew 6:18]) and then immediately rebuking him when Peter falls back to traditional legal teaching about what the Messiah will do ("Get behind me Satan..." because Peter expects political revolution and rejects Jesus's predictions of his crucifixion [Matthew 6:22-23]).

Jesus again illustrates His points brilliantly through His transfiguration:

Six days later Jesus [!] took with Him Peter and[fn]James and John his brother, and [!] led them up on a high mountain by themselves.  And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.  And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.  Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three [fn]tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"  When the disciples heard this, they fell [fn]face down to the ground and were terrified.  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said,"Get up, and do not be afraid."  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.  (Matthew 17:1-8) 

Through His transfiguration, Jesus proves: 1) He is neither the Law (Moses) nor the Prophets (Elijah), but the Messiah.  Jesus description of Himself, revealed to the disciples spiritually though hidden from legal teachers, is factually correct; and 2) Reliance on teachings of the Law will mislead disciples.  Peter's reaction to the transfiguration, namely wanting to build a tabernacle in each figure's honor, is appropriate given the Mosaic tradition.  But, without shaming Peter's proposal of worship, God nullifies Peter's legal reasoning by ending the transfiguration and thereby eliminating the possibility of building a tabernacle.  This is because: 1) Mosaic Law and Prophetic teaching are foreshadows of the Messiah, not His equals; and 2) reliance on legal tradition, even for insight on how to worship in this instance, was not the mode Jesus wanted to teach.  Jesus was emphasizing spirit and belief, which the Father emphatically supported, "Listen to Him!"  That's why, Jesus immediately follows the transfiguration with teachings about faith the size of a mustard seed and faith that moves mountains (Matthew 17:20).  


And then Jesus gives us a beautiful and fundamentally transformative teaching about spirit and faith: 

When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the [fn]two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the [fn]two-drachma tax?"  He [!] said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"  When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are [fn]exempt.  "However, so that we do not [fn]offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find [fn]a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."  (Matthew 17:24-27)

"Those who collect the two-drachma tax" are empowered by the Sadducees and are connected to temple worship.  The tax was a traditional sacrifice for entering the temple for festivals, holidays, and regular worship.  Peter--still not completely understanding Jesus's spiritual, rather than legal, emphasis--is slightly intimidated by the temple officials asking him if Jesus is an irreverent Jew, breaking the Law by not paying the tax.  Peter insists that Jesus follows the law and pays the temple tax.  


Because Peter does not recognize the spirit versus law conflict into which he has waded, he does not feel compelled to bring the question to the Christ.  Jesus has to initiate the lesson.  Jesus asks, "From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"  And receiving the obvious answer, Jesus gives the point, "Then the sons are exempt."  In other words, Jesus is saying that our judgement and behavior should no longer be determined by law but by our relationship to God.  Just as earthly children receive grace-based, not law-based, treatment from their parents, so we as God's spiritual children receive grace-based, non-legal treatment from God.  Jesus is saying to Peter and us, if we understand our relationship to God, then the questions and teachings of law-based folk are revealed to be obviously silly and irrelevant.  The law exists, yes.  It teaches a way to approach God.  But it's crazy to think God's children would be subject to law!  We approach through grace and love, just like earthly children do.  


Then Jesus teaches Peter and us a more excellent way.  Jesus is not interested in causing debates or fights with the teachers of the law, but He is also not going to insult His relationship with God by acting as though He is bound by legalism.  Therefore, Jesus instructs Peter to miraculously get a coin out of a fish's mouth and pay the tax with that.  The miracle of the fish containing a coin shows that God the Father confirms Jesus's teaching and the special relationship we have as sons and daughters.  And here's the part I like most, Jesus specifies that the fish will contain enough payment "for you and Me!"  Hallelujah!!!  Jesus is making clear to us that the lesson is about spirit, not law.  Jesus does not claim exemption based on his sinlessness (i.e. being law abiding), but rather He says that we all can approach God without law because of our status as His children!  And all of this is confirmed by the fact that Jesus issues this teaching and calls Peter to abide by it before He has died and paid the blood penalty for our sins (which would have classified us all as exempt based on conferred sinlessness).  The relationship with God was granted to Peter through spirit and faith, just like Abraham was justified through faith.  God is consistent and beyond generous!  [Cue the organ!  Do your praise dance!]  


And so that we don't miss the point, Jesus doubles down again with the ultimate demonstration: 

At that [fn]time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"  And He called a child to Himself and set him[fn]before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you [fn]are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me.... (Matthew 18:1-5)

The disciples now understand that Jesus is offering a totally new paradigm from the Law teachings they grew up with, but they don't know how the new paradigm of salvation works.  So they ask an old paradigm-based question to explore the dimensions of the new paradigm of spirit and grace, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"  Jesus capitalizes on the moment to reemphasize that spirit and faith are all that matter.  He does this by using a literal child as an illustration and says, "...unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven...."  The key here is that children are intellectually incapable of understanding and affirming doctrine.  If Peter, the disciples, and people generally were saved through law or doctrinal affirmation--even the affirmation that Jesus is Messiah as made by Peter in Matt. 16:16--then Jesus would have had to use an adult who had correctly identified Him as Christ for the illustration.  But the entire illustration hinges on being "converted and becom[ing] like children" and thus leaving the adult world of affirmations and doctrinal analysis.  Instead we are to take on the characteristics of children, namely the spirit-based wild-eyed character of faith and belief, that is universal to children.  As children, we are perfectly capable of believing the wildest things (e.g. Santa Claus) without the slightest hesitation or doubt.  Children are perfectly trusting (though they often have spiritual discernment about evil people).  Children are completely disinterested in doctrinal debates.  God has unfettered access to their minds and hearts.  That is the character God calls us to adopt as adults.  It is not easy, especially in a culture like ours (deriving from the Greek influence Jesus also lived under).  It requires humility and getting comfortable with uncertainty.  But it is the only way God--whose ways "are beyond our ways," whose "judgments are beyond searching out [and whose ways are] unfathomable!" (Romans 11:33)--can reveal to us the things of His Spirit.  God's thoughts and ways are "beyond searching out" and "unfathomable."  In other words, there is no amount of studying or teaching or listening or church or Bible study or even imagination that can reveal to us the ways and insights of God.  We can only begin by emptying ourselves, becoming like little children again, and letting Him introduce us to supernatural Christ-ness.  


Oh My God!  For an intellectual like me, this is a tremendously difficult teaching.  But praise God!  I'm looking forward to trying to live it out.  I can't wait for all the things God will show me and the things God will do.  I will be meditating regularly in an effort to release the old wineskins of traditionalism and legalism in favor of the new wineskin of spirit and Christ-ness.  I am as clueless as anyone else on what to do or how to do it.  


I'll end with an invitation.  As the old preachers say, "Won't you come?"  

Justice of the Lord

Reading Habakkuk, parallels between Habakkuk's description of the Chaldeans (i.e. Babylonians) and the U.S. are inescapable for someone who works in social justice.  Equally inescapable is the relevance to our current condition of God's warning concerning the future of the Chaldeans.

Habakkuk opens by pointing out that injustice runs rampant in Israel, and calling on God to faithfully enforce God's law and end unrighteousness.  God responds by saying God will punish Israel by letting the Chaldeans conquer Israel.  A baffled Habakkuk questions God, noting that the Chaldeans are a wicked people.  The Chaldeans build their nation by conquering and dominating other peoples.  They do not worship God.  In fact,

[T]heir justice and authority originate with themselves (1:7)...[and their] strength is their god (1:11)  [The Chaldeans] bring all of them [other nations and people groups] up with a hook...and gather them in their fishing net.  Therefore, they [Chaldeans] rejoice and are glad.  They offer a sacrifice to their net  Because through these things their catch is large, and their food is plentiful.  Will they therefore empty their net and continually slay nations without sparing?"  (Hab. 1:15-17). 

In other words, the Chaldeans are unworthy of God's blessing because they built their nation on conquering other peoples.  In modern language, the reference to Chaldeans "offering a sacrifice to their net" means they set up a military-industrial complex, devoting public funds to an ever-expanding and dominant weapons and war-dependent industry.  Questioning God's supposed commitment to justice, Habakkuk asks, "will they empty their net and continually spare nations without sparing?"  In other words, "how long will you let them get away with this, God?!"

This parallels the United States in obvious ways.  White colonists and Americans built this nation on the conquest of other peoples and theft of their resources.  A quick rundown: genocide of Native Americans and theft of their land.  Every inch of the U.S. is stolen land.  Then, the theft of African peoples and theft of their labor and humanity of their lives (i.e. American slavery).  Later, the violent conquering of Mexicans (remember what happened after the Alamo?) and theft of Mexican land (from which I write this blog).  Finally, the coercive domination of Asian immigrants (initially limiting Asian immigration to men, which denied immigrants access to their families and the opportunity to make families here; Europe's global reach made Asian immigration to the U.S. barely semi-voluntary). 

Like Babylon, the U.S. "offers sacrifices to its net" in the form of the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about.  If you haven't already, please watch the movie, Why We Fight.  You will learn that weapons-producing companies placed parts of their businesses in every congressional district so that they can strong-arm Congress into steadily increasing military spending by claiming that any cut in spending is a "threat to jobs."  No congressperson is safe from that critique.  You might also notice that the most authoritative news programs (e.g. "Meet the Press") are sponsored by Boeing, which makes military planes.  You cannot give news that challenges the need for war if weapons-producers are your primary sponsors.  The people of the United States cannot make informed decisions about wars if they only hear from the weapons-producing industry.

God responds to Habakkuk's complaint by assuring him that God is just and will punish nations who behave like the Chaldeans.  Consider God's answer in Habakkuk Chapter 2:

Write down the vision and make it plain...For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end, and will not prove false (2:2-3)....Because he [arrogant nations like the Chaldeans] is as greedy as the grave and is never satisfied, he gathers to himself all the nations and takes captive all the peoples.  Will not all of them taunt him with ridicule and scorn, saying "Woe to him who piles up stolen goods and makes himself wealthy by extortion!  How long must this go on?  Will not your debtors suddenly arise?  Will they not wake up and make you tremble?  Then you will become their victim.  Because you have plundered many nations, the people who are left will plunder you.  For you have shed man's blood, you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them.  

 This is a stark warning to Americans.  Even the child molester and slaver, Thomas Jefferson, understood this point:

For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference for that in which he is born to live and labor for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as it depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his miserable condition on the generations preceding from him....And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed from their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God just; that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference (Notes on the State of Virginia Query XIV).  

 Jefferson, like Nebuchadnezzar, had brief moments of sanity in which he recognized God's justice and his own condemnation.  In his only book, Jefferson both advocates for slavery and anticipates God's wrath on the country for this (and I would add more) injustice.  Americans must learn these lessons and engage in social justice now before God is required to honor God's word and exact justice.  I am afraid that Americans will follow their founding father's example.  Habakkuk and Jefferson call to us from the grave, telling us to pursue justice.  Hopefully, we will not be like the brothers of the tortured rich man.  The rich man, a former oppressor suffering in hell, was denied even temporary work-release from his jail because Abraham realized that no message would convince his fellow oppressors to abandon oppression.  As Abraham said, "They have the law and the prophets...If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

We, the church and body of the living God, are those who are supposedly convinced by one who rose from the dead.  We must demonstrate our faith by turning from oppression to social justice, and pray God and those we have oppressed grant us mercy.  Let us heed and make true the words that another prophet, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached 45 years ago this week: "How long will prejudice bind the vision of men....How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?....It will not be long, because truth crushed to earth will rise again.  How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.  How long? Not long, because "you shall reap what you sew."

Sociologizing Sin

[I wrote this a few years ago. It wouldn't be identical if I wrote it today, but I still find it interesting. Hope you do, too!]

Sociologizing Sin

Coming to understand my place in the world has caused me to completely reconsider my understanding of sin. Recognizing myself as a frequent oppressor of others--whether consciously or unconsciously, individually or corporately, personally or through social structures, intentionally or unintentionally--I have come to realize that avoiding sin is pretty much impossible. Depending on your theology, one of two conclusions will be the logical result of the insights I am about to share. Either one will take this message to further demonstrate our constant dependence on Jesus' payment for our sins and lead a more relaxed Christian life that does not consider it possible to never be guilty of sin ever again (this belief leads many to modern aesthetic practices and is burdensome on us all, especially when it is politicized). Or one will conclude that a personal relationship with Jesus is a poor and illogical solution for a crime that is both individual and corporate. One may futher conclude that judging people as individuals, rather than as social groups, and sending individuals to heaven or hell is fundamentally unfair. I have not thought down these paths yet. Neither am I steering one direction or the other. I simply want to share how understanding my social identity and status has broadened and deepened my understanding of many concepts, including sin and the intractiblility of our dependence on God for forgiveness.

Before I fully understood and considered my social identity, I basically boiled sin down to dichotomous, individualized actions and decisions. Each option presented to me was essentially a choice between doing what God wanted (e.g. telling the truth) or sinning against God (e.g. lying). Regardless of where one stands on the doctrine of original or imputed sin, after salvation, sin is generally understood to be an individualized choice.

But now I think of things differently. I know that I daily actively oppress and/or benefit from being a member of a group that is oppressing others. For instance, I know that my ability to attend graduate school inexpensively is dependent upon Texas A&M University and the state of Texas deciding to financially exploit custodians and other low-wage workers at the institution. I know that the relatively low gas prices I enjoy as an American are due to the American government using its military and financial might to pressure and exploit people in oil-producing countries. I know that, as a man, I participate in and/or fail to stop sexist activities (including joking and objectifying women as sexual objects rather than whole human beings). In so doing, I help to create the social climate we have now. One in which most women experience sexual harassment at some point in their lives. If memory serves, over 20% of American women have experienced some sort of sexual assault, including rape. I am at least partially responsible for that.

These are just a few examples. Just because I don't have the nuclear codes, doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my government's oppression of people around the globe. We all know very well that if the US engaged in fairer military and economic practices and the American economy suffered, the great majority of us would vote for candidates who would restore "the good old days." We would pretend not to know how they did it.

As an active participant, passive (or intentional) beneficiary, and structural party to the oppression and exploitation of countless others, I am constantly in a state of sin from which I cannot and do not extricate myself. No amount of physical, mental, or spiritual self-chastisement will free me from some exploitative relationship to others. And even if I could find a way to have no structural or relational exploitative power over any single other person on the globe, I would not do it. Sin has its enjoyable season.

I never knew how much I was asking God to forgive when I asked God to remove my sins from me and impune them to Christ Jesus. I cannot imagine how much sin of mine God is constantly forgiving (or storing up, if God is judgemental and Christianity is untrue). It's frightening and humbling all at once. For me, it is a beginning to understanding grace, mercy, forgiveness, and the character and omnipotence of God. Forgiveness of this magnitude is far more impressive to me than any of the miracles mentioned in Scripture. No human can even imagine giving that kind of grace.

This is by no means an excuse for our sinful actions or for not trying to end oppression of all kinds, everywhere, regardless of the sacrifice.

It is actually an attempt to bring these kinds of sins to our attention and to bring glory to God for God's mercy, grace, and love.