Reflection: Discipleship

16 July 2006
Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time
New Church United Church of Christ
Peoria, IL

Nachfolge
Based on Mark 6: 14-29
James Semmelroth Darnell

Today’s text comes as a surprise. In telling that Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee had heard of Jesus and the disciples’ great deeds of holy power, the gospel of Mark says,that Herod thought that “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” Wait a minute! Since when is John dead? And beheaded? When did all this happen? We haven’t heard about John since chapter one and it is now chapter six of the gospel. Nothing has been mentioned of John after he baptizes Jesus, except that John that has been jailed. We don’t even know why John was jailed. The gospel writer finally tells us the backstory, almost as an afterthought. It is as if Mark has just noticed the confused looks on the faces of the hearers of the story.

Herod liked John. Now before I go much farther, lets get this out of the way—this is not the same Herod that went after baby Jesus and had all the infants in Bethlehem murdered, nor is it the Herod who later had St. James and other disciples executed. This Herod, Herod Antipas, was son of the former and father of the latter. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with this family. Herod liked John. He was interested in what John had to say, and truly thought he was a holy man. That is until John said something that Herod didn’t like. John challenged Herod about his well-known affair with his brother Phillip’s wife, Herodias. The problem here is that as inspired by John’s words as Herod was, he wasn’t willing to be transformed by them, for John called primarily for repentance. John has the prophetic audacity to challenge his ruler, the audacity to challenge the status quo. He directly commands Herod to give up his sinful relationship with Herodias. Herodias has no intention whatsoever to give up her power as the lover of the ruler of Galilee and thusly wants John killed. But Herod reveres John, and even fears him because of his righteousness, and does not want to kill John. So Herod responds like many a ruler to an agent of change, a disrupter of false peace, by banishing John, jailing him. It is important to note though, that the text makes clear that Herod also protected John the Baptist, most likely, mostly from Herodias’ wrath.

On the evening of his birthday, Herod gave a celebratory banquet. A young girl, probably a teenager, did the dance of seven veils for Herod’s enjoyment. Like many of the others in the royal court, Herod found the dance titillating and enchanting. But, unlike the others enjoying her dance, he was her uncle. Nonetheless, Herod was so taken with her provocative dance that he told her, “Ask for whatever you wish and I will give it.” Herodias, the girl’s mother convinced her that John’s head was the proper gift. So the girl asked for it. This gave Herod great sorrow—yet he was a man of his word, and ordered one of his officials to behead John.

That is the story we hear as a flashback from Mark. Herod is still afraid of John even after his beheading, suspecting that Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist. Ironically, John was thought to be the risen prophet Elijah. So, perhaps according to Herod, Jesus was really Elijah, once removed. The relationship between the cousins John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth is an important and intriguing one. We have very little information about the relationship from the gospels. English theologian Enoch Powell once argued that Jesus and John the Baptist were really the same person. James Tabor in The Jesus Dynasty, a book released this year, speculates about Jesus and John being partners in a movement, possibly both being messiahs, John, being the priestly messiah, and Jesus being the royal messiah. Exploring this relationship is an interesting study, but is not what is central to this passage.

There is a striking parallel between the story of Jesus and of John, as well as between Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate. Both Herod and Pilate were sympathetic to these revolutionaries. Perhaps both heard truth in the messages of Jesus and John. But, again neither was changed by the message. Pilate and Herod both find themselves forced to condemn the men. In trying to rid himself of guilt, by saying that he washed his hands of the matter, Pilate finds blood on his hands. Herod, as well is plagued with guilt, and afraid that Jesus is John risen from the dead.

John the Baptist and Jesus had the boldness and daring to challenge authority. They spoke truth to power to rulers of faith and government. When these rulers said, “Peace, peace; peace and prosperity,” Jesus and John replied, “You say peace, peace, but there is no peace” because there is no justice. There can be no peace when there is no justice. When the warrior costumed in battle dress stands on the ship declaring “Mission Accomplished,” they say and we are called to say, “No, it has only begun, and it should not have begun in the first place. Violence, greed, and destructive power can not redeem.” By challenging the status quo, the ruling class, the commonly held beliefs, Jesus and John risk everything, and leave behind any promise of prestige, honor, reputation, and respectability among the elite.

Rev. John Thomas asked the 24th General Synod of the United Church of Christ in 2003, “Do we love Jesus more than the lure of respectability?” What President Thomas asks is this: do we care more about being faithful to the call of Christ than the respect and honor and power of the world? Too many Christians often forget that the call of Christ is not to be popular, but to be faithful. Are we willing to risk every earthly pleasure for the sake of the gospel? Or do we care too much about being mainline, mainstream, reputable, conventional, and respectable? Are we willing to take the difficult position that might make us unpopular and excluded; the position that threatens unity? That is the way John the Baptist prepared us for. Anglican John Pridmore says
Calvary is many places. Calvary is Auschwitz, where the frail Franciscan Maximilian Kolbe offered his life for another prisoner. Calvary is the cellar in Kampala, where Archbishop Janani Luwum perished at the behest of the tyrant he had challenged. Calvary is the altar of the hospital chapel in San Salvador at which Oscar Romero was assassinated. Calvary is the dungeon beneath the Machaerus fortress where the Baptist was beheaded. These are famous Calvaries, but there are countless others, where those who will never be canonised died so that "what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions" might be completed (Colossians 1.24).

The disciples knowing the story of John the Baptist saw a glimpse of what was demanded them. They had a view of where their discipleship might lead them. The twelve had just begun healing and transforming lives. In the statement of faith of the United Church of Christ, we declare that we “accept the cost and joy of discipleship.” The disciples had just had their first taste of the joy of discipleship, that joy that Jesus brought to their lives and the lives of others. But the story of John tells them of the cost of discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great German theologian and martyr, in 1937 wrote his landmark work The Cost of Discipleship. Bonhoeffer in this work writes at length about what the discipleship must cost the follower, bemoaning what he called ‘cheap grace’:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?
Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The Church which holds the correct doctrine of grace has, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.
Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

The cheap grace of which Bonhoeffer speaks is the grace that Herod and Pilate desired, and the grace which many a Christian desires. Herod and Pilate liked what Jesus and John said until they challenged the arrangement of the Kingdom, rearranging it, putting the rulers on the bottom. They wanted grace without turning from the way of sin; forgiveness without repentance. The joy of discipleship is the Christian’s delight, but too many shirk from the cost. The disciples see in John the Baptist and eventually from Jesus where they are being called. Costly grace, Bonhoeffer says:
Costly grace is the sanctuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs. It is therefore the living word, the Word of God, which He speaks as it pleases Him. Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow Him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and My burden light."


So with the disciples we hear what discipleship may require of us, what grace costs. Are we like Herod and like what the prophet and messiah say, but want to remain content in the status quo or like the disciple who risks being an outcast in order to be faithful? Jesus bids us this moment, “Come my child, and follow me.” May we be able to say, “Yes, Lord, I know not where you will lead me, but I leave behind my boat and nets and follow only you.”

References:
John Thomas: Imagine, a tale of two ships
John Pridmore: This Sunday's readings: 5th Sunday after Trinity, Church Times
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Testament to Freedom, Discipleship

Garrison Keillor: Spiritual Guru

I've recently been renewing my interest in Garrison Keillor's work. He's the amazingly gifted humorist of the 30 year old radio show, A Prairie Home Companion, with a current movie out by the same name. Keillor's stories often have subtly religious undertones, often playing off Lutheran stereotypes. This recent interview with Keillor from Christianity Today provides some insight to his spirituality...


From the Radio to the Big Screen
Garrison Keillor has been telling stories on the radio for years via A Prairie Home Companion. Now he brings his yarn-spinning to a new movie by the same name.
by Carolyn Arends posted 06/06/06



For more than three decades, storyteller Garrison Keillor has been making audiences laugh, tap their feet and occasionally grab a hankie via his weekly public radio variety show, A Prairie Home Companion. In June of 2005 the show threw one of its good-natured jabs at famed director Robert Altman (Nashville, Short Cuts, Gosford Park) by airing a skit in which Altman was portrayed directing a film entitled People Standing Around Talking and Using Hand Gestures. A few weeks later, Altman began production to bring a fictional episode of A Prairie Home Companion to the big screen.

The film, slated to release June 9, features Altman's distinctive multi-character, naturalistic cinematic flavor and Keillor's wry and sometimes whimsical screenplay (and low-key performance as a radio announcer). The movie also boasts a stellar cast (including Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Kevin Kline, Tommy Lee Jones, Virginia Madsen, John C. Reilly, Woody Harrelson and rising starlet Lindsay Lohan), most of whom not only stand around talking and using hand gestures, but sing too.

Keillor has long held a special place in the hearts of many Christians for his humorous but ultimately affectionate and respectful treatment of religious people, especially the Norwegian Lutherans of his fictional Lake Wobegon. Christian Movies Today recently had a chance to sit down with Garrison and ask him about filmmaking, writing, and going to church. In all three areas, for Keillor the story is the thing.

How long have you been thinking about a Prairie Home Companion movie?

Garrison Keillor: I started thinking about it when Mr. Altman told me to start thinking about it. I had been working on another project, a screenplay about a small town in Minnesota, but then he wanted to make what he called a "fictional documentary"—whatever that may be—about a radio show. So I started to think about it right then. And we had our disagreements but we settled those fairly soon because I was in the driver's seat, I was the writer.

My first thing was: "I'm not going to do a Lake Wobegon monologue, I'm not going to stand up on stage and tell a story, won't work in movies." He said, "OK." He wanted to do some scenes in which actors are doing radio dramas. I said "No, no I'm not going to do that. I am going to take the characters that I use on the radio show, the cowboys Dusty and Lefty and the detective Guy Noir, and I'm going to make them characters around the fringe of the movie." He wasn't sure about that but he accepted that and I think I was right. I just don't think it would have worked to have people standing holding scripts in their hands by the microphone. To me it seems a little precious, and I didn't want the movie to be like that.

How long have I been thinking about it? I guess two and a half years.

Will there ever be a Lake Wobegon movie?

Keillor: Oh yes, absolutely. I have a couple of screenplays that I'm working on. One is based on a book I wrote called Wobegon Boy. And the other is a story that takes place there in the summer and it has a pontoon boat and it has a wedding and it has 24 Lutheran pastors and it has a man who loses his pants. And I really like it. It's sort of a knockdown drag-out comedy. And it would give you a chance to cast the parts of 24 Lutheran pastors, which would be a beautiful opportunity for middle-aged male actors in Minnesota.

I suspect as excellent as the movie is, there will be a minor outcry that there is no appearance of Lake Wobegon ….

Keillor: But it's not a Prairie Home Companion radio show. It's a show called The Prairie Home Companion, but the person I play is not me, and people can see that—I'm an announcer, not a writer, in the movie. I wouldn't know how to play a writer. The characters are fictional.

Of your work, William Lee Miller once said that "one of [your] most striking themes is what one might call a positive or benign irony: getting more than, other than, better than, you deserve." Often in your stories something really good comes out of something that seems bad. Is that a recurring theme for you?

Keillor: I don't know as I would use the term "recurring theme," but I certainly would feel good about being able to do it and being able to do it in a plausible way. I feel that among writers of fiction there is a great deal of pretentious gloominess. Gloominess is nothing that an older person has a right to impose on young people. Young people can be very pessimistic and dark all on their own without us adding baggage to what they already have. And I like the idea of being 63 and trying to get people in their 20s to lighten up.

I think comedy is truthful in that respect. I think this is so much more the truth of ordinary life than the sudden catastrophic worst moment of death coming around the corner. I'm just finishing up a semester at the University of Minnesota teaching composition of comedy, and my students have a problem with comedy. It's because of this pretentious gloominess, which they've picked up from movies and wherever. I enjoyed the same sorts of things when I was their age, but they insist that they can't write comedy and I have to convince them that comedy is another way of telling the truth.


When I read your stories and I see this positive irony, my mind is so primed for Christian imagery that I think of Joseph saying to his brothers "What you meant for harm God meant for good." Is it going too far to say that you're in some way writing about grace?

Keillor: I believe in the invisible presence of Grace. I don't necessarily literally believe in angels, which would be a sort of metaphor for the presence of grace, but yes, I see that. I guess I'm reluctant to … I would resist making them parables.

I'm just trying to pick up story elements. But some of them are sort of like parables. Last week I told a story about an enormous 16-foot long snake that lived for 30 years under someone's house without their being aware of it, and there were certainly elements of parable there. But also it was a funny story.

What is your intention when you tell a story?

Keillor: I believe absolutely in entertainment. I believe in it more and more as I get older. When I was younger, I believed in using this medium to accomplish good, but I now see this as really, really arrogant, at least in my case. I believe in entertainment as a way of keeping things in the air and you're not just sure where they land. There are wonderful moments in a script—you're kind of plodding 1, 2, 3 joke, joke, joke, and then there's a turn and it's amazing when it happens because you yourself don't know where this is going to go. I love that.

I think the audience reads intention, and the idea that I can make them think something by manipulating them, I think is arrogance on my part. If I express myself on the show I do it for my own good, and also I believe in forthright speech as much as possible. So if I want to say something, I just come out and say it.

I read a few interviews with you in Christian publications, spanning about 20 years, and in each one the interviewer has a fascination with whether and where you are going to church. Is it prying to ask if you are attending a church now?

Keillor: That's not prying at all. Yes, I go to St. John the Evangelist Episcopal church in St. Paul. My wife is Episcopalian. I went to a Lutheran church in New York, which I really loved; being Lutheran in New York City is an experience. But I like [St. John]—it's low church, it's in the neighborhood, it's a walk away. They're very friendly. My daughter loves it there; she sings in the choir and it's really lovely and low key.

Having grown up in the Evangelical, sort of free-form fundamentalist church, I love the liturgical church where we say words together that are not my words and not your words. That really means a lot to me. I grew up listening to men stand up and invent prayers and the idea was that the Spirit was leading them, but in fact they were composing them in their heads and they were writing in a kind of faux King James style—big prayers and they were impressive, and they were seeking to impress, there is just is no other way around it.

And in the name of Devotion they were doing these big set-piece prayers in which they were bringing in stories from Scripture and admonishing people—that's not prayer. But, when we kneel down and go through a list, and we begin with prayers for leaders of our country and for the nations of the world and then we come down to prayers for other churches and for bishops and priests, and then we come down to those who are in need and those who are sick and we think or we speak their names—to me this is prayer. This is prayer in which one throws oneself before God without a heroic pose.


Robert Browning said he'd always had a lover's quarrel with the church. Would you say that was true of you?

Keillor: No, I wouldn't be as grand as that. I grew up with tremendous preaching. There were itinerant preachers who I heard in my childhood who just transported me—and also sometimes terrified me. And when you grow up with tremendous preaching and you sit in a room on a hot summer day with a bunch of people and you're sort of transfixed by somebody who's teaching, it's hard to find a place where you feel at home.

Along with that great preaching came a sort of intolerance that I found unbearable when I was a kid: These were separatist people, an isolated group. So you gave up one in order to get your freedom, but then having gotten your freedom you missed what you have given up and you never found it any other church.

And so then you had to give up the idea of finding preaching, you just had to accept that you would never find that again—maybe you're too old for it (although I don't think so)—but you would settle for what you could find.

I am very, very intolerant of preaching.

Being a performer, is your bias against any kind of performance in preaching?

Keillor: So much of it is so self-conscious and so pretentious and so literary. But every so often…

I was in Louisville in a Baptist church, and I'm not entirely comfortable among Baptists, but here was a preacher who simply stood up in the pulpit and told us the story of Job. Job and his tribulations and his three friends, this is a great story, a story you could hear over and over again and if it was told simply, by somebody who's not grandstanding, who just tells you the story, you'd be fascinated by that every time you heard it. You could hear the story of the Prodigal Son every year and you'd never get tired of it. But, when you hear somebody kind of winding up an essay—I'm an essay writer—not interested!

Now you're also a film actor. Was it daunting performing on camera?

Keillor: It was different but it was so interesting to see other people working who are so capable at what they do, you kind of lost your self-consciousness. I was simply trying to be appropriate. That was my mantra: DON'T ACT. Don't be caught trying to act.

I can play a radio announcer.



Photos © Copyright Picturehouse

Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve (uncut)

In honor of Independence Day: a scene from the great musical 1776, about the writing of the Declaration of Independence. This scene features a young William Daniels (of Boy Meets World, Marcus Welby) as John Adams

Exclusive: UCC member Sen. Barack Obama discusses faith and politics


Senator Obama (D-IL) recently gave a powerful speech on politics and spirituality at a conference led by Sojourners magazine. He is a member of the United Church of Christ's largest congregation, Trinity UCC in Chicago, and spoke to UCC News following his speech. I think Obama makes some astute points, particularly about the need for religious conservatives and liberals to be in dialogue with each other.


Written by Barb Powell
Thursday, 29 June 2006

CLEVELAND -- Calling the propensity of media programmers to feature a particular religious viewpoint “unfortunate,” UCC member Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- in an exclusive United Church News interview June 28, 2006 -- said that he hoped for change.

“I think it is unfortunate any time the media does not accurately portray the true beliefs of the American people,” Obama told United Church News. “There are millions of religious Americans who are offended when their faith is used as a tool to attack and divide, and who see a positive role for the church in solving both social and moral problems. To the extent that media programmers do not give voice to these Americans, I am disappointed and hopeful of change.”

Interviewed on the heels of a major address on the connection between religion and politics at the “Pentecost 2006: Building a Covenant for a New America” gathering in Washington, D.C., Obama cited the welcome he received by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the teachings of the UCC as foundation stones for his political work.

“Just as my pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, welcomed me as a young man years ago, UCC churches across the country open their doors to millions of Americans each Sunday, and they accept, love and counsel all who enter,” Obama said. “This spirit of inclusiveness has served as a model for me in my time in the Senate, and the love for one’s fellow man that the UCC stands for is the foundation of my work.”

Obama also referred to his spiritual journey in his address at the Pentecost 2006 event, held at National City Christian Church and sponsored by Sojourners magazine and Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty. Using the speech as a call for continued dialogue and bridge-building between religious conservatives and progressives -- reminding his audience that each had work to do to achieve meaningful discourse -- Obama used his own faith story, and likened his path to becoming a member of Trinity UCC to that trod by “millions upon millions of Americans -- evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives.”

“It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values,” Obama said. “And that is why, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at -- to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own … we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.”

“I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy,” said Obama.

“When we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome -- others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends,” Obama said. “In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.”

After his electrifying address, the crowd -- estimated at 500 -- gave Obama a standing ovation. Jim Wallis, Sojourner’s editor-in-chief and host of the event, took the stage following Obama’s speech. “I hope you realize what you’ve heard here,” Wallis told the audience. “This will be an address that will be quoted for years to come.”Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund and a speaker at the conference, called the address “very, very, very thoughtful.”

Later -- during his interview with United Church News -- Obama continued his thoughts about religion and politics; specifically, the role of religious principles in reaching a balance between national security and social justice concerns.

“I believe that democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values,” Obama said. “Social justice and national security are both universal values, values that may originate for some in their religious beliefs, but are shared by us all.”

“I think it is up to individual pastors and faith leaders to help guide religious Americans in prioritizing what is in their own holy books,” he added. “But when these priorities come to the Senate floor, I can tell you that the universal values of both security and justice for all motivate my work.”

Returning to the comment during Obama’s address that dialogue must continue between all people of faith, United Church News pressed Obama, asking how to know when dialogue is no longer fruitful and when we must -- as Jesus said -- “shake the dust from our feet” and move on.“In the political arena, there is almost always time for dialogue,” Obama replied. “Even if you’ve lost on a given issue, it will likely come up again in the future. So I’m always open to engage with others, even those who disagree with my positions, as long as the dialogue remains fair-minded and respectful.”“When it strays from those principles,” he concluded, “there may have to be a little ‘dust-shaking.’”

Read the keynote address delivered by Sen. Barack Obama during “Pentecost 2006: Building a Covenant for a New America.”

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 2, 2006; Page A01

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.

"I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.
Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.

The Post's nine-month investigation found farm subsidy programs that have become so all-encompassing and generous that they have taken much of the risk out of farming for the increasingly wealthy individuals who dominate it.

The farm payments have also altered the landscape and culture of the Farm Belt, pushing up land prices and favoring large, wealthy operators. Read more here

This is ridiculous...I support farm subsidies. But for the small family farms that struggle while the government supports these wealthy landowners and corporate farms. It is awful how much the small family farm has to struggle to eke out a living. Just look at how dilapidated the farm buildings anywhere in Central Illinois or Iowa are... So often we focus on the urban poverty situation, and yet rural poverty is increasingly a major problem. Of course part of that is the lack of support for the small farmer.

The United Church/Die Vereinigte Kirche of Washington, DC, mentioned in the previous post.

www.theunitedchurch.org