Over the weekend, I got my absentee ballot in the mail: my ticket to participation in the Great American Democracy. I had thought that my participation in the Ohio primaries -- scheduled in the month of March, some time after the majority of the states have already held their primaries -- would be a formality more than anything. Which wouldn't actually have bothered me all that much. I've come to take pride in these "formalities," especially now, as an American citizen living abroad. But after significant gains over the past weekend for Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, it seems like the race for the White House is still far from finished. Perhaps my participation in the Ohio primary is not so meaningless after all...

So does anyone have any great advice for me, as I consider my options in completing my absentee ballot?

In particular, if there's anyone else reading this blog from Richland County, Ohio, I would be much obliged for any information for me for Member of State Central Committee, Mansfield (19th District) -- between Jeff Wilkinson and Richard A. Cochran.  That particular race isn't getting much coverage here in Amsterdam.  :-)  And believe it or not, aside from a couple of other tax levies (which are pretty self-explanatory), this is the only other  real choice on the ballot, outside of the presidential primary.

I've gotten a very interesting perspective on the American political system, ever since I moved to the Netherlands... I find myself simultaneously fascinated and revolted by the process.  I can hardly get enough of internet news coverage about American politics -- and yet I couldn't be happier that I'm not actually living in the midst of the multi-sensory cultural campaign frenzy (in the USA).  The current campaign for the 2008 presidential election has been particularly interesting to observe.  I don't know if I could say label it as "exciting," "encouraging," or "hopeful"... but I could definitely say that it's interesting.

Do you know who you're going to vote for (or who you would vote for if you had the opportunity)?

My opinions have still not completely solidified (Ohio doesn't hold its primaries until March)... But other states are beginning the process this week (with almost half of the states voting by early February).  I've found a useful Campaign Match Game on-line.  It certainly doesn't reflect the full spectrum of issues in the campaign -- but I like its graphical feature, the way that you can weight your answers to emphasize which issues are more important to you, and the fact that candidates are not separated by party.  If I can get 10 people to comment to this post, listing their top three candidate matches (not edited to favor a candidate toward whom you are already predisposed), I'll post my top three choices as well (which actually kind of surprised me)...

I've been informed by my sources (The Joyful Anticipation) that today is to be a blog action day, where supposedly everyone writes a post about the environment in order to get the whole of cyberspace debating green issues.  So I figured I'd go ahead and add my thoughts to the mix.  For quite some time, actually, I've been trying to figure out:  what is a Christian response to environmentalism?  Are we supposed to be the greenest of the green?  Or are we supposed to point to a different definition of "saving the planet?"

I grew up in the American Midwest -- that vast clump of "red states" -- where conservatism, common sense, and Christianity were all inextricably linked to the Republican party (supposedly because of moral issues like abortion and euthanasia) and thus inexplicably divorced from environmentalism, which was considered Democrat territory and thus strictly off-limits.  Environmentalism was better left to those starry-eyed, middle-aged hippie eco-freaks out in San Francisco -- and not something in which to tangle our Midwest sensibility.  Unconsciously, I developed a distaste for the idea of environmentalism during my growing-up years.

But as I got into my university days and started developing as a free-thinking adult, I started to re-examine my views on environmentalism.  My friend Ben, who was studying resource management or something like that, sold me on the virtues of recycling (I still remember the green bookmark -- a gift from Ben -- which was stuck in my Bible for years:  a BGSU falcon logo, surrounded by three curving arrows and the words "Reduce - Re-use - Recycle") and was probably my first example of a Christian environmentalist.  Slowly but surely, I started to think greener, act greener, and identify myself more with green causes.

And then I moved to Europe -- which as as sure-fire a way to accelerate that process as I know.  I started to befriend militant environmentalists.  Our church started to grapple more with its role in conservation, clean water, clean air, social responsibility, and so on.  I started to see more and more of the bizarre inconsistencies in the way that the political deck had been shuffled in America -- and I tried to develop my own convictions on green issues.  It's a process that continues to this day...

I've come to see that environmentalism can be very compatible with following Christ.  In fact, the Bible tells us that we are specifically designated as managers of the earth's resources -- caretakers of Eden and its aftermath.  Jesus himself explicitly states that we will be critically evaluated for the ways in which we manage the resources which have been entrusted to us, and I for one cannot see why this would not apply to natural resources as well as financial resources or spiritual resources... And perhaps most importantly, we are repeatedly commanded to "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- which certainly must also be considered on the environmental level, as every natural resource I use is one less unit of resources that can be used by others, by my neighbors.  If my carbon emissions can be linked to patterns of drought and famine, or to melting ice caps that could potentially drown entire civilizations -- then I need to be as conscious, careful, and caring as I can be, in view of these far-flung "neighbors" that can be affected by my resource management.  Jesus compared himself to a green tree... He illustrated the Kingdom of God to be like a sprawling green tree offering shelter to the birds of the air... So clearly, there is a case for Christians to identify with green causes.

Still, I wonder if we also need to be careful and stress the importance of balance in our thinking about green issues.  Sometimes, I worry that we might go too far in our shuffling of priorities.  At times, since adjusting to a green kind of Christianity here in Amsterdam, I've seen environmentalism become almost like a new kind of Pharisaism.  Occasionally, people will cast judgment on those who are "wasteful," without considering any extenuating circumstances that might be at play.  If not carefully considered and submitted to God, environmentalism can become an exacting legalism -- not unlike Jewish dietary restrictions which plagued the First Century church... At times, the green lifestyle can almost become a "different gospel," something to please men more than God, something taking our focus away from the true message of God's Kingdom and replacing it with a more narrow-minded view.  When we get too caught up in green legalism (or any kind of legalism), we can so easily forget that "It is for freedom that Christ set us free."

Obviously, there is a need for balance.  We need to be mindful of God's incredible grace and mindful of our responsibility to serve as Christ's ambassadors.  The New Testament book of 1 Corinthians is full of advice for such situations.  Above all is the refrain:  "'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is beneficial.  'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others" (1 Corinthians 10:23-33)... We need to keep the focus on loving each other.  "'Everything is permissible for me' -- but not everything is beneficial.  'Everything is permissible for me' -- but I will not be mastered by anything.  'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food' -- but God will destroy them both" (1 Corinthians 6:12-13)... We need to keep everything in perspective.  In the end, it seems that we need to remember:  "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.  Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether environmentalists, economy-shoppers, or the church of God -- even as I try to please everybody in every way" (1 Corinthians 10:31-33, NIV with minor adaptations by Eric Asp).

When considering green issues, it seems that everyone could benefit from considering the practical challenges of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10 (read these scenarios as if they were talking about organic / non-organic food instead of non-kosher products or meat sacrificed to idols; it's a conversation that I've heard many times in Amsterdam!).  Romans 14:1 offers such a beautiful reminder:  "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters..." And I think it's particularly interesting to note that it doesn't say which side is the "weak" side and which side is the "strong" side.  Perhaps old-school Christian conservatives need to offer such grace and acceptance to "those crazy environmental whackos."  Perhaps green Christians need to offer such grace and acceptance to "those fat-cat resource-mongers."  I'm not trying to defend or prosecute anyone here.  I'm just wondering if we could stand to think through these things more critically and less dogmatically...

Environmental issues are important, and they must be carefully considered.  Like I said, I'm still learning and growing and developing my own convictions on things.  But even now, going along with the upshot of 1 Corinthians 10, I know that we must carefully consider how we can set an example for others to follow, as we follow the example of Christ.

Cross-cultural living -- having a footing on both American culture and European culture -- can offer some interesting and surprising perspectives on world events.  The news coverage of the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, with General David Petraeus (the top U.S. commander in Iraq) and Ryan Crocker (the U.S. ambassador to Iraq) reporting the situation in Iraq to the houses of Congress, is a prime case in point...

I read the Dutch newspaper first this morning (the NRC Next's cover article, to be specific).  According to this news source, the results of the hearings have been unexpectedly positive.  The general tone of the article was incredibly optimistic (especially considering that European media have been critical of the American policy in Iraq since the first day of airstrikes against Baghdad).  The article basically insinuated that Petraeus was the one true voice that could be trusted on the relative "success" of the Iraq campaigns, and that Americans were generally united in their respect of his integrity in reporting from the front-lines.  By the time I was finished reading the NRC Next article, I got the feeling that a corner had somehow been turned... that maybe these Americans weren't so stupid after all... that maybe something good could come out of the American intervention in Iraq.

Then, within the same hour, I read an American newspaper's take on the same events (the USA Today's on-line edition, to be specific -- which, at the time, placed the story as a third-tier headline, beneath the news of September 11th memorials and football scores).  And acrroding to this news source, the results of the hearings were overwhelmingly negative.  The tone of the article suggested that Washington was more gridlocked than ever on American war policy and that the proceedings on Capitol Hill had been more or less a "dog and pony show" (I believe that was an exact quote from one of the articles that I read this morning, though I cannot now find the same article on-line).  By the time I finished reading the USA Today article, I got the feeling that things were as much -- if not more -- of a quagmire than ever before, and that hope was nowhere in sight.

To say the least, they were very different perspectives.

What's most unusual, though, is that I would have expected the treatment of the story and the attitude of these news sources to be completely reversed.  I always expect the criticism of the Iraq war to be twice as harsh, coming from European news sources; and I expect that coverage from an American news source (particularly the more populist press, i.e. the USA Today) is at least tentatively optimistic... Furthermore, I would normally expect to find the story on the fourth or fifth page -- the International News section -- of the Dutch papers; and I would think that American papers would make the bigger headlines about the hearings.

I honestly don't know which news source captured the story most accurately (since I didn't watch through the hearings themselves, though they were aired live on television here).  I don't even know how possible it is to "accurately" capture such a story as testimony before a divided Congress.  I understand that perspectives on the war in Iraq are greatly varied -- both in the United States of America and around the world -- but I don't understand exactly how or why these various opinions proliferate in the ways they do.

Interesting stuff...

"You can pray for me," he says.  "And maybe you can bring me some Christian books."  Other than that, though, it seems there's not a whole lot that he needs.

Frankly, I'm impressed by his humble attitude and positive outlook on his life and particularly on his present circumstances.  For three months now, he's been stuck on this boat, and I can't imagine that it would be all that pleasant of an experience.  There are occasional breaks in the monotony.  For instance, in the mornings, he can go outside for an hour.  At other times, he can go to the game room and play some chess.  On Tuesday afternoons and Thursday mornings, for a brief period of 50 minutes, he can receive visitors (mostly customers from back at the Natuurwinkel where he worked).  And even though he doesn't have so many people to call, he will sometimes join the few dozen others standing in line for a ten-minute turn in one of the two telephone booths -- just so he can be around other people doing something other than the ordinary.  Because at all other times, he is relegated to his five-square-meter room which he shares with three other men sharing his same plight.  They're fortunate enough to have a television -- so he sometimes enjoys that diversion.  But most of the time, he just likes to read.  And think.  And pray.

And wait.

For him, this whole waiting process began with a lack of proper lighting while riding his bicycle at night through the streets of Amsterdam.  He paid the fine for his infraction, like we all do -- yet his carelessness that night had a greater price as he ultimately found himself here, in prison.  And not just any prison, but the "Dententieboot" -- a barb-wired floating fortress on a forgotten wharf in western Rotterdam.  And in this Detentieboot, he must wait -- along with 419 others like him -- until who-knows-when.  As an illegal immigrant, he finds himself wanted by no one, welcomed in no land, simply waiting for the bureaucratic battle of "not me!" to run its course.  Some of the inmates -- like this friend that I'm visiting -- are hoping that the end of the process will put them back on Dutch soil.  Other inmates are ready (maybe even eager) to be deported and repatriated -- like his roommate from Burundi -- but even these men must wait.  Because they are strangers in a strange land, and they have to play by unspoken rules and unmitigated timelines.

The entire situation -- and its effect on my own heart and mind -- illuminate how much my views on immigration and border security have changed over the last few years.  Back when I lived in the United States of America, I was tucked up in the middle of a vast continent with relatively little exposure to "foreigners."  This, coupled at the time with a general sense of alignment with the more conservative end of the political spectrum left me mindful of all the ways that immigrants / migrants / illegal aliens took away jobs from other Americans, drove down wages and benefits, and increased the burden on the social system funded by average law-abiding taxpayers... To state it quite simply, I was opposed to immigration.

But then I became an immigrant.

Granted, an American living in the Netherlands with all the appropriate paperwork is in a considerably different situation than a Mexican in the United States or a Morroccan in Europe... Nevertheless, I've personally felt the sting of populist political policy in the growing waves of anti-immigration attitudes across Europe.  I have to pay exhorbitant fees to simply reside on Dutch soil.  I have to jump through hoops for knowledge of the language and general citizenship.  I have to live in fear of the "Rita Verdonk"s and "Geert Wilders"es of the world, while they enjoy the adoration and accumulation of votes from their Dutch constituencies.  I have to look past the haughty eyebrows of shopkeepers who hear my foreign accent.  And, yes, I have to feel the stares and hear the whispers of other parents at my children's school.  People around the world talk about the tolerance and open-minded attitudes of people in the Netherlands... but while their politics and ideology may be very liberal in comparison to most of the world, my experience is that people here are not always so tolerant of me as a person.  And that's probably what hurts the most.

To say the least, I've become a good deal more sympathetic to Mexicans and Middle-Easterners living in the United States.  I've become a good deal more understanding of people like my friend on the Detentieboot.  And even though I can still recognize the complexities of today's global economy and global society -- and I don't pretend to have any easy answers for the migration issues in the world today -- I can confidently say that we'd all do a lot better to put ourselves in the other person's shoes from time to time.