Majoring in the Majors

2011-12-06T21:11:00.001-05:00

Haven't We Been Down This Road Before?

Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
Will not debate the question of this straw:
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
Why the man dies. --Hamlet, Act IV, Scene iv

Don't look now, but it's happening again, just when you thought the wars in the Middle East were winding down. No, war never takes a holiday, not for the USA. For in case you haven't noticed, war is now a permanent calling card of our foreign policy. Now that al-Qaeda has been hamstrung, it's time to find a new enemy and a new war. This time it's Iran, the greatest threat to civilization--according to the spin--since Alaric the Goth.

We're like the plumber who had only one tool, a hammer-- and oh what a mess he made wherever he went!

Few would have any affection for the Iranian government, a brutally repressive regime. The problem, however, is that, unlike us, Iran hasn't invaded anyone. They've not declared war on us. Their so-called nuclear weapons program is but a mirage. Only look how hard our government has worked in recent weeks to find something, anything incriminating against them. But as we've learned from the last war and the hunt for WMDs, facts don't matter much. When the US wants to go to war, we'll find a casus belli, even if we have to manufacture one (again). Now that Iraq and Afghanistan have been "made safe for democracy" (i.e., reduced to rubble), Iran is next on the list.

Don't believe it? Just ask retired US Army General Wesley Clark. According to Clark, neo-cons at the Pentagon have long been at work implementing a plan "to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." The plan has included destroying the governments of seven countries: Iraq (check), Afghanistan (check), Libya (check), Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.

What I find fascinating is not that Iran is simply Iraq redux, nor that the corporate media, in their usual fawning subservience, are falling into line to do the government's bidding. Rather, I feel like Kierkegaard, who went to church, where a priest in a velvet robe opened a gilt-edged Bible with a satin ribbon and read, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself ... " What amazed the philosopher most was that no one was laughing.

The vast majority of Americans have no trust in government when it comes to taxes, but our faith becomes absolutely implicit when it comes to war powers (the biggest revenue waster on earth). We Yanks love a good fight-- provided we win, and it does not last too long. And for some reason drummed into us from the cradle, we are under the misapprehension that America goes to war only to export democracy-- free speech, the right to vote, and a CVS on every corner. Who wouldn't want that? We don't understand that, in reality, what we export overseas is not democracy but economic domination, corporate exploitation. Or perhaps we just don't care. If we were able to look at things squarely in the face, we might discover that our foreign policy is not an extension of American democratic institutions; it is responsible only to an A-list of multinational corporations. But we ordinary citizens don't seem to mind, benefiting as we do from the fruits of empire: cheap gasoline, cheap electronics, cheap clothing and other commodities. It is a symbiotic relationship, like rhinos and oxpeckers.

As satirist Tom Lehrer used to sing in "Send the Marines":

For might makes right, and till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected, all their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.

That is, "somebody" favorable to doing business our way, which means handing over all their natural resources so that we can turn them into profitable commodities. We call it "economic development." Those kill-joy countries who decline to be pushovers then become the villains in our national melodrammer.

"But Iran wants the bomb!" you cry. Well, can you blame them? Iran is a major player in the region and wants to be respected as such. They are tired of being isolated and fearful of being bombed by the US and Israel (which has been assassinating Iranian physicists with alarming frequency)--just as we are fearful of having a new power to contend with, one that will be a wedgie in our plans to dominate all the sources of oil in the region. "But they've threatened Israel; they want to wipe it off the map!" Granted, Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric is insane and over the top, but it is designed for home consumption. The Iranian regime, like other totalitarian states, needs at least one bogeyman to give it legitimacy and to distract its populace from the harshness of its rule, just as the Israeli government needs to be surrounded by enemies so that it can justify the ongoing theft of Palestinian land. There is another oddly symbiotic relationship.

In reality, no country would be so foolish and suicidal as to attack Israel with a nuclear strike. Israel maintains the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region and a swift capability to deliver them with accuracy by sea or air. So the security argument does not wash. Perhaps by security we really mean our desire to do what we want, to whom and when we want, arrogating to ourselves alone the right to be the biggest bully on the world stage. No, sadly, the biggest threats to world peace at the moment are the good ol' USA and its enfant gâté (Israel)-- and the American church is a chief enabler of both.

A few Sundays ago I was attending church with my family. The service was advertised as a Missions Sunday, an annual opportunity for the congregation to hear reports from its missionaries on the advancement of the gospel in various parts of the world. A traditional part of the service is a flag ceremony, in which the flags of the nations where these hard-working missionaries labor are carried down the aisle of the church. Unfortunately, one zealot, who had been entrusted with carrying the American flag, received permission from someone to don a US Army hat and fatigues and parade down the aisle to the wild cheers and applause of the congregation. How embarrassing! Not to mention sickening. It might have been forgivable if the person were a military hero. Instead, what was meant to be a harmless symbol of the unity of the church--one gospel, one people out of many nations-- became a pivot point to hoist the flag of American militarism and exceptionalism. Well, I suppose we're fortunate that in their excitement no one fired off a celebratory round-- that's always hard on stained glass. If someone had thought to ask the assembled missionaries what they thought of this display, they might have helped us gain some perspective by sharing how other peoples view us.

In Act IV of Shakespeare's play, Hamlet surveys the vast Norwegian forces about to invade his neighbor Poland, all for a scrap of land no farmer would bother to till, and he muses sardonically on the vanity of warfare. Like our own warmongering leaders, the Norwegian king,

Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw ...

To the American church all I can do is plead: please, please, don't be manipulated again, don't be a mascot for the military-industrial complex. We serve the Prince of peace--he is our Commander in Chief, first and foremost--and he commands us to be peacemakers, not warmongers. That means we don't start locking and loading at the first sign of conflict; rather, in this case, we endeavor to be more objective, to understand the other side, to build bridges not bombs. It means we pray that war will not be necessary, that more death and destruction will be averted, that cooler heads will prevail, that the forces of arrogance and greed will not win out, that two great nations, two great civilizations can find a way to live in peace. It also means we love and pray for the other side as well as our own.

2011-11-25T23:44:00.001-05:00

It's Time to Occupy

A few days ago, six Afghan children were killed by a NATO missile that missed its target-- or did it? Actually, the official NATO command response to the "unfortunate" incident was not that the missile had missed its target, but that the children were essentially collateral damage in an insurgent operation.

According to the local Afghan governor's office, a NATO aircraft was hunting down Taliban insurgents who were reportedly planting roadside bombs. Two of them were killed, but the other three escaped and hid themselves in civilian homes. That's when the missiles hit, killing six children (ages 4 to 12) belonging to two families. Afghans on the ground, however, tell a different story: the two families were working with their children in the fields, they said, when they were attacked from the air without provocation. They saw no evidence of any insurgent activity in the area.

Who is telling the truth? Does it matter? Six more children have been blown apart as a result of either a bungled operation, or, far worse, an air-strike policy that has been consistently callous, even wanton, when it comes to civilian casualties. I suppose our government expects us to say, in utilitarian fashion, "Well, war is dirty. At least a couple of the bad guys were killed. That's worth the dismemberment of six kids."

A Christian friend recently said to me that "good people" can find themselves on opposite sides when it comes to these issues. Really? Take slavery, for example. There were so-called "good folks" on both sides of that one, weren't there? Or how about civil rights? I recall, growing up in the 1960s, my parents complaining when their pastor took time off to attend a civil rights march in Alabama. They did not think it was the church's place to get involved in such issues.

Let's be honest and say that all of us live, to some extent, in ignorance. Ignorance does not exonerate us from responsibility, but it is a human frailty that we all can plead guilty to. Maybe we grow up in a slave-owning society, or in a racist culture that denies basic human rights to certain individuals based on the color of their skin. It's like living in a house with a dog. You don't notice the smell. But when people begin to point out the stink, you have two choices: to acknowledge it, or to deny it. At that point, you are making a conscious moral decision; you take sides.

The time is now overdue for those who claim to follow Christ to take sides on many issues, from the wars in the Middle East and the so-called War against Terror, to issues closer to home, such as government corruption, unbridled corporate greed, and the economic injustice that is eating away at the foundations of our society. It is time for Christians to make their voices heard. It is time for us to occupy.

How can we claim to be disciples of the Prince of peace and yet condone the kind of senseless carnage that is happening in our name? How can we read our scriptures and gloss over God's call for us to be advocates for the poor, to raise our voices on behalf of the oppressed, and to work for a more just society.

The Occupy movement has shown the world what kind of society we can be. No, I'm not talking about the media stereotype of the typical occupier. What you may not see in the media is that many of these occupiers have constructed alternative communities that are working, where everyone has enough food, where the homeless and sick are cared for. Some of these encampments are even sustaining themselves using alternative forms of energy. "That's socialism," you cry? Is it? Is caring for the poor, the sick, and our creation just an -ism? Are these not biblical mandates?

By saying it is time for us to "occupy," I am not advocating that all of us leave our jobs and camp in some public square. But each of us needs to find a way to take a stand and contribute. C'mon folks, it's time. We can speak out, write or call an elected official, support our local occupiers with food, supplies and encouragement, participate in a protest, pray on our knees for change, teach our children about injustice.

The clock is ticking. Peace and justice are on the march across the globe. Whether they succeed or not in the short term may largely depend on what the people of God do, or do not do. Our voices are needed. So are our bodies. We have a strong biblical mandate to pursue both justice and non-violence. Our participation may just make the difference between a bloody revolution or a peaceful one.

But one thing is certain: that decision will determine where we stand, whether we are truly followers of the King of heaven, or just groupies.

2011-10-28T01:15:00.006-04:00

Occupying Congress

From its very beginning the Occupy Wall Street movement has had the right idea. Our seething moral outrage over unbridled corporate greed has long needed expression; it has long needed to be seen, chanted, shouted. And it is encouraging to see how this movement has struck a chord with the average American.

I participated recently in an Occupy protest in my own city, and two things amazed me. First, that the majority of protesters (there were over 200 of them) were not young and unemployed. They were not professional or experienced activists. For most, this was probably the only protest they had ever participated in. Most were middle-aged like me-- laborers, craftsmen, homemakers, businessmen and women, some retired, but all deeply angered over the corporate coup that has turned Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" into a government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.

Second, the response from passing motorists was so overwhelmingly supportive. Probably 85% showed their solidarity by beeping their horns, waving their arms or fists, or whooping (I think I even heard a genuine Rebel Yell or two-- it's a Southern thing). It was obvious that what we were doing found a deep resonance with our fellow citizens.

But as I told my wife over breakfast that morning, I can't help thinking we're going after the wrong guys. Wouldn't it be more effective to occupy Congress? By that I mean, protesting outside the offices of our elected representatives. They are, after all, democratically accountable to us (at least on paper). The guys on Wall Street (and by Wall Street we mean corporate America, especially the financial sector) are not. While I am in no way expressing sympathy for or excusing the egregious greed and grand larceny of the so-called Fat Cats, protesting Wall Street greed is rather like objecting to sharks' behavior in a feeding frenzy. Sharks are feeding machines that go where they know they can get a meal, where they smell blood. In the same way, Wall Street feeds on whatever and wherever it can, wherever money is to be made. There is no moral scruple. The bottom line is more, more, more.

By contrast, Congress has been entrusted with the economic oversight of this nation and with protecting citizens from capitalism run amok. The issue is therefore not only that there are wolves in the sheep pen, but more importantly that someone let them in. Where are the shepherds? They were bought off with wolf dollars, bribed to look the other way.

Corporations would not be crushing America if Congress had been doing its job. Indeed, the corporate coup could not have happened without the absolute complicity of our elected officials: the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the hundreds of other pieces of corrupt legislation that have sold our system to the highest bidder. What is broken is not Wall Street. Wall Street is not going to protect us from Wall Street. What we need most is campaign finance reform: publicly funded elections that will drain all that intoxicating swill out of the trough. We need elected officials who will pass legislation to rein in Wall Street, rather than allowing Wall Street to reign over us. We need to hold our leaders accountable so that they can hold corporate America accountable.

Focusing on Wall Street as the identified patient has even allowed some of our leaders to use Wall Street's sins as a screen for their own corrupt behavior. Our President's railing against the "fat cats," for example, is the height of hypocrisy, especially since his own campaign is the biggest consumer of their cash. Some congressional representatives point the finger at Wall Street and cheer on the protests as if they themselves weren't the chief enablers in a broken system.

Wall Street doesn't really care about its image. No, not really. It probably does not like all this attention, but its feelings are not hurt by these protests. It has no feelings. Its only god is Mammon; its only responsibility to its bottom line. But our senators and representatives want to win re-election and they need our vote to do that. Their biggest fear is that we will find out what they have been doing and that we will organize ourselves. And that is exactly what is happening. Yes, change happens from the bottom up, but it has to go up. We need our elected officials, just as they need us. The alternative is revolution and bloodshed.

I would not want the OWS movement to stop what it's doing. I applaud what it has done. Its voice has galvanized a nation, awakened a sleeping giant. Now perhaps the rest of us can take the battle to where real change can happen, to the halls of Congress, with phone calls, letters, emails, and even showing up at their local offices. And if the protesters should suddenly find themselves evicted from Zuccotti Park... well, there's always Capitol Hill, the Mall, or the Senate Office Building. The time is ripe. I urge my fellow Americans to get involved in any way they can.

2011-09-28T23:24:00.001-04:00

An Open Letter to America’s Christian Zionists

From David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen

September 19, 2011

Dear Christian Brothers and Sisters,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We write to you about an urgent matter of common concern.

In a week or so, unless their plans change dramatically, Palestinian leaders will make a unilateral declaration of a State of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders and will turn to the United Nations for a vote to recognize their new state.

The present Netanyahu government of Israel is, of course, totally opposed to this course of action on the part of the Palestinians. The United States government (predictably) shares this opposition. Both nations tell the Palestinians that the proper path to a state is through negotiations leading to an agreement that can settle all outstanding territorial and political issues. Palestinian leaders respond that they continue to support negotiations but that they can no longer pin all of their hopes on them.

This is because progress on that elusive peace agreement has been nonexistent for years. Of course, both sides blame each other for that lack of progress. But meanwhile, on a visit to the Occupied Territories this summer along with 50 students from Fuller Seminary who were studying just peacemaking (see http://justpeacemaking.blogspot.com/p/just-peacemaking.html), we were shown repeatedly how Israeli settlements (actually, planned cities and towns on occupied Palestinian land) are eating away at the territory that would belong to any viable Palestinian state. The Palestinians are convinced that the Netanyahu government in Israel is pursuing a strategy of delaying negotiations while creating facts on the ground that will make a Palestinian state impossible. A visitor to the increasingly encircled and truncated Palestinian territories can see these facts on the ground with his own eyes if he is willing to look. The Palestinian leadership believes that they had better declare statehood now before the territory for such a state completely disappears. It could be a high stakes showdown at the UN, with uncertain consequences in the aftermath.

Officially, Israel long ago entered into negotiations with Palestinian leaders toward a two-state solution. Unofficially, it appears that the current government in Israel is renouncing this path. Ideological rather than pragmatic factors are clearly contributing to this unofficial but visible renunciation. The most important ideological factor is the belief that Israel deserves the entirety of the land and that Palestinians have no legitimate claim on any part of it.

As you know, this belief is one form of what goes by the name “Zionism.” When it is religiously motivated, it is an especially powerful belief, because Israel’s “title” to every square inch of the land is believed to be granted by God in the Bible. We were told in Israel that the number of religious Jewish Zionists in Israel is today growing appreciably, and that many are to be found in the settlements on Palestinian land (which they do not accept is Palestinian land). It is hard to see how they will ever voluntarily leave their homes, even if Israel signs a peace agreement. In short: Israel has created the conditions for a civil war if they try to dismantle settlements, and for a Palestinian revolt or a wider Middle East war if they never end their occupation.

This letter, though, is not about religious Jewish Zionism and its destructive effects on Israeli policy. It is about the Christian version of the same belief. This Christian version of Zionism matters deeply, not just because theology intrinsically matters, but because it is overwhelmingly clear that American evangelical-fundamentalist Christian Zionism affects US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians in distressing ways. It is one reason why the United States stands almost alone in the world community in supporting Israeli policies which our international friends generally find intolerable if not immoral and illegal.

Not to put too fine a point on it, we wish to claim here that the prevailing version of American Christian Zionism—that is, your belief system—underwrites theft of Palestinian land and oppression of Palestinian people, helps create the conditions for an explosion of violence, and pushes US policy in a destructive direction that violates our nation’s commitment to universal human rights. In all of these, American Christian Zionism as it currently stands is sinful and produces sin. We write as evangelical Christians committed lifelong to Israel's security, and we are seriously worried about your support for policies that violate biblical warnings about injustice and may lead to the outcome you most fear—serious harm to or even destruction of Israel.

We write as evangelicals to you, our fellow evangelicals. On the shared basis of biblical authority, we ask you to reconsider your interpretation of Scripture, for the sake of God, humanity, the United States, and, yes, Israel itself, the Land and People we both love.

I. A Question of (Whose) Holy Land

We acknowledge that your evangelical-fundamentalist American Christian Zionism (henceforth simply “Christian Zionism”) is a product of a Christian community that loves and reads the Bible. This is on its face a good thing--for there appear to be fewer and fewer American Christians whose love of the Bible and whose devotion to reading it can be taken for granted. We commend your love for the scriptures.

Both now and in the past, whenever Christian Zionism emerges its essential origin is simply Christian reading of the Hebrew Bible, or what Christians call the Old Testament. Our love of the Bible takes Christians into the pages of the Old Testament; there we cannot help but discover the centrality of a Promised Land for the Jewish people. The trajectory of the canonical Old Testament moves inexorably toward and away from the Promised Land—the patriarchal narratives in which a people and land are promised despite humble origins; enslavement in Egypt; the miraculous Exodus and grim wilderness wanderings under Moses; the conquest of the Promised Land; the establishment, split, and eventual conquest of Israel as a political entity; the Babylonian exile and dispersion of the Jewish people; and a partial return to the land, at which point the OT historical narrative ends.

Our Christian love for and identification with “the Holy Land” can and often does deepen through reading of the New Testament as well. The four Gospels, in particular, detail the journeys of Jesus through (Roman-subjugated) Israel, and many millions of Christians have cut their spiritual teeth on those stories. We have come to know and love Nazareth and Bethlehem, Capernaum and Cana and of course Jerusalem, because those are the places that Jesus walked. Having just visited Israel this summer, we can attest to the continuing power of these places to connect spiritually with Christians in surprisingly profound ways. Both of us found ourselves deeply affected, for example, by standing on the shore of the Sea of Galilee where tradition holds that Jesus reinstated Peter after his denials. The intense spiritual impact of “walking where Jesus walked” continues to draw millions of Christians to Holy Land tours. Even in our jaded age, there is still power in spiritual pilgrimage to Holy Land—the Holy Land.

As devoted Christians, we share this love of the sacred lands of the biblical tradition with all who hold such love. We think that love of the Holy Land is far better than indifference to it. And both of us, as students of the long and terrible history of Christian anti-Semitism, which culminated in the horrors of the Holocaust, far prefer a strong sense of Christian kinship with the Jewish people and their historic homeland than the centuries-long Christian pattern of theological disdain and even hatred that so long predominated. The question then becomes not whether to love “Israel”—understood as the People and the Land—but how best to do so. We think this is a question that you will understand and want to answer properly, as we do.

We suggest to you that contemporary Christian Zionism is well-intentioned but needs correction at some very important points. This requires some careful biblical and theological work—from within the basic framework of evangelical Christianity. This means that the relevant scriptural texts need to be studied in detail, and that Christian theology needs to do its proper work with those texts.

For example, we suggest that Christian Zionists who move from a generalized love of Israel to a specific claim that the contemporary state of Israel has divine title to the entire Holy Land, need to take more seriously the complexity of what the Bible actually says about God’s promises to Abraham.
Genesis 15:18 reads: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.” The next verse goes on to name the various peoples to whom the land belonged at the time.

The territory denoted by the space between these two rivers includes modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, half of Iraq, half of Egypt, parts of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the modern state of Israel, as well as the occupied Palestinian territories.

A literal reading of the text that assumes that the descendants of Abram are only the Jewish people faces a problem here. Either God is not very good at keeping his promises, or God’s plan is for contemporary Israel ultimately to conquer all of these other countries and occupy their land. That would result in an Israel ruled by its 90% majority Arabs, or an Israel attempting to subjugate that 90% by force.

But the promise looks very different if we take seriously all of the offspring of Abraham. Genesis 15:4-5 has God taking Abram outside and telling him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the heavens. Genesis 17:4, probably the pivotal text, has God saying to Abraham: “This is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.” Many nations, a multitude of nations; many offspring, many kings—read Genesis 17 again and see the plural nouns here.

Close readers of Scripture will know that in fact Abraham did become the father of many nations. With Sarah he became the father of Isaac and the ancestor of all in his line, via Jacob and Esau. With Hagar he became the father of Ishmael and all in his line. And with the long-forgotten Keturah (Gen. 25:1) he became the father of Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The Old Testament clearly positions Abraham as the father/ancestor of not only the Jewish people but of a vast number of other peoples, all scattered through the territories promised in Genesis 15. Abraham becomes the father of dozens of peoples, exactly as the Bible says! It is certainly true that the Old Testament primarily tells the story of the line of Isaac and therefore of what became the Jewish people, but that cannot cancel the significance of the promises to Abraham and the many peoples credited to him in Genesis.

The New Testament makes an important move here as well. In Romans 4, Paul says that by faith non-Jews become Abraham’s descendants too: “The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe” (Rom 4:11). Europeans and Asians, Africans and Latin Americans, any who believe in Jesus enter the line of Abraham. This is why it is correct to say that (at least) Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all descendants of Abraham, all part of the Abrahamic family tree, some by birth, some by lineage, some by faith.

Perhaps you will respond by saying that God promises the land of Canaan specifically to the Jewish people. You might cite here Genesis 17:8: “I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding.” This interpretation would require restricting the “offspring” in question to Abraham’s offspring through Sarah via Isaac and then on to Jacob and excluding Esau. But the promise to possess the land includes the offspring of Isaac, and the offspring of Isaac includes Esau, with his five Edomite sons and their offspring, as Genesis 36 states, and that includes multitudes of Canaanites, not only Jews. It would also require the assumption that we know what Gen. 17 means territorially with the term “Canaan” and that it corresponds with the Zionist’s version of the proper boundaries of the modern state of Israel.

One other point from later in the Old Testament seems important to mention here. Even when the narrative moves forward into the book of Joshua, and the twelve tribes of Israel “conquer” the “Promised Land,” it is striking that the scriptures themselves acknowledge the ongoing presence of non-Hebrews in the land. Texts like this recur: “But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day” (Josh 15:63; compare Josh 13:13, 16:10, 17:12-13, 19:47).

Christians, even those who know their Bibles well, tend to think of the book of Joshua as containing the (bloody) fulfillment of the promise of the whole Land to Israel—the entire land is conquered by war, and then divided up among the tribes. A close reading shows that the Hebrew tribes shared the land for centuries with other groups, and that even when tribes were assigned certain portions of land, they didn’t necessarily control every square inch of it. The point is obvious later when it comes to the challenge posed by the Philistines. It is not an overstatement to say that the Israelite/Hebrew/Jewish people never had exclusive possession of the Holy Land, regardless of whatever divine promises they or we believe that they received.

II. Those Who Do Justice Keep Their Land

Let us now assume that God indeed promised the offspring of Abraham and Sarah via Isaac and Jacob a portion of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. Let us even assume that this promise was intended by God to extend even to our own day and beyond. And let us further assume that in the dark shadow of the Holocaust it was an act of divine grace for a substantial portion of the surviving remnant of the Jewish people to have a modern-day homeland in the contemporary state of Israel. These are substantial assumptions that could be challenged for many reasons, but we are prepared to accept them, along with you.

But we do so while keeping in front of us another strand of relevant biblical teaching. The prophets, writing much later in Israel’s history, long after Israel had established substantial political kingdoms, warned repeatedly that God’s covenant with Israel has a dimension of conditionality to it. Whether preaching in the northern kingdom of Israel prior to the Assyrian conquest, or the southern kingdom of Judah prior to the Babylonian conquest and exile, Israel’s prophets repeatedly warned that God’s covenant promise of the land was conditional on her moral performance. In particular, the prophets warned that, in keeping with the stipulations of the Law, Israel would be judged by her treatment of the aliens in the land, of the poor, the widows, and the orphans.

The 7th/6th century BC prophet Jeremiah sounded such themes consistently. We see it in Jeremiah 6:6-8: “This city must be punished; it is filled with oppression…Violence and destruction resound in her…Take warning, O Jerusalem, or I will turn away from you and make your land desolate so no one can live in it.” Jeremiah 7 is a hugely important passage, in which the prophet warns the complacent worshippers at the seemingly impregnable Temple that it and they would be ruined if they did not “amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place” (Jer 7:3). Jeremiah warned: “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely…then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!”—only to go on doing all these abominations?” (7:9-10). And the climax: “I will cast you out of my sight, just as I cast out all your kinfolk, all the offspring of Ephraim” (7:15).

Old Testament scholars have long recognized that a powerful, important, and dynamic tension exists in the OT between themes of a conditional and unconditional covenant between God and Israel. God has chosen Israel and made binding promises to her; and yet God has warned Israel that her persistent violation of her part of that covenant could trigger God’s judgment, including in war and in exile. And anyone who reads the Old Testament knows that war and exile came to Israel, that it was prophesied in advance as divine judgment, and described in retrospect in the same way.

At a theological level, we are claiming that even if one accepts a) a divine promise of land to the Jewish people as recorded in scripture, b) a belief that this promise extends even to this day, and c) the modern state of Israel as, in part, God’s gracious fulfillment of this promise, one must also say d) the Bible, in the prophetic writings, also teaches that persistent injustice on the part of Israel has evoked, and still can bring, God’s judgment, which can extend even to war and exile. Israel’s remaining in the land depends on Israel’s now doing justice to Palestinians and making peace with its Arab neighbors that surround Israel. Indeed, Jesus, as prophet and Savior, also prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed because they did not know the practices that make for peace (Lk 19:41-44). And Jerusalem was destroyed, 40 years later. Do you not fear that it could happen again? Does not your love of Israel make you want to do all you can to prevent that from happening? And yet your actions actually make it more likely to happen!

III. The Holy Land on the Precipice

Any visitor to this tortured Holy Land who avoids a sanitized Christian tour and actually visits with Palestinians, actually stands in the shadow of the Separation Wall, actually sees what military occupation looks and feels like, cannot but tremble at these biblical words of warning.

We are not Old Testament prophets, nor do we pretend to see the future. But we have seen enough to claim that the occupation practices of the modern state of Israel are a direct violation of the most basic biblical moral principles. It is immoral to steal anything, including people’s land, homes, and vineyards. It is immoral to dehumanize people, as occurs daily at Israeli checkpoints. It is immoral to choke people’s freedom and deprive them of their dignity. And it is foolish, a violation of every lesson of history, to think that through sheer intimidation and superior military power a people can be subjugated indefinitely without rising up in resistance or attracting more powerful allies who will do so on their behalf. God gave humanity a recognition of justice and a nearly endless capacity to resist injustice. It is wired into our nature, and the Palestinian people and the neighboring countries have it just like everyone else does.

We genuinely fear that someday someone or some nation inflamed with resentment at the seemingly eternal Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people will “make your land desolate so no one can live in it” (Jer 6:8). That sounds like a nuclear bomb. Have you heard of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad? While in the Middle East we heard from Palestinian leaders a current commitment to pursue their cause nonviolently. We applaud that commitment. We see it as an extraordinary one under the circumstances. We fear that it cannot last forever, for no people will allow itself to be ground into the dust indefinitely. What are you doing to end their suffering and bring justice to them?

We will leave it to God to sort out with the Jewish people of the modern state of Israel the very complex terms of his covenant with them. But we cannot remain silent about the vast array of American Christians who support the most repressive and unjust Israeli policies in the name of Holy Land and a Holy God. We charge that you bear grave responsibility for aiding and abetting obvious sin, and if Israel once again sees war, we suggest that you will bear part of the responsibility. Christians are called to be peacemakers (Mt 5:9), but by offering uncritical support of current Israeli policies you are actively inflaming the Middle East toward war—in the name of God. This is appalling; it is intolerable; it must stop!

We plead with you, our brothers and sisters, to find a better way, a more biblical way, to love Israel. Love Israel enough to oppose rather than support actions that violate God’s clearly revealed moral will. And while you are at it, it might be good to work on loving the Palestinians, some of whom are also our Christian sisters and brothers. When you visit Israel, we urge you to visit with Palestinian Christians and ask them what they want us, their fellow Christians, to support. For they surely need our love. And we are surely commanded to love them, too.

In the name of Christ,

David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University
Glen H. Stassen, Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary

Drs. Gushee and Stassen are co-authors of "Kingdom Ethics" (InterVarsity Press) and are members of the board of directors of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

2011-05-03T02:04:00.003-04:00

Somewhere in America, Church Bells Were Ringing.

Do no gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.-- Proverbs 24:17,18

Do no repay anyone evil for evil. be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.-- Romans 12:17-21

Late Sunday night, news broke of the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. After an almost decade-long manhunt, the man accused of being the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks on Manhattan and Washington, among others, had finally been slain. Jubilation in the streets. An opportunity to waive the flag, to feel good about ourselves again. Our President addressed the nation. Chants of "USA! USA!" Newscasters credited both Obama and his predecessor for their unflinching vigilance. And of course, thanksgiving for our armed services.

I suppose at such a moment in history it is easy for Christians, too, to be caught up in the elation, relief, and national pride. Probably, somewhere in America, church bells were ringing. But even at this time of national celebration, we should remind ourselves that the New Testament, while commanding us to be good citizens, also reminds us that our true citizenship is in heaven, our ultimate allegiance to a kingdom that both is and is not yet; that we serve and worship, not a military hero, but a rabbi who taught of love even for our enemies and whom the world still does not understand, who was nailed to a tree, the Prince of peace, Son of God, King of kings and Lord of lords. What then should be our response as followers of such a Christ?

First, for the Christian, the death of any human being, even such a violent man as bin Laden, should never be an occasion for gloating or celebration, but for sober reflection. One may feel relief, of course, that a long and violent thread in the fabric of our world's history has been snipped. That such a man, who lived such a violent life, ended it in such a violent way may be evidence of God's justice but should never be the source of rejoicing. If we do not understand that, then we do not understand the One we claim to serve, who does not delight in the death of any sinner, but longs for all to come to repentance. Our enemy is never our enemy; it is the Enemy who is our enemy.

Second, we ought not to be arrogant but to reflect with grief at the massive toll in human life, hundreds of thousands, resulting from this manhunt or from the wars for which this manhunt was but a pretext. Revenge is costly in every way. Ironic is it not, that the original stated goal of this war was achieved by a handful of Navy Seals in a neighboring country, and not the hundred thousand still attempting to garrison another?

Third, we need to examine ourselves. Our President's remarks last night were tragically revealing-- of how we as Americans see the world and our nation's role in it: “Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. We are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.” Sadly, however, our increasing skill at targeted assassinations does not make us either great or good. One would think he were speaking of some great humanitarian achievement. That such a remark should emanate from a winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace is a travesty of history that should chasten us, rather than embolden us with pride. But this is not the first time acts of violence were wrapped in such rhetoric about "American values." We are a violent nation. Our history bulges with such examples, from Manifest Destiny to Vietnam.

"Justice has been served," we were told. Whose justice? Now, I always thought that justice was something that resulted from a process of law, not something meted out on a battlefield, in which case both he and the victims of 9-11 and their families were denied justice. Unless, of course, we are talking about divine justice, of which we are doubtless the self-appointed guardians. We ought to shiver at such blasphemy. What America got Sunday night was not justice but vengeance. One may argue that the world is a safer place now, but we should tremble to cloak vengeance in the language of God's justice.

The book of Proverbs encourages us to learn from our enemies in humility, for even they have something to teach us. It saddens me to the core, however, to think that after almost ten years of this "war against terror," after so many lives lost, nations in ruins, trillions spent, we still have so little understanding about ourselves. Bin Laden was not only a mass-murderer; in his twisted and grotesque way, he also tried to hold the mirror up to our faces. But it is not an image we have ever been able to bear.

It is easy to curse an enemy, to beat one's breast and waive a flag, and to dance like goblins over the corpses of those we demonize. It is not so easy to trod the Calvary road of our Savior, who commanded us to love our enemies and to pray for those who hate us, to win them, not with bombs or with our feet on their necks, but through peaceful acts of sacrifice, generosity and kindness. That is true heroism. Would that it were truly American.

2011-03-05T23:02:00.001-05:00

"You Have No Right!"

A few days ago I spent hours speaking with a close friend of mine. The subject was torture. It was one of the most moving and painful conversations of my life. You see, my friend is a survivor of ritual abuse, his nightmarish childhood spent in a family cult where Satan-worship, rape, incest, torture and even murder were practiced regularly.

Whenever he broaches the topic, I usually ask for a glass of water. It is not an easy story to listen to, nor one to tell. Yet he tells it in a somewhat detached manner, as though he were looking down on his life through a hole in the roof. That, I suppose, is the only way one could tell such a story. It is the way he learned to survive.

At one point in the conversation, I asked him how he viewed the accusations of torture practiced by our own government at places like Abu-Ghraib, as well as various so-called "black sights," and the ongoing abuse of political prisoners such as Bradley Manning. My friend took a deep, rather shaky breath and sighed. Then he said something that shook me. "It's the same stuff," he nodded.

When I asked what he meant, he described in detail some of the tortures inflicted upon him. I will not share those details here, because I was sickened. The more "benign" involved forced nudity, shaming, and threats regarding the loss of body parts. But I was shocked at many similarities between the kind of abuse he endured and the reports of prisoner abuse perpetrated by our own government and military-- both being an assault on the victim's belief structure through terror, ending in some kind of psychological collapse, despair, and ultimately passive cooperation. It is all about power--raw, naked, and evil. Both sets of perpetrators seeking to break their victims, not just physically, but spiritually.

At certain points in the conversation, I squirmed in my seat. But he went on to tell me one story from early childhood. The cult leaders were trying to force his cooperation in some ritual, and when he refused, someone took out a revolver, spun the cylinder, cocked the hammer, pointed it at his forehead and--- click. This was repeated again and again. Whether the gun was actually loaded, he did not know. All he knew was that after several minutes of this, he did not care whether he lived or died. Indeed, he said, he would have preferred death then to the tyranny of uncertainty that menaced him. And he was just a little boy.

"But I recall one time," he said, "I watched powerless as they began to torture someone else. I don't think I even knew that person, but I remember this surge of righteous anger building up inside me. It felt like a hot and holy rage. And a voice not my own echoed inside my head, 'YOU--HAVE--NO--RIGHT!'"

Although he did not say so, I got the impression my friend felt this to be the voice of God. And it was this simple statement that acted like a faint glimmer of light and hope in a darkened shaft, enabling him somehow to hold on and even to reconnect with God later in life. "You have no right." It is a declaration of human dignity that probably all human beings who have suffered such inhuman treatment, whether they be prisoners of war or victims of domestic or child abuse, would ascribe to.

That was the bottom line. They had no right. No one has the right to torture another human being made in God's image. It degrades the divine image in the tortured. It degrades the image in the torturer. No matter what someone has done, whether they are innocent or guilty, no matter how heinous a crime they may have committed or could commit, we have no right to treat a human being with such cruel disrespect. Such blasphemy is simply godless, satanic. My friend was right. The source is the same.

Shaken, I rose from our discussion certainly less innocent but grateful for the awareness it had brought. We have no right. It's that simple. And so I both pray for and tremble for my country, which in a kind of godless arrogance born of imperial hubris, continues to think it possesses the keys to life and death over other human beings.

2011-02-26T01:56:00.005-05:00

Wise Up, Rise Up

Have you noticed? It's been happening for years. Only now it seems to have shifted into overdrive, like a long-distance runner who speeds up when he sees the finish line. It's been called a gradual "coup d'etat." No, I'm not talking about Egypt or Tunisia. I'm speaking of America--the slow corporate take-over of a nation--and hardly any of us were noticing. In fact, most of us have actually assisted.

This is not about one particular political party. Both sides of the aisle have been complicit in the selling off of our democracy to the highest bidder-- as are all three branches of our federal government. It's nothing new. It's a threat that has existed from the very beginning of our republic. The Founders were aware of it. Tom Jefferson complained angrily of the "moneyed interests" that were already exerting undue influence over legislation and legislators. Theodore Roosevelt saw corporate domination of politics as the single most serious threat to American democracy. So the present crisis is really as old as the United States itself. Yet the crisis we see in its present form began in earnest over thirty years ago.

Remember the "trickle down" economic theory? Perhaps one of the greatest examples of mass hypnosis ever perpetrated. Witness how violently people will still defend it today, despite the fact that it has been such an abject failure. (Over the past three decades, income for the top 1% of wage earners has skyrocketed, while income for the middle class has little better than flat-lined. So when does all that prosperity trickle down? Maybe if we just wait a little longer. Or could it be that we were simply had? If you want my rather coarse opinion, the only thing that has trickled down on us ain't green.)

We were also told that "government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem." Such a statement hooked into the pioneer spirit of Americans with our inherent mistrust of government and love of free markets. Sad how we bought into that one, too, as though Capitalism were a virtuous flower that needed no weeding, no tending. Now look where we are, after decades of massive deregulation of everything from oil companies to the banking industry: an economy in shambles, a widening gap between rich and poor, tar-soaked animals washing up on our beaches, poisoned air and drinking water....

Then we have the corporate consolidation of media. In the aftermath of Watergate and the end of U.S. participation in the war in Vietnam, media moguls, who blamed a "liberal media" for the unraveling of a President and a war, vowed this would never happen again. They bided their time, bought Congress, and, through the patient overturning of federal anti-trust laws, began building media empires, so that today the vast majority of newpapers, television, cable and internet companies are owned by only a handful of companies. I recall when I visited South Africa in the late 80s during Apartheid, you had only to watch television or read a newspaper to see the truth in the dictum, "If you control the flow of information, you control opinion." It is a scary proposition, but we are seeing it come to pass here before our eyes. Americans are among the most misinformed and misled people on the planet. And it's not because we don't watch enough TV!

It is now budget season and, therefore, open season on the poor and weak and the organizations that champion them. They call it "fiscal conservatism." It's really just the primordial class war of rich against poor. And in order to remove the focus from themselves, those who are the real cause of our economic and social woes would have us blame minorities, immigrants, welfare recipients, gays, public broadcasting, and of course, the unions, one of the last obstacles to total corporate domination.

Why should this concern the followers of Jesus Christ? Because we happen to serve a God who hates bullies and greed, who champions the weak against the strong, the poor and oppressed against the rich and arrogant. Whether it be David standing up to Goliath, Nehemiah upbraiding the Jewish leaders for oppressing the poor, or James, the Lord's brother, haranguing the rich for cheating their workers, our God is a God who cares deeply for the poor and weak, for the widow and orphan, for the alien and foreigner, those who have no voice-- and he expects no less from those who are called his people.

.................

So what can we do?

As Americans we are too tame. As Christians we need to get angry. We need to take a page from those struggling for freedom in the Middle East. We need to wise up and rise up. How? To speak out with passion, not rage and violence, but a holy indignation. To be informed and to inform others.

As a pastor I get angry when I see families with two working parents who see their children only a few hours each day and still cannot make ends meet. I get angry when I see families about to lose their home because they were enticed into a mortgage they cannot afford.   I get angry when I hear elected officials tell the poor and middle class that they must shoulder the burden for this economic downturn, while those who caused it, already bailed out on the backs of taxpayers, are reporting record profits. I get angry when I see my a President say we must cut heating assistance to the poor, while the vast, bloated military budget ever increases (why is it we can afford to bomb people, but not warm them?). I get angry when I hear a governor tell his state employees there is not enough money for their pensions, when he just gave his corporate cronies over a hundred million in unwarranted tax breaks. How about you? Our republic has become a kleptocracy, and we've all allowed it to happen.

We need to exercise our vote in a godly manner. Like Esau we have sold our birthright for a pot of stew. Christians on both sides of the aisle should be called to repent for helping to install people in office who have auctioned us to the highest bidder. We need to repent of our blindness and ineptitude brought on by fear, selfishness and a slavish devotion to one or other political party. We are all part of the problem. Instead of voting for those who will line our pockets, promise us the most security or the lowest taxes, defend our selfish lifestyles, or use the most religious jargon, we must pray for God to raise up men and women who are both honest and wise, shrewd and compassionate, courageous and just, not beholden to the rich and powerful, not the lapdogs of corporate power.

My advice? If you are a member of a political party, quit. That's right. Quit! It's easy to do. Simply go to your local county board of elections site, download a voter registration form, check the appropriate box under change party affiliation (i.e., none), and mail it in. Stay engaged and involved, continue to vote more than ever, but remove yourself from the self-justification necessitated by party politics. Stop being sheep led to slaughter, and I think you will find you will see more clearly to be of greater service to both God and country. As Americans if we revere the Father of our Country, we would do well to mark his wise words:

[A party spirit] serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption....

And not only that...

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.   (from Washington's Farewell Address, 1796)

Vote at the polling place but also vote with your wallet. Do not support media companies (TV, cable, etc.) that distort the news and profit from misinformation. Get your news from independent or alternative sources. Do not buy from or invest in corporations with poor track records in human rights, worker rights, the environment. Buy organic foods and buy local produce. If you want to starve the beast, don't feed it. Let us become, not a consumer culture, but --what we were meant to be-- a counter culture.

Organize. Nothing has ever changed for the better in this country simply because some elected leader wanted it so. Such a view of history only makes us passive. Positive change happened when average people like you and me got involved, organized and banged on the gates of power and demanded it. Emancipation. Child labor laws. Women's suffrage. The New Deal. Civil rights.

And pray, pray, pray. Pray for an end to American Empire and that God would instead save America (we cannot have both). Pray for repentance from our selfish consumerism, pride and lack of concern for the poor and suffering. Pray for true freedom and democracy to be established in the Middle East and beyond. Pray that our fellow Americans would wise up, rise up, unite and take this country back from our corporate overlords, and create a nation and an economy that is free and just for all. Pray for God to break the stranglehold of Big Oil and of corporate power over our government and foreign policy. Pray for honest and wise leaders not beholden to wealth and power. Pray for the dismantling of the congressional-military-industrial complex, that America's vast military might would no longer be a tool of empire and corporate greed. Pray for the collapse of media monopolies and their control over the minds of our countrymen.

The church is a sleeping giant that needs to disenthrall itself and shake off its addiction to its own wealth and security and the status quo. We should not only be concerned with sins, but with the sinful systems that support them-- especially when we are a part of them. Christ is God's answer to the world's aching emptiness and self-destructive idolatry, as well as the twin evils of greed and poverty. The church is his means of bringing that Answer to the light, but we cannot be part of the answer if we are part of the problem.

2011-02-09T01:15:00.002-05:00

The Mask of Empire

su·ze·rain. n. 1. A nation that controls another nation in international affairs but allows it domestic sovereignty.

In his 1961 inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy remarked, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Any student of history will attest to the veracity of such a statement, as can anyone who has been following the images on the TV screen these past few weeks.

In a matter of days, the flames of revolution that swept one dictator out of power in Tunisia (of all unlikely places), have leaped across North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula to engulf other Arab regimes in Cairo, Amman, and Sana'a.

Yet even as I am riveted by the seemingly endless courage of protesters in Tahrir Square, I am also nonetheless fascinated by my own government's clumsy ability to speak out of two sides of its mouth, a trick that is actually not so difficult when one has two faces.

The mythology of the Benevolent Empire is as old as empire itself. In the ancient Near East, the suzerainty treaty (a covenant made between a more powerful empire and a smaller vassal state) extolled the empire's ruler as a "father" to the client kingdom and emphasized his benevolent acts on their behalf-- all the while with his feet on their necks and their hands trembling with tribute. The Greeks and Brits brought "civilization" (theirs) and the Romans "peace" (the peace after an atomic blast), all with a heavy price tag of brutal repression and rapacious exploitation.

As I remarked in a previous blog, America has always been a nation tragically at odds with itself. It is why so much of the world both admires and hates us with equal intensity. We speak words that make the world dream-- of liberty and sacred human rights-- but our ambassadors are not Jefferson and Lincoln. They are Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Exxon-Mobil, Caterpillar, and Blackwater.

Even as they yearn for the freedoms we appear to enjoy, Egyptian protesters can more easily appreciate the irony, since they have only to look up to see American-made F-16s buzzing their assembled masses. Along with the tanks and tear gas canisters aimed at them, and the software used to maintain the massive Egyptian security state, all have one thing in common. They all bear the "Made in USA" label. Ironic? Yes. But that is how empire works, how it has always worked: creating an illusory prosperity that is the envy of the world, yet one that is ultimately unsustainable because it can exist only through the sweat of slaves and the cruel oppression and plunder of distant lands.

The lust for empire also makes strange bedfellows, causing us to bed down with dictators as brutal as Turkmenistan's Berdymuhammedov (by the time you've pronounced it, you've been detained) or Equatorial Guinea's Nguema (ah, what we won't do for oil). As for Mubarak all those billions we shoveled his way came back to U.S. corporations in the form of defense contracts, just another form of corporate welfare for the boys. No wonder he's stayed in power so long. Good Ol' Ike warned us of the dangerous confluence of military and industrial power and its unwarranted influence to determine policy. But I suppose it is only now, perhaps too late, that we are finally beginning to understand what he meant.

We ask one dictator to leave (ah, democracy?) but support one of his henchmen to succeed-- one who lived in the shadows overseeing his country's ugly security apparatus, including the so-called "black sites" (places of rendition and torture). So the "reform" and "change" we support amounts to a mere reshuffling of the same deck. Imagine if the Allies had asked Hitler to resign in favor of Himmler. One is reminded of the unrepentant Augustine, who prayed, "Lord, give me chastity and continence-- but not yet!" Happily, the Egyptian people are not so gullible as the American public.

Empire is all a brutal illusion. And it is during such crises as this in our foreign policy that the humanitarian mask slips somewhat comically, and we see the true face of empire in all its hideousness-- that when push comes to shove, all our talk about democracy and human rights is mere cant, a humbug, the pious pecksniffery used to anesthetize our victims, including a home audience living in a fool's paradise.

If we have any sympathy for those struggling for freedom in the Middle East, the most decent thing we can do is to wake up, to understand what we have become as a nation, and how we all help to support this system of empire. Cheap oil. Cheap clothing. Cheap food. And Security (read, freedom for U.S. corporations to pillage unmolested). God has not blessed us with these things because we are good. They are the end products of empire, squeezed out of a system of oppression and violence, then aseptically sprayed and washed for home consumption.

And once we have reached this epiphany, to stop participating in the pantomime and to join the real world of adults who are standing tall and marching against the tide.

2011-01-12T01:30:00.001-05:00

When Our "Enemies" Teach Us to Behave Like Christians

Last week Egyptian Muslims from all walks of life from social activists and journalists to engineers and housewives demonstrated solidarity with their Christian neighbors by attending Christmas Eve masses, effectively acting as a human shield to counter recent threats against churches by Muslim extremists.

The gesture was more than symbolic, for the dangers facing Egypt's large Coptic Christian community are very real indeed. This solidarity comes as a response to the New Year's Day bombing of a church, which killed 23, and angry protests by Copts who accuse Egypt's Muslim government of doing little to protect them. “I know it might not be safe, yet it’s either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians,” said one Muslim housewife.

As U.S. and other Western forces continue to occupy Muslim countries, the region's ancient Christian communities have come under increasing threats, as seen in the bombing of a Baghdad church last October. "They are your people," Arab Christians are often told by their outraged Muslim neighbors, referring to the American invaders.

That is why the recent call for Egyptians to stand together as "one nation," led by Muslim leaders and journalists, has taken on aspects of a civil rights struggle, in which courageous citizens step up and take the lead, when their government will not.

In his teachings, parables and miracle stories Jesus Christ was not averse to making "sinners," pagans, Gentiles and the traditional enemies of the Jews into heroes of the faith-- anything to provoke his own people to jealousy. The list is extensive: a Roman centurion, a Canaanite woman, a Samaritan leper, the widow of Zaraphath, to name just a few. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, for instance, the point of the story is not just that we are to set an example in treating our enemies with love. Instead, our enemy is the example-- to our shame.

As in many of the parables of our Lord, the lesson we can derive from last week's events in Egypt is really more of a question, and that is... Would we do the same?

As American Muslims suffer increasing prejudice, slander, racial profiling, vandalism and threats of violence here at home, are we willing to stand with them as fellow citizens of a country that prides itself on its respect for religious freedoms?

2010-11-20T23:01:00.003-05:00

What Will Keep Us Safe?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) just gave terrorism a huge holiday gift basket tied with a bow. With Thanksgiving air traffic only a few days away, Americans are already in an uproar over new TSA passenger screening procedures. We now have a choice: either be showered with X-rays and have our cellulite and love-handles exposed to some unknown TSA operator in the next room (who is watching them, I'd like to know?); or be subjected to an "enhanced" pat-down by a same-sex security officer who probably learned his or her trade at Abu-Ghraib. (My apologies to these officers, who are probably all very hard-working people and just following orders. But dentists can now relax. They are no longer the most hated profession.)

The issue went viral last week when a San Diego man simply refused both options and posted a video of his telling the officer, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." Representative John Mica (R-FL) spoke for many outraged Americans when he said, "Shoe bomber, we had to take off our shoes; liquid, we have to take out our liquid; now we're being groped because of the diaper bomber. What's next? The proctologist, the gynecologist?"

No matter where you stand on the issue (or which option you would chose), one thing is clear: terrorism works. I'm not saying this because I support terrorism. Quite the contrary. But if the terrorists' goal is to so inconvenience our lives and force us constantly to change our lifestyles and our principles so that we will eventually cry uncle (and that is indeed their goal), then they are clearly winning.

I find it ironic, however, that we can invade other countries, slaughter civilians by the thousands, engage in rendition and torture, violate their human rights, in addition to our own Bill of Rights, and institute a national security state that would make even Orwell squirm, and hardly anyone complains. But touch our junk, and suddenly we're Rosa Parks on steroids.

Want to know what will really make us safer? How about changing our foreign policy in the Middle East? How about a little fairness, a little even-handedness in the way we treat Muslim states and Muslims in general. How about we stop preaching to other governments about democracy and human rights while we prop up corrupt and repressive regimes like Egypt, Israel and the Saudis? How about a little concern for the poor and oppressed, instead of just oil, oil, oil? That's what the Muslim world is really asking for, and to be honest, they have a point. No, they don't "hate our freedom." They want our freedom. Freedom from us. (One political blogger noted months back that one of the main reasons immigrants, legal and illegal, flock here by the millions every year, is just that: the U.S. is the only place where they can be free of the U.S.)

"But wouldn't that be, like, giving into the terrorists?" No, it would be, like, doing the right thing.

But such change is not the way of profit and empire. We'd much rather squeeze and plunder, than give into such unreasonable, humanitarian demands. Besides, these new scanners just put hundreds of millions in the pockets of Rapiscan, a client of the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm (you mean Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security Director, who has been singing the virtues of these machines? The very same. Hmmm. The plot just got thicker. I'll think of him every time I am groped.).

2010-11-09T00:18:00.002-05:00

A Holy Rage

I came across this quote today from an article by Danish pastor, playwright and martyr Kaj Munk:

“What is therefore, our task today? Shall I answer: ‘Faith, hope, and love’? That sounds beautiful. But I would say - courage. No, even that is not challenging enough to be the whole truth. Our task today is recklessness. For what we Christians lack is not psychology or literature…we lack a holy rage - the recklessness which comes from the knowledge of God and humanity....And remember the signs of the Christian Church have been the Lion, the Lamb, the Dove, and the Fish…but never the chameleon.” ("The Task of the Pastor Today," 1941)

While "recklessness" and "rage" have never been considered cardinal Christian virtues, I think we know what he is talking about, don't we? The Danish words vrede ("rage") and dumdristighed ("recklessness") can easily be translated as "anger" and "temerity," if that better suits our sensibilities. Munk is not asking for violence here, but action; not reckless folly in the eyes of God, but certainly in the eyes of the world.

Did not our Lord's heart burn with anger when he saw the sick and suffering? Did he not pour forth righteous indignation when he witnessed the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees? Did he not take a courageous stand when he saw the greedy corruption of the temple system? Did not his love and obedience lead him to the "recklessness" of the Cross? Perhaps we dare not do as much, but can we do less?

2010-11-04T14:21:00.005-04:00

A Great Nation, But Not Greatly Good

Among the election night victory and concession speeches, there were the usual "we lost but we really won" variety, and others that were nothing short of mawkish. But one in particular disturbed me to the core. I shan't mention the name. Just listen:

"...America will remain great, if we remain proud of America, if we remain proud of the American system, the system that is enshrined in our founding documents, the system that protects and promotes the free exchange of goods, the system that protects capitalism, that has made this country great. Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'That government is best that governs least.' Likewise, freedom is best when enjoyed by the most. America—America can rise up and surmount these problems, if we just get government out of our way."

First of all, Jefferson did not say, "That government is best that governs least." At least the good folks at Monticello who catalog his writings have never been able to find any such reference. Most famously, it was American philosopher Henry David Thoreau who quoted the maxim in his essay "On Civil Disobedience" (1849). It was actually the motto of a popular political periodical of the day, The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, which championed Jacksonian democracy over its more conservative and aristocratic rivals.

Interestingly, however, Thoreau had protecting neither Capitalism nor property in mind when he wrote this. Quite the opposite. The issue of slavery, and specifically of what was to be done with fugitive slaves, was tearing the nation apart. Federal laws demanded that runaway slaves be returned to their owners and any persons aiding such slaves be prosecuted, even in free States. Thoreau's rationale in using the quote is both anti-slavery and anti-imperialist, since in the essay he also goes on to attack the U.S. war against Mexico. He felt strongly in both cases that citizens should not allow themselves to be used as agents of injustice. His condemnation of slavery encompassed not only the Southern slave holders, but also their Northern accomplices in New England, "...who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.… There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them." He exhorts his fellow citizens, therefore, not simply to wait for the next election and vote for justice, since this was the equivalent of wishing for it. Instead, people should actually be just and to act justly, not to violate their consciences, no matter what the law required, even if such a stand brought imprisonment.

Yes, Thoreau advocated that citizens ought to refuse to pay taxes, not because the government had no right to tax or because he wanted to hold onto his money, but because taxation supported an unjust system (slavery) and an unjust war. "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison," he states,

".… where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,– the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.… Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible."

Obviously, the speaker was unaware of both the author and the context when he used the quote. Since he doesn't seem like a big reader, he should have used Wikiquote. It's usually more accurate. But then, he wasn't the only one. During this campaign misattributions were falling like acorns (the result of over-reliance on the Net). Both sides quoted our Founding Fathers with an accuracy that would make even Norm Crosby laugh. The speaker may have also been oblivious of the fact that Jefferson did say this: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Old Tom is famous for his articulating the Constitution's "wall of separation" between religion and government. Few people know he also advocated erecting a similar wall between government and corporate power.

I agree that government can at times be meddlesome and avaricious. It is not the answer to all our ills and can be an ill in itself. The problem, however, is that there is often too much government regulation in one sector (usually the bottom) and none at all in another (usually at the top). Was the recent economic meltdown the result of too much government? It is tragic that many earnest and hardworking citizens involved in the Tea Party movement do not see that there are more powerful and sinister forces at work, channeling and manipulating their anger in order to give yet another green light to more corporate deregulation, unbridled greed and the continued siphoning of wealth from the bottom to the top.

Secondly, the speaker's claim that "America will remain great if we remain proud of America" is not patriotism but empty chauvinism. There is nothing wrong with national pride; every nation has it. Such pride is common; true greatness is not. For it is not merely a nation's pride which determines its greatness. History is replete with powerful nations. To be powerful, all one has to do is have a large citizenry and bigger bombs than one's neighbor. But true greatness implies more than mere size or strength; it involves greatness of character-- as one of Shakespeare's characters says, "Good king, great king-- but not greatly good." He's referring to moral greatness.

America will never be truly great until it is willing to look honestly at its failings, sins and injustices and correct them. That would be a truly great country. America does not need more pride; we have enough for the rest of the world combined. We need more soul-searching. We don't need more power; we need more justice. In effect, what that speaker was saying was this: "Don't take your eyes off the flag, because if you do, even for one moment, you will see things you do not want to see, things that will fill you with shame and anger. You might even notice that we're stealing you blind."

Thirdly, we need not only to be "proud" of those "founding documents" (i.e. our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence), we actually need to take them seriously and practice their principles, not tossing them to the winds as soon as trouble bares its ugly teeth. As one politician said during this campaign: yes, no doubt we could capture more terrorists if we just dismantled our system of civil rights, but that is not a country we would want to live in, is it?

And lastly, I felt disgusted, but not surprised, at the lack of press coverage of the war during this election. It seems that the biggest discretionary expenditure in our budget (over 1 trillion dollars so far) is a non-issue when it comes to the election cycle. So I guess the American people can't think of more than one thing at a time? Or more likely, our leaders and their servants in the media want us merely to forget about the thousands of our children and hundreds of thousands of civilians lost in these conflicts. 'Cause that might make this great people uncomfortable, and we can't have that. Some greatness.

So keep waving that flag, O elected officials and men and women of the press. All those stripes and stars are colorful and distracting, and they'll keep us from focusing on what's really important.

2010-10-23T22:16:00.001-04:00

Support Our Children Not Our Troops

Over the past few months we have listened to numerous stories of violence in our military. "Isn't the military supposed to be violent?" you ask. No, it is not. Not when soldiers are killing each other. Not when a corporate system of violence and a disrespect for human life take hold of the minds of youth in the military, and killing civilians like aliens in a video game becomes common. Not when a cult of death causes young men to collect fingers and bones of their kills. Not when we sacrifice our humanity on the altar of technology. Yes, such things have always happened and will probably continue to happen in war, but must they?

The other day I was driving and I stopped at a light behind a car with the bumper sticker, "Support Our Troops." Such reminders are common, especially in a post-Vietnam era when we (ironically) do not want to repeat the mistakes of that war.

"Are they really our troops?" I asked myself. In a war which has never been declared by Congress, a conflict which has from the beginning involved such egregious deceit, cover-ups and lies, with a military that every day becomes increasingly democratically unaccountable, are they really our troops? Are they not in reality simply the tools of executive power run amok? The pawns of a conjoined military and corporate power that effectively control our foreign policy? Are these brutal and macabre acts not the signs of a military that has lost sight of its goal, of a government that has become untethered from the popular will, and of a nation that has lost its way?

Our children. Yes, oh God, these young men and women are our children. Let us acknowledge them. Let us love them. Let us pray for them. Let us help them in any way we can to heal. We owe it to them for our staying silent for so long. But they are not our troops, any more than this is our war.

If I could print a bumper sticker of my own, it might read: "God help our children caught up in the Machiavellian machinery of the military-industrial complex." Okay, nice alliteration, but it's a bit long and would not fit on most bumpers, unless you drive a '59 Cadillac. So instead of "Support Our Troops," how about just "God help our children caught in the war machine."

2010-10-12T23:13:00.002-04:00

Let All the Poisons That Lurk in the Mud Hatch Out?

The other day I was reminded of the old BBC mini-series "I Claudius," based on Robert Graves' popular novel about the Roman imperial dynasty. As a young man, the stammering and halting Claudius favored a return to the old Republic. Later in life, however, having been forced by the military into the role of emperor, he tries to make the best of a bad situation by governing with justice and clemency. Yet as his death approaches, he begins to realize that by governing too wisely and too well he may have actually done Rome a disservice. By putting a more smiling face on a brutal empire, he has made his fellow Romans comfortable with tyranny and dictatorship. Finally, when an assassination plot led by his wife Agrippina begins to coil around him, he welcomes it. For he knows that his stepson and successor Nero will govern so cruelly that the people will not bear it and will surely revolt in favor of a return to the Republic. "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out," he stammers at the end, meaning that things need to get much worse before people become willing to rise up. Rome needs to see the true face of dictatorship in all its hideous brutality.

The novel is of course a fictionalized account of the history surrounding Claudius' reign. In having the emperor embrace death, the author, like many historians, tries to account for Claudius' thought process in naming so unprepossessing a youth as Nero as heir. In reality, Nero would prove such a tyrant that both the imperial government and the military did eventually rise up against him, forcing him to commit suicide. The immediate result was an aborted attempt to reinstate a republic and a year of bloody civil war as several military generals struggled for succession. With peace came, not a return to the Republic, but at least a series of relatively "good" emperors, save one (as good as emperors go, I guess).

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." It's a ghastly thought, for in allowing events to take such a course, Claudius knows he is about to unleash unheard of mayhem on his own people, let alone the peoples of the empire. The Roman Senate was but a rubber stamp, a pale mockery of its former self. The Praetorian Guard, originally the emperor's life guard, had taken on a life of its own and become the real power behind the throne. The military had become so powerful that he, the emperor, has to resort to bribery to get it to do what he wants. So as Claudius sees it, such suffering is the only way to break the stranglehold of this military-imperial complex.

Recently, I've been wondering what it will take to turn my own country around. With the recent removal of all restraint on corporate money in U.S. politics, the brainwashing of America by corporate media, corporate control of all three branches of government, the looting of our national treasure and the dissolution of the middle class, the alarming pandemic of intolerance and bigotry, the growing tyranny of the Security State, executive power, endless war, militarism, and the gutting of our Constitution, my country seems to be careening down a steep slope toward chaos and ruin. Poised on a precipice, we need to ask ourselves how bad things have to get before we wake up, stand up, speak out and join hands to work for real change. Perhaps they have to get worse, substantially worse.

I feel sickened by the thought that, despite all that we now see and suffer, the bulk of my fellow evangelicals continue to embrace an agenda of ever increasing militarism, nationalism, racism, corporatism, economic selfishness, ignorance, arrogance and empire-- as though Jesus had preached, "Blessed are the rich, blessed are the powerful, blessed are the proud, blessed are those who persecute and oppress"-- and of course, "blessed are the white." (Having actually read the Bible, I can safely say this is not what Jesus envisioned for his church. )

I am jealous for us that we would wake up and take up the mantle of our true calling: that we would be a prophetic voice, not a pathetic one trying to establish our own kingdom at the point of a gun. I fear, however, that like the Germans of the 1930s, we will not be convinced of our errors until we see our country in rubble around our feet (if, that is, we are among those still standing). Madness has a way of leading to inevitable disaster once it picks up enough speed. I don't know yet whether we have reached that critical velocity. The next few years will tell.

It is ironic that our real enemy is not Islam. Christian fundamentalism and its consort, fundamentalist Capitalism, have sown more seeds of destruction, are responsible for more mayhem and carnage than Islamic fundamentalism. Incredible, isn't it? The church, the very thing that God created to be the answer, has become part of the problem. In its pushing a nationalistic agenda and militaristic solutions, in its blind support for an Israeli empire and its intolerance and selfish indifference toward other people groups, in its love affair with unbridled, so-called "free markets" and lack of concern for a suffering humanity, the church in this country, at least the loudest portion of it, has actually pushed the world closer to Armageddon. But no doubt they wanted that in the first place. "Blessed are the war-mongers for they shall see the kingdom of God, and quickly."

The Lord intended, and still intends, the church to be a voice of peace and reason in this bellicose world. We are created in Christ Jesus to comfort and care for, not to make, widows and orphans. Odd that in pursuing a kingdom of righteousness, love, mercy, peace and justice, we should ignore all five. Hmm, sounds familiar, does it not?

Lord, we ask your forgiveness on behalf of an apostate church, for seeking to establish your kingdom through violence and bloodshed, instead of humility and love; for having allied ourselves with the forces of greed and selfishness, for seeking worldly power, instead of that which comes from your hand alone; for pushing this nation further from, instead of closer to you; for making this world a more dangerous and painful place and increasing the suffering of an already suffering humanity. In your mercy grant us the humility to see our sin and the wisdom to seek the truth, to change our course before it is too late, and to show the true face of Christ to a world groping in darkness.

2010-10-07T12:41:00.007-04:00

"But They Were Nazis"

This week the world has been shocked and outraged by the uncovering of a decades-old human experiment which took place in Guatemala in the 1940s. There the U.S. Public Health Service carried out a Tuskegee-type study using human guinea pigs. Only in this case the subjects were actually given syphilis by inoculation (in Tuskegee, the men who were denied treatment had already contracted the disease). The purpose of the Guatemalan study was to establish whether penicillin could be used prophylactically to prevent syphilis. Again, as in Tuskegee, the subjects (who were soldiers, prisoners, prostitutes and mental patients) had no idea they were being used in this way.

Ironically, while these experiments were being conducted, thousands of miles away in Nuremberg, Germany, another trial was taking place. There American prosecutors accused Nazi doctors of unheard of human experiments. One of the outcomes of the Second Nuremberg trial was the development of an international code of ethics called the Nuremberg Code, which declared that subjects of medical experiments must be apprised of all risks and must give their informed consent: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential," it says.

Asked in an interview back in the 70s if the Nuremberg trials had had any impact on his work, Dr. John Heller, Public Health Service director at Tuskegee in the 40s, responded, "No." Then looking rather wounded at the implication of his statement, he added plaintively, "But they were Nazis!"

Of course. We're men of science and reason. It's the other guys who are monsters-- monsters with German accents and Teutonic names. Such things could never happen here. We're a civilized country.

Unfortunately, the charge of "crimes against humanity" is not limited by one's political affiliation or country of origin. Those German doctors also saw themselves as men of science conducting research that would benefit mankind. Besides, many were just following orders.

The Inquisition was conducted by often devout and well-meaning men who thought they were acting in the best interest of their victims, the church, the state, and God. Convinced of this, they were able to make the most appalling, aseptic decisions involving cruel methods of interrogation and torture. How ironic and tragic that human beings can be led to such inhumanity by a fanatical devotion to the Truth. Their misstep was not in pursuing Truth (whatever they thought that to be) but in pursuing it without compassion, mercy, tolerance or any acknowledgment of a common humanity.

At the time, U.S. doctors considered their Nazi counterparts to be aberrations, "lunatics," or losers-- until the Tuskegee experiment came to light in the 1970s (it was still going on). Since then the establishing of institutional review, monitoring boards to oversee safety and data collection, and ongoing ethics education have helped reduce the possibility that such crimes will be repeated. Or have they?

Today, we continue to point the finger at other governments for their use of torture, for war crimes and violations of human rights, while we either cover up our own transgressions or excuse them under the title of "national security." We chide other countries for their failure to allow a full public investigation of past atrocities, but when we fail to do so, it's simply called progress, "looking forward, not backward." You see, it's always those other guys who are monsters.

Unfortunately, monster is as monster does. It is our ethical choices and our actions which determine our true character, not what we call ourselves. If this frightens us, it should.

2010-09-23T00:06:00.003-04:00

Unclear on the Concept

In college one of my favorite comic strips was Mr. Boffo by Joe Martin. At that time the strip featured a series of cartoons entitled "People Unclear on the Concept." One entry depicts the interior of a passenger airliner. On the starboard side all eyes are glued to the windows as the terrified passengers watch the engine burst into flames. One man on the other side of the aisle, however, seems unconcerned, even cocky. He points to the intact engine on his side of the plane and, leaning over the aisle, taunts one of the horrified passengers. "Ha! Ours is still good!" he laughs.

On Monday Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), often celebrated as a moderate among conservatives, addressed the American Enterprise Institute in DC and warned that the U.S. must be willing to use military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. He also added that such an option must include as its goal a complete regime change in that country. Such an attack should not use ground troops, he said, but should be launched using air and naval forces.

One frightening fact is that Graham serves as a senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which helps to determine military policy. Does he have any concept of what a combined air and naval bombardment can do to a civilian population? Obviously, in not committing ground troops, he wants to spare us more American casualties at a time when a majority of us want the war in Af-Pak to end. Thoughtful of him. And what about the thousands of Iranian civilians who would die in such a conflict? An estimated 6,600 Iraqi civilians died during several days of heavy bombardment during the 2003 Shock and Awe campaign over Baghdad. Perhaps hundreds of thousands dead in securing the country over the past seven years. Was it worth it?

Is this our answer to everything? Bomb them first, negotiate later. What gives us the right to inflict such suffering and mayhem on an Iranian population that only wants freedom-- the same freedom we saw them fighting so bravely for in the streets last year. Did you see them on YouTube and Twitter? These are the people who would form the collateral damage of Sen. Graham's campaign.

And what makes us think they would want our brand of freedom? Are the citizens of Iraq really so better off now than they were before? Struggling to eke out an existence amid an infrastructure that was flattened by our bombs, terrorism that we brought in our wake, and political corruption and repression that are as rampant now as they were before. The average Iraqi sees little good that we've brought. Regime change, sure, but in name only. The names and faces of the villains have merely changed. Is this the blessing we want to inflict on the people of Iran, Senator Graham?

Raptores orbis, postquam cuncta vastantibus defuere terrae, mare scrutantur: si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit: soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. (Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a wasteland and call it peace) -- the 1st-century British chieftain Calgacus, quoted in Tacitus, Agricola, xxx.

If history tells us anything, it's that what goes around comes around. The nation that murders, pillages, and oppresses others is eventually itself murdered, pillaged and oppressed. And that is not merely because the universe has an acute sense of irony; it is because there is a God, and he is just. Incredibly patient, but just. If you look today, you will not find a Roman Empire, merely the vestiges of one: monuments she built to herself when drunk with empire. Eventually, the day came when the city that terrorized and subjugated the world was herself terrorized and subjugated, stripped naked for all to gawk and laugh at.

Many are familiar with Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley's sonnet "Ozymandias" (1818), inspired by a fragment of a colossal statue of Pharaoh Rameses II in the British Museum. Few may know that Shelley wrote the poem in competition with his friend Horace Smith, who published his version the same year. It hasn't the grace of Shelley's, but it may perhaps hit closer to home:

In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:
"I am great OZYMANDIAS," saith the stone,
"The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
"The wonders of my hand." The City's gone,
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.
We wonder, and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragments huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

So I tremble for my country. And I also pray that one day America will disenthrall herself, wake up from the intoxication and rapine violence called empire, to become the nation she was created to be. A peacemaker in the world, rather than a troublemaker, one whose leaders are the envy, not the bane, of humanity, a country whose name is invoked as a blessing, not a curse, a source of hope, rather than fear. To become the generous and peace-loving America we think we are, but have never really been. That we would not be like the cartoonist's character on that airplane, mocking his fellow passenger as the plane goes down, as though we lived in complete isolation, instead of in a vitally interconnected world that must learn to live in peace. Oh that we would be clear on this concept!

2010-09-14T23:18:00.015-04:00

SUSPECTED CHINESE DRUG LORD KILLED IN NEW JERSEY DRONE ATTACK

September 14, 2010

WEST ORANGE, NJ-- The peace of this normally quiet neighborhood was shattered early Monday morning when a Chinese predator drone dropped two bombs, destroying six homes and significantly damaging twelve others. In all, 18 people were killed, 21 wounded.

"We heard nothing. There was no warning. Just these huge explosions," said Robin Maachen, a mother of three whose home suffered damage in the blasts. "We were asleep. Everybody was asleep. There was no time to prepare ourselves. Everything just shook, and things started falling. I can't believe this happened."

Among the dead were 9 children and 3 seniors, all of whom lived in private homes within a one-block radius of the blast site. The search for survivors was called off yesterday when the last body was accounted for.

The Beijing government claimed success in killing at least one Chinese national, Ouyang Hsieh, in the 3:00 AM attack. Hsieh had long been wanted in China on charges of drug smuggling. West Orange police confirmed today that Hsieh, who had recently immigrated to the U.S., was among the dead.

"While we regret the loss of life," a Chinese official stated yesterday, "the world is a much safer place without Mr. Hsieh."

The U.S. State Department has declined to comment on the night bombing, but it is widely rumored in Washington that increasing financial pressure from Beijing is behind the recent White House decision to give Chinese predator drones access to American air space.

[Sounds crazy, huh? Exactly. No, it's not true. But should we do elsewhere what we are not willing to have done to us?]

2010-09-06T23:43:00.001-04:00

Simplify, Simplify?

In a lecture entitled "Life Without Principle" (published posthumously in 1863), philosopher Henry David Thoreau warns us: "In proportion as our inward life fails, we go more constantly and desperately to the post-office. You may depend on it, that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters, proud of his extensive correspondence, has not heard from himself this long while."

Almost two decades earlier Thoreau had moved into his cabin on Walden Pond, embarking upon a two-year experiment in the pursuit of a more simple, quiet and pure life, in contrast, he believed, to that of the mass of humanity, who "lead lives of quiet desperation." "Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life?" he asks in Walden (1852).

"...We have the Saint Vitus' dance, and cannot possibly keep our heads still.... Hardly a man takes a half-hour's nap after dinner, but when he wakes he holds up his head and asks, 'What's the news?' as if the rest of mankind had stood his sentinels. Some give directions to be waked every half-hour, doubtless for no other purpose.... For my part, I could easily do without the post-office. I think that there are very few important communications made through it. To speak critically, I never received more than one or two letters in my life — I wrote this some years ago — that were worth the postage. The penny-post is, commonly, an institution through which you seriously offer a man that penny for his thoughts which is so often safely offered in jest.... To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea. Yet not a few are greedy after this gossip. There was such a rush, as I hear, the other day at one of the offices to learn the foreign news by the last arrival, that several large squares of plate glass belonging to the establishment were broken by the pressure — news which I seriously think a ready wit might write a twelve-month, or twelve years, beforehand with sufficient accuracy.... and as for England, almost the last significant scrap of news from that quarter was the revolution of 1649.... The preacher, instead of vexing the ears of drowsy farmers on their day of rest at the end of the week — for Sunday is the fit conclusion of an ill-spent week, and not the fresh and brave beginning of a new one — with this one other draggle-tail of a sermon, should shout with thundering voice, 'Pause! Avast! Why so seeming fast, but deadly slow?'"(ch.2).

Thoreau lived in the middle of the nineteenth century, when America was rapidly industrializing as well as clearing and settling its frontier with an alarming mindlessness. The materialism and hustle-bustle of the young nation filled the young philosopher with horror, as he saw that all this activity produced a great deal of heat and dust, but little light. For him the various appurtenances and necessities of modern life had become an obstacle to "elevated thought." For Plato "the unexamined life was not worth living"; for Thoreau, it was no life at all.

What would the Sage of Walden think of our lives today? We rise early to check our email, post vapid comments on our Facebook pages, check email again, then log in repeatedly during the day to see if someone has left an even more inane comment to our comment; watch our 24-hour news channels, then retire, but not before checking our email one last time. Not to mention, of course, that we hold our smart phones next to our hearts, insuring that anyone on God's decreasingly green earth can reach us at any moment of the day. If that would not be enough to make old Thoreau disappear deeper into the woods, never to be heard from again, then I'll turn in my English degree.

William Powers in his recent book Hamlet's Blackberry, examines the way this technological revolution has made things like solitude and deep thought a distant memory. As he described it on a recent PBS interview, "I was feeling, in my work, in my family life, and just really kind of inside my own head a crowdedness, a sort of never -- never quiet time." With all the phone calls, email, Facebook posts, tweets, blogs, comments, etc. Powers feels he and his family had reached what he calls "digital maximalism."

Powers is no Luddite, however, hurling execration on modern life, since as a confessed multitasker he cannot do without the internet, email and cell phone himself. The issue for him is one of balance. The answer, he says, is to "do what Thoreau did, which is learn to have a little disconnectedness within the connected world... don't run away." The Powers clan, who now live in a quiet corner of Cape Cod, practice what they call an Internet Sabbath, turning off the modem from Friday evening until Monday morning. "What we saw in our family life was something was being leached out of our togetherness and our communication by turning away from each other toward the screen and even just communicating with each other on the screen. We were e-mailing across the house, you know, when we could walk a few steps and have a conversation." [Hmm, come to think of it, we do that all the time at the office.]

Having hit bottom, the author began a search of the great thinkers of the past (such as Socrates, Plato, Seneca, Shakespeare, Ben Franklin, and Thoreau), and found they each had confronted similar technological challenges. Socrates, for example, bemoaned the advent of the written alphabet since people no longer had to remember anything; they could just look it up. The Stoic philosopher Seneca, who also had a role in the Roman imperial government, complained that he and his colleagues were absolutely inundated with mail, with people constantly checking for the latest dispatches from overseas. Pulled in so many directions by his responsibilities, he realized he had to find a tranquil place he could retire to, even if it was only in his mind. Ben Franklin, too, knew the power of staying connected, but also the need for moments of quiet reflection.

These days Powers tours the country talking about the importance of "selective disconnecting." "One of the first talks I gave about the book," he says, "was in Los Angeles to a fairly large audience, people of many different ages. And after the speech, the people who came up to me and really buttonholed me most urgently were -- tended to be younger people. And a few of them really had tears in their eyes and said, you know, I have never -- I didn't even know this was an option."

As I write this blog, dear reader, I have just realized that my wife left several minutes ago saying she was going to take our 2-year-old daughter out for her first tricycle ride. What in the world am I doing here? What would Thoreau say? I'll see you later. "Honey, wait up!"

2010-09-02T23:25:00.020-04:00

The Global "War on Terror": It's Not Really
About Terrorists Because It's Not About People

Last month the Washington Post reported that the Pakistani government had implored the U.S. military in Afghanistan for more helicopters to use in flood relief efforts. With over a fifth of Pakistan under water, tens of millions of people affected, and international aid trickling in like ketchup from a bottle, the Pakistanis were desperate to avoid a massive humanitarian crisis. But helicopters are in short supply, said a senior U.S. military official. "Do they exist in the region? Yes. Are they available? No." And nothing short of a direct command from the White House could divert them from their appointed mission.

An August 20 report by the Asian Human Rights Commission details a decision by the Pakistani government, presumably under U.S. pressure, to divert flood waters away from a U.S. airbase in Shahbaz and toward nearby towns and villages where, as a result, over 800,000 people were displaced. As one minister admitted, "If the water was not diverted, the Shahbaz Airbase would have been inundated." This landing field was given to the U.S. by former President Musharraf as a base from which to launch aerial attacks against terrorist targets. In order to spare the base, a local bypass was demolished, which diverted waters toward hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis instead, who are now stranded without homes, food or water. With no other airbase in the area from which to launch relief efforts, the situation of those affected remains extremely dire. Couldn't the U.S. base be used for the relief effort? No.

Hey, we're fighting global terrorism. We don't have time to care about abstract things like Humanity. We're spending trillions killing Muslims. Do we have to show we care about them, too?

So once again we have clearly demonstrated the terrorists are right: we don't give a tinker's damn about the followers of Islam. Apparently, our policy is "the only good Muslim is a dead one."

One other thing is abundantly clear from our response to this crisis: this so-called War on Terror is not about terrorism. If it were, we would immediately stop what we are doing, put down our weapons and devote our time, treasure and technology to relieving the suffering of the very people who hate us. Why? To show them they are wrong. But clearly, and sadly, they are not wrong.

This endless war is not about terrorism; it never was. That was just the pretext. As with Iraq, it is and has always been about greed: about the potential billions of dollars of oil that should be flowing from countries like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Russia, through our pipelines, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan, and into our waiting tankers. Ours. Ours. Ours. And about the billions of our tax dollars and borrowed money being shoveled into that insatiate Plutonian furnace ycleped the "military-industrial-congressional complex."

As our government, along with others', under the spell of petrodollars, continues to stonewall development and conversion to clean energy, the race to tap the world's yet untapped oil reserves becomes even nastier. And we must have it. All of it. It is ours. And why not? We have, after all, sacrificed a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of other lives (no, we won't mention that) to insure we can fill up our tanks (both automobile and the military kind).

Well, what about freedom? Yes, this war is about freedom. Our freedom to get oil, our freedom to get what we want, to invade whom we choose, all to line the pockets of powerful companies, even though that addiction is killing us, the rest of the world and all that dwells therein.

But no, don't say this was ever about terrorists, please, because it was never ever about people.

2010-08-15T22:04:00.004-04:00

American Jeremiad

Among my people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds
And like those who set traps to catch men.
Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit;
They have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek.
Their evil deeds have no limit.
They do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it,
They do not defend the rights of the poor.
Should I not punish them for this? declares the LORD.
Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?
A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority,
And my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?...
To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me?
Their ears are closed so they cannot hear.
The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.
--Jeremiah 5:30,31; 6:10

Poor Jeremiah. What a frustrating task he had been given, and how futile it all seemed. If only the people would have listened. The LORD was ready to pour out his forgiveness, if they repented. But they just could not admit they had done wrong. They were God's chosen people, after all; his own inheritance. Indeed, his temple was in their midst; he himself dwelt among them. So they would always be safe, they thought.

"Do not trust in deceptive words and say, 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!'" he said.

"If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers forever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless" (7:4-8).

But they would not hear of it.

The prophet's words may safely seem light years away from us, but we have only to look around us to see how little human nature has changed in 2,600 years. The rich still devour the poor, the powerful always stepping on the weak. Courts and lawmakers are corrupt; immigrants and the poor find no justice, and we all fall prey to the greedy. None of this is surprising. What is even more tragic, however, is that so few of God's people seem to take it to heart.

In Jeremiah's day, in the face of ominous threats from an unruly empire to the east, professional prophets and priests continued to wave the flag and preach the invincibility of the Israelite state, since God was on their side. Few bothered to look within or ask, "Yes, but are we on God's side?" Instead, they treated him more as a mascot than the Master of the universe.

In our American hubris we assume that this has always been and will always be God's country. That America can do no wrong and is accountable to no one. That we are free to inflict our greed and vengeance on any nation we please because we can, and wherever we go, the Almighty will go with us. We're America.

See how desperately we cling to our national myths and how tirelessly we try to silence all the little voices worldwide that dare even to whisper, "The emperor is naked." Sure of our righteousness, we indignantly tighten our borders against the onslaught of humanity that daily pours across seeking a drink of water-- only because on the other side we have fouled their streams or diverted them to our own use. In vengeance we attempt to hunt down every naysayer who, tired of our holding his head in the toilet, dares to kick against our divine imperium. How dare they use terror and violence! Those are our prerogatives alone. (I am not in any way condoning terror and violence, and they do not suddenly cease to be what they are, terror and violence, simply because our side uses them.)

We even ascend our national pulpit quite frequently to wag our finger at other nations and lecture them on human rights, democracy, fairness, the rule of law, and yes, even torture. [China, in fact, after years of enduring our sanctimonious jeremiads, recently issued a report on human rights conditions here.] It seems much easier, you see, to snip the wires and silence the alarm bell, than to admit we have a problem-- that we are the problem. Always much simpler to treat the symptoms than the disease-- in the short run, at least. Simple and tragic.

Tragic because we exhaust ourselves, our armies and our treasure in attempting to stop our ears to the truth. In reality, we would not be spending trillions "fighting terrorism" if we had not been pillaging and oppressing the Muslim world directly or indirectly for generations. We do this, we claim, to protect American interests. What are those interests? Chevron, Dow, Coca-Cola, DynCorp, Halliburton, Monsanto, Ford, WalMart. These terrorists, they're jealous of our freedom, we say. Yes, they are. They want freedom, too. Freedom from us.

Now we're planning to spend hundreds of millions to secure a border that will never be secure, for without justice, security is but an illusion. It never occurs to us that people come here, not because we are so wonderful, but because our economic policies in our own hemisphere have left them no other choice.

I do not dispute that my country has done and continues to do some good in the world, but the idea that the world hates us so much because we stand for truth, justice and democracy is a pathetic deception. The image we have of ourselves-- the America that gives and gives and gets nothing in return but ingratitude-- should have expired with the Marshall Plan. That America, if it ever existed at all, is long dead.

The truth is that the U.S. is, and has always been, a nation tragically at odds with itself. We stand for one thing, but pursue another. We speak soaring words that make the world dream-- of freedom, democracy and the sacred rights of humanity-- but our ambassadors are not Tom Jefferson or Abe Lincoln; they are Caterpillar, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Blackwater.

Decide, O America, which will ye be? A free republic or an empire? For history proves you cannot be both.

2010-08-09T00:59:00.001-04:00

A Tribute to Kaj Munk

Sixty-six years ago a body lay in a freezing ditch outside of Silkeborg, Denmark. It was that of a man of middle age and of looks not terribly prepossessing, especially with that bullet through his head (a distinction which is rarely flattering). Oddly, he was not the victim of a robbery or some gangland slaying. This was not the body of a wealthy man, as the world reckons wealth. Nor was this a case of suicide. You see, Denmark was under Nazi occupation. This was a political statement. This man was murdered simply for telling the truth. Not the ordinary kind of truth we are used to telling, such as "two and two are four," or "the American Revolution ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783." I'm talking about speaking truth to power. Courageously. And relentlessly.

When it came to speaking the truth, it seemed Kaj Munk was no ordinary man. Unlike most Christians, he actually believed what Jesus said about himself, and he thought this should affect the way a Christian lived his life. That's right, he was one of those rare oddities of human nature: someone who actually takes Jesus at his word and lives accordingly. The world calls them fools. There haven't been many. As a pastor Munk also took his ordination vows seriously and, like his Master, tried to keep the wolves from entering the sheep pen. The wolves he fought so tenaciously were much the same as in Jesus' day: fear, compromise, lies, expediency, racism, religiosity, materialism, greed.

A playwright as well as a pastor, Kaj Munk spoke truth to power and did it so eloquently and fearlessly that he seemed like another John the Baptist. He spoke out against exploitation of workers, poverty and hunger, prejudice, the persecution of Jews, totalitarianism, the corruption of the state church, as well as the cruelty and injustice of the Nazis and their Danish henchmen. "The goodness of God," he said, "as we see it in Jesus is meek and long-suffering, but never compromises with evil." And again, in one sermon denouncing the deportation of Jews, he said, "To be silent in the face of sin is to speak the language of the devil."

No, compromise was certainly not in this man's vocabulary. Even as they hung on his every word and gulped down his courage like interned prisoners ravenous for bread, his parishoners, friends, neighbors, and fellow Danes, living under a cruel occupation, knew Kaj Munk was not long for this world. Years ago I happened to speak to a Danish woman who had grown up during the war. She said that Munk was so outspoken, everyone held their breath knowing he would be killed by the Gestapo, probably sooner than later.

But it's a funny thing about courage. Just like fear, it can be contagious. A few days later, after the murder, four thousand Danes gathered to bury Kaj Munk, despite violent threats from the Nazis and their sympathizers and even warnings from the Church Ministry. Instead of chilling the passions of national resistance, his death had the opposite effect, sparking outrage within the church and without. Munk's laying down his life for the truth gave his fellow countrymen more courage to carry on his work.

In tribute to Reverend Munk, the following is an excerpt from his sermon, "The Truth cannot be Pickled":

John [the Baptist] was not a very cautious man. He believed in the truth. King Herod was committing adultery. The Baptist called on him and told him to stop it. He risked his life by doing so. And, more than that, he was in danger of provoking rebellion and civil war. It might even stir up the Romans, who could use this as a pretext to mix in the internal affairs of the country. This could have bloody consequences for the whole Jewish people.

Why did John not keep silent? That would have been far more sensible and considerate. John was possessed of a burning faith—the faith that truth is to be preached. There are people who believe that truth can be salted down, that it can be pickled and be taken from the jar and used when convenient. They are mistaken. Truth cannot be pickled. It is found only in living form, and it must be used the moment it appears. If not used, it dies and decays, and it soon be-comes destructive. The most dangerous of all lies is dead truth.

…John was a man of spirit, the Spirit of God, of Truth. Therefore, he had not the slightest faith in the idea that truth can exist hermetically sealed. The day came when he was convinced that the time for action was at hand. He said to himself: "Now the truth demands that I put it into action." His heart beat fast within his hairy chest. His tongue seemed paralyzed. But within that jittery heart there was a great peace: "Now I speak as I ought to speak; now I am acting in accordance with my call as befits a man." In his troubled heart there was a great calm. It gave him strength to utter the few but sufficient words: "It is not lawful for thee to have her."

"Peace be with you" is the greeting of the Church. We sing of the peace that is "more than angel watch." And every Sunday we pastors stand before the altar, hands extended upon the congregation saying: "The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace." It is a great error to think that this "peace" means fare you well, live well, sleep well, and have a good time; that God will see to it that you always have rubbers to wear in the slush. No, the peace of God means that the soul is at rest. It has found a place of rest in its relationship to the truth. Rest is a difficult word, for truth is ever on the march. Rest in this connection means to march together with truth.

That is the peace which protected John when he appeared before Herod. It could not protect his body, but it gave him poise and dignity for all time. The Bible speaks of John’s time in such a way that his time becomes our time. This event in the life of John the Baptist took place in ancient times and in a distant land. But it also takes place in Denmark today.

Among us, too, there are good men who possess this burning faith in the truth to be proclaimed. They do not believe in truth as a stored substance. They cannot go about pretending, and looking away from the truth. They are of flesh and blood and they know fear—fear of their own fate, fear of the tragedy that truth may bring down upon our people. The tragedy which hypocrisy, silence, and lying brings upon a people will, in the course of time, be a thousand fold more fateful.

…In our nation, too, there is a Herod who flirts with the idols—the spirit of compromise which, for the sake of personal well-being permits itself unseemly conduct.

John wields the ax of righteousness. Herod was but a tiny branch on the great tree of evil. But, great or small, judgment had been pronounced. The sprout [in Danish "Kvistling," a word play on the Norwegian traitor Quisling] must be cut off. His Majesty, naturally, did not argue with John. He ordered handcuffs. Thus it has always been. Truth has the word at its command; error has sword and chains. And error continues to delude itself, even to believe it is the stronger of the two.

Now John was in prison. He had delivered his message. In the darkness of his dungeon he sensed the sword hanging over his head. But in his heart was the peace of God, the approval of a good conscience.

What an uncomfortable book the Bible is! Does it not tell us that a good conscience is insufficient, and that even the peace of God may vanish from our hearts? Could not the Bible have dressed up the naked facts a bit? The incident of John’s doubt been passed over in silence? The Baptist might then have died a spotless champion. Alas! The Bible is such a primitive book. It is quite out of place in diplomatic circles, too uncouth for the propaganda ministry. But we have to take it as it is; there is nothing you can do about it. The Bible too is saturated with that dangerous, uncompromising regard for the truth. It tells us the Baptist fell into doubt—as something that it is well for us to know.

…Well, folks who never risk anything are always disappointed when those who do fail to endure. See how manfully and wholeheartedly Jesus defends His friend. He throws Himself into the breach for John with all His untried authority: Though he be weak now, do not forget what he was and what he did in his strength. He was not a reed shaken in the wind. He did not straddle the issue. Go to the Rigsdag if you would see that sort of men.

Now Salome is dancing in the king’s house. There is great merriment. And this man, who was to have been guardian of the law and dispenser of justice, must finish the course he has set—under the silly pretext, perhaps, to prevent someone worse from taking over. That is to say: To keep out a rogue you must be one. Then, between dances, and to the accompaniment of orchestral strains, they bring in the Prophet’s head on a platter.

Herod, Herod, are you so great an idiot as to think you serve the good powers of life with this evil game—that it can lead to anything but corruption of soul, and to ruin and damnation for yourself and your misguided people?

And you, my countrymen, who have been cast into prison because you found yourself compelled by the voice of truth, I pray that you may be strong, and faithful to that inner conviction of having done the right. If there be those among you who are doubtful and uncertain, I absolve you from that sin on behalf of my Lord, as He forgave John. I assure you that He will judge you by your efforts in the cause of truth. You have helped create the spirit out of which alone a sound future can grow. Let it be said to you: The Lord of truth has let His face shine upon you. May He grant you His peace! Ame

2010-08-06T16:04:00.000-04:00

Learning Nothing from History-- Again

It is in the very nature of empires to overextend themselves. Just ask the ancient Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Oh yes, and the Ottomans, too. And uh, Spain, and of course the British.

One of the signs that Rome had overreached herself was the need to hire foreign mercenaries to fight her wars. There simply were not enough Italian soldiers. Another was the ever increasing militarization of the Roman economy-- simply more and more resources needed to support an empire collapsing of its own weight or being overrun by "barbarian" tribes pushing westward.

Although the American empire may not be the exact equivalent to, say, the British in terms of the amount of territory ruled directly through its governors, U.S. hegemony spans the globe, as do our military bases, corporate interests, and cash to prop up unpopular regimes.

There are now more private contractors involved in the war in Afghanistan than military personnel, and we are about to turn Iraq over to them as well (they call it a pull out). 3,100 firms or agencies are involved in the war on terror (that's 1,200 government agencies and 1,900 private companies), a web so large and intricate that Defense Sec'y Gates admitted it's difficult to get the information he needs. We're spending more and more on war and intelligence in the name of national security, while millions of Americans are unemployed, our infrastructure collapsing, teachers laid off, and libraries closing.

There is a well-known native folktale of how monkeys are trapped in the wild. Fruit is placed in a cage allowing only an opening wide enough to fit the monkey's hand. Once the creature grasps the fruit, however, its fist becomes too large to extricate. The monkey becomes enraged and trashes about as it tries to have the fruit and freedom too. Loosing its grip on the fruit would be the logical solution, but the monkey cannot conceive of something so practical. In reality, monkeys are quite resourceful creatures, and probably no self-respecting one would allow itself to be caught this way. It's only we human beings who are so foolish.

In today's blog Salon's Glenn Greenwald had this to say about signs that America's empire is collapsing:

"Does anyone doubt that once a society ceases to be able to afford schools, public transit, paved roads, libraries and street lights -- or once it chooses not to be able to afford those things in pursuit of imperial priorities and the maintenance of a vast Surveillance and National Security State -- that a very serious problem has arisen, that things have gone seriously awry, that imperial collapse, by definition, is an imminent inevitability?"

As Shakespeare says in Sonnet 129:

   All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
   To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

Shame that Hegel was right, and we learn nothing from history.

2010-07-28T17:45:00.003-04:00

Building Bridges Not Walls

This week some citizens of Temecula, CA are up in arms over the proposed construction of an Islamic Center-- right across from two established churches! Some nerve. What makes American Muslims think they have the same constitutional rights to freedom of worship as American Christians? (Hmmm. Could it be the Constitution?) A local Tea Party organization has urged its members to come to a rally and bring their "Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voices" in order to maximize the offense. (In Islamic culture women are forbidden to sing in front of men outside their family, and dogs are ritually unclean to most Muslims.) For the Tea Partiers, ironically called "We the People- Citizens in Action," Islam is "a radically intolerant belief system that is incompatible with the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." Well, nothing like fighting intolerance with intolerance. So grab a torch and pitchfork and hop on the bus!

On the internet rumors and misinformation are still roiling over the proposal to build a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan. (Actually, it's a community center that includes a mosque and the site is two blocks from Ground Zero). On some web pages opposition to the project has reached the level of the shrillest fiction. The imam is painted as a terrorist (actually he's a Sufi, the most moderate and spiritual of all Islamic sects). Last month a protest at the site ended with two Egyptian men being surrounded by "patriots" who thought they looked Muslim. They were in fact Coptic Christians, but that did not matter to the crowd, who thought they heard Arabic accents. The men had to be rescued by police. In defense of the building project, Mayor Bloomberg blasted opponents and asserted that government "shouldn't be in the business of picking [one religion over another]." He went on to say, "I think it's fair to say if somebody was going to try, on that piece of property, to build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming....And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too." As Salon blogger Alex Pareene noted in a recent post, such protests are sheer "paranoid Islamophobia," fanned by irresponsible media and demagogic politicians. People are simply "scared of Muslims."

Earlier this month a group of Christians were arrested for "sharing the gospel" at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Video of the arrests is still circulating on You Tube, along with some misinformation on both sides which has inflamed conservative bloggers and caused fear among Christians. "Is this America?" they ask. In reality, the festival was cultural in nature not religious, and the evangelists were arrested and escorted off the property by police, who out of respect for Dearborn's large Arab community, had created a no-go zone for proselytizing immediately around the festival. According to Dearborn's mayor, provision was made for other religious groups to have tables to disseminate literature in a designated area. But this particular group, which calls itself Acts 17 Apologetics, declined to participate in keeping with its more confrontational evangelism style and they refused to move on. Ok, perhaps the group was doing little harm and the Dearborn police overreacted under pressure, but isn't there a better way to share our faith with Muslims than to invade their festivals? Christians, how would you feel if a group of Jehovah's Witnesses came to your church picnic and started trying to convert your friends and family members?

Doubtless the group rejoices that it is being persectuted for the Name. But as Peter states emphatically in his First Epistle: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or a thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a busybody. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed but praise God that you bear that name..." (4:15). Interesting, isn't it, that Peter should lump meddlesome behavior in with such crimes as homicide and larceny? Could it be that he had had enough experience of immature brethren to know that Christians, in their zeal, can have a tendency to be a pain in the backside? What does he say in chapter 3?: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have...." Wait, there's more. "...But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander" (3:15,16).

Since the group call themselves Acts 17, let's take a look at that chapter. In Athens Paul is deeply distressed by the idols he sees on every street corner, so what does he do? He goes on a rampage, smashing statuary, and once he has drawn a crowd tells the Athenians that they need to repent of their ignorance. Actually, no, that's not what happened. As grieved as he is at such idolatry, Paul controls himself and make a series of reasoned speeches, which come to the attention of the ruling council. And so he is invited to speak before that august body. But once there, instead of attacking their religion, instead of battering down their walls and demolishing their beliefs as worthless superstition, he attempts to build a bridge, starting where they are at, building on the knowledge they have.

Most Christians are deeply ignorant regarding Islam. So we choose to build walls of fear and intolerance to keep others out, instead of building bridges of tolerance and mutual respect to invite them in. In truth, the Quran, and thus most Muslims, have more respect for Jesus than the average white American. Here are just a few things the Muslim holy book says about our Lord: Jesus was "sinless," "the Word of Allah," "conceived by Allah's Spirit," "born of a virgin." He also "came with miracles" and "only did what Allah told him to do." In addition, Jesus was not murdered, for it was "Allah's plan" that he should die; yet Allah "raised him from the dead" and "exalted him." Now Jesus "intercedes with Allah according to Allah's will." "Messiah is his title," and the "knowledge of the last days belongs to him." It even goes so far as to state that "Allah's helpers are those who help Jesus." Many of these statements were pulled directly from the Christian Gospels, which along with the Quran, Pentateuch and Psalms, form the list of Muslim holy books (the Quran, of course, being first).

It is clear that Mohammed had a deep reverence for Christ and commanded his followers to have the same.
Yes, ironically, there are also some conflicting verses that deny his crucifixion and consider it blasphemy to call him God; those are doubtless an obstacle. But Christians and Muslims have more in common than either side has been willing to admit. Even as much as Christians and Jews? Well, that may make for a lively debate. But in the Quran, Messiah actually has a name, Isa al-Mesih, Jesus Christ.

Why do Muslims mistrust Christians? Not because of Jesus, surely. Why do we then insist on walking in the ignorance and intolerance of the Crusaders? Why fear Islam? Why not use it instead? The Quran is the greatest evangelistic tool we can use with Muslims, because their own book tells about Jesus. Yes, it does not go far enough, but there is more than enough to make a good start. Instead of trying to argue Muslims into becoming Christians, which is anathema to them, why not simply use their book to introduce them to the Savior, and then see what Jesus can do.

Satan is deeply invested in keeping these two peoples divided. What's at stake? A billion souls, to start. So he tries hard to keep that dividing wall of hostility and fear firmly in place. As Christians should we continue to add stone upon stone to its already soaring height? Should we invade them with apologetics or with love, humility and respect? "People of Athens, I see that in every way you are deeply religious..." (Ac 17:22).

2010-07-06T14:07:00.002-04:00

Greener Sushi

According to the recent French documentary Global Sushi: Demain nos enfants mangeront des meduses (Tomorrow Our Kids Will Eat Jellyfish), at the current rate of consumption, over the next 40 years 75% of the world's fish species could become extinct. Our insatiable appetite for fish is to blame, including the ever-growing popularity of sushi, which has depleted Pacific stock of bluefin tuna (you'll see it on the menu as maguro or toro) down to 10% of its original levels.

Until recent decades, for the Japanese sushi was a delicacy eaten only on special occasions (like egg nog). But with growing prosperity (and the advent of refrigeration after WWII) came greater demand. To make matters worse, over the past 30 years, sushi bars and restaurants have spread across the globe, creating a worldwide craze. Today, the Japanese consume over 60,000 tons of bluefin tuna annually. And that's just Japan. With so many species of fish now on the endangered list, the average sushi platter now resembles a campaign ad for the World Wildlife Federation.

Is there a better, more sustainable way to enjoy sushi? Is there a way to make sure there's more than one green thing on your nigiri platter besides the wasabi? Experts say yes. One Greenpeace activist has developed a very helpful website that tracks the different species on your plate and recommends what's safe to eat in terms of sustainability, as well as mercury and PCB levels. (Being at the top of the food chain, tuna has notoriously high mercury toxicity.) The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) gives its blue label only to fish that meet its requirements for sustainable fishing (you may have seen it on canned fish).

One potential solution to the problem of over-fishing has been the growth of farm-raising. This has been most successful with shrimp both here in the States and in Asia, but makes little sense with large carnivorous fish like tuna or salmon (it requires 10 lbs of other fish species to make 1 lb.of tuna; 2-4 lbs for salmon), or eel (whose appetites tend to deplete local fish stocks).

A few recommendations when ordering from the sushi bar: try saba (mackerel) and shiromaguro (albacore) instead of maguro/toro (bluefin tuna). Eat suzuki (sea bass) and ebi (shrimp) instead of sake (salmon) or hamachi/hiramasa (yellowtail). Or how about the different varieties of vegetarian sushi? In addition, consider restricting your sushi consumption to once a month at most, or better yet, try ordering from another part of the menu (teriyaki, tempura, udon, etc.). You might also ask the restaurant manager whether he purchases from organic fisheries. Most do not, but if enough people begin asking....

2010-06-18T10:56:00.000-04:00

The Common Thread

The economy tanks and taxpayers foot the bill. A continued occupation of two Muslim nations at a cost of $1 trillion. A crippled attempt at insurance reform. Still no significant financial reform to stave off another meltdown. Too big to fail remains the law of the land. A mine explodes; 29 dead. The worst oil spill in our history, with 11 killed. A humanitarian flotilla attacked and 9 activists executed Rambo-style. What do all these news events have in common? They are all the end result of our nation's corrupt campaign financing system.

Congress grills the CEOs of BP. Sound bites for the constituents back home. Great political theater. But does anyone expect anything to come from it? Hardly. Why?

Because the real problem is not Goldman Sachs, Wellpoint, Massey Energy, BP or the Israeli government. They're simply doing what they're doing because they can. There's no one to stop them because the nightwatchman on duty has been slipped a brown envelope. It's called a campaign contribution.

Let's face it: corporations and lobbyists rule Capitol Hill, not to mention the White House and the courts. As Senator Dick Durbin remarked last year regarding the banking industry's unbridled influence in Congress, "They frankly own the place." No one was surprised at that. So why are we surprised that this country is so boogered up? Why are we shocked that millions of our nation's waterfowl now have to be rinsed in Dawn?

With one blow we can prevent a lot of these problems from reoccurring by reforming our campaign financing system. Probably the majority of our leaders truly want to serve the people who elected them-- at least, they started out that way. But if you have to spend most of your time in constant campaign mode, shaking constituents for money to fill your war chest, it's mighty tempting to settle for one big check.

So while we're busy rapping CEOs on the knuckles and searching for walruses in the Gulf, let's not forget to attack the root of the problem and pressure our lawmakers to do the same. We may be the "small people" but there's more of us, and we can make a big noise.

2010-06-06T00:28:00.083-04:00

It's Up to Us

Don't look now, but when it comes to our government's helping us reduce our demand for fossil fuels and develop clean energy alternatives, there's no one driving the boat. With all that's happening in the Gulf, one would think this would be the perfect time to inaugurate a new and aggressive energy policy that would at last break our dependency on fossil fuels. Instead, our President tells us to "visit the Gulf States." That sounds mighty familiar, doesn't it? I can still remember his predecessor telling us after 9-11 to "go to Disney World." We really are living in a fantasy world, a Magic Kingdom of our own making, with elected officials who tell us only what we want to hear.

Yes, he did say in a recent speech that "...the time has come to aggressively accelerate that transition [to clean energy]. The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future." Sounds good, right? I mean despite the split infinitives. But wait there's more. "But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future." Doh! Did you get that? There it is again. Our savior, the private sector. I have news for you, Mr. President. The private sector will not be interested in clean energy unless the government gives them an atomic wedgie or the American people get serious enough about our future to insist upon it and create a market for it.

I'm old enough to remember even-odd gas rationing back in '73. I was twelve, and though I could not yet vote, I trusted that the man in the White House with the sweaty upper lip had the best minds on the problem. I also recall sitting in a gasoline queue for two hours back in '79, thinking, "At least it will never have to get this bad again. The guy in the yellow sweater sees the problem and has it all under control." Recently, I even caught myself thinking, "This BP spill is bad, really bad. But this is the kind of thing we've needed to turn ourselves around." Oh well, once a chump, always a chump, I guess. Let's face it. If the government were really serious about getting our economy off the oil standard, they would have done it 30 years ago.

What kind of crisis will it take to turn this nation around? Does a huge tsunami of oil have to surge up the mighty Mississippi and crash upon Minneapolis? What kind of cataclysmic event would be necessary to break our love affair with Big Oil? Honestly? Probably one in which the planet itself would not survive. Unless...

Good people of America, our leaders are steering our nation over the falls and into the pockets of BP, Conoco, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell. It is up to us now. We have to jump ship. And by that I mean, we can't wait for our government to show us the way. We are oil addicts, you and I, addicted to cheap oil, which not only pollutes our environment and atmosphere, but also forces us to bed down with dirty little tyrants and to slaughter and oppress millions in our thirst for just another drink of the viscous brown stuff.

Our European allies have high gasoline taxes that force manufacturers to produce smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and drivers to be more realistic about travel; their taxes also help fund mass transit systems. But no politician this side of the Big Pond has had the guts to raise our federal gas tax since 1993. We kicked up such a ruckus then, they're unlikely to try it again (not with an election coming-- like the one this year, and the one in 2012, 2014, 2016, etc.)

In Sweden and Brazil cars that run on biofuel now outsell traditional models. Who makes them? Ford. But that is possible only because their governments got involved-- and because of demand. There they call it patriotismo, something on which we Americans pride ourselves, although we don't often understand what is in our own best interest. Massive government intervention is unlikely to happen here. After all, we know who really runs this country, don't we? Big Oil has such a hammerlock on all branches of government, Tibetans will all be driving electric yaks before I'll even see an E85 station near my home.

Last month in the US the sale of big gas-gulping SUVs was up 10%. As the Pogo comic strip used to quip, "We have met the enemy and he is us." It's time all of us voluntarily went on a fossil fuel diet, treating oil like a biohazard or something out of The Andromeda Strain.

This past week I started pricing conversion of my Corolla to electric. It's pricey. I'd probably do better buying a used hybrid (you know, the ones that don't stop when you apply the brake). It's time we clamored for electric vehicles and more options for alternative energy, using solar if possible. Whatever is in our power to do, even (and especially) if we are the first on our block to do so, let's just do it. Sure it's like pulling out a nose hair. It's never going to be comfortable. It's going to hurt. We just need to do it. If we don't, who will? Really. It's up to us.

We might just end up being heroes to our grandchildren, instead of lemmings hurling ourselves over the precipice.

2010-06-04T14:15:00.003-04:00

The Masque of Anarchy?

The years following the defeat of Napoleon brought with them great economic and political instability in the north of England. There, years of famine and unemployment, coupled with the high price of corn and the absence of voting rights, gave rise to radical political ideas. When on August 16, 1819 a large crowd of over 60,000 gathered in Manchester to hear radical speaker Henry Hunt, the local magistracy ordered his arrest. Instead, the cavalry unsheathed their sabres and charged the crowd. 15 people were killed and hundreds injured. The British press, not to mention the public, was outraged.

Hearing of these events while in Italy, poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote what is perhaps the first manifesto of the modern nonviolent resistance movement. Here are some excerpts:

Stand ye calm and resolute,

Like a forest close and mute,

With folded arms and looks which are

Weapons of unvanquished war....

And if then the tyrants dare,

Let them ride among you there,

Slash, and stab, and maim and hew,

What they like, that let them do.

With folded arms and steady eyes,

And little fear, and less surprise

Look upon them as they slay

Till their rage has died away

Then they will return with shame

To the place from which they came,

And the blood thus shed will speak

In hot blushes on their cheek....

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number,

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many — they are few. (1)

The purpose of nonviolent resistance is to effect political or social change through various peaceful methods, including civil disobedience, sit ins, or economic boycotts. As Shelley so vividly describes it, in facing nonviolent resistance the aggressor must confront his own brutality and become ashamed. The New Testament roots of this principle are obvious. Toward the end of his life, Russian author Leo Tolstoy wrote about pacifism at length as it relates to the Sermon on the Mount. His book The Kingdom of God Is within You (1894) and his later brief but famous correspondence with Mahatma Gandhi had a life-changing effect on the direction of the latter's activism. As Tolstoy wrote in his last letter before his death, "[Christ] knew, as all reasonable men must do, that any employment of force is incompatible with love as the highest law of life, and that as soon as the use of force appears permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately negatived."

The events of the past week, with Israeli forces attacking and boarding vessels crowded with activists on a humanitarian mission to bring relief to Gaza, have angered those on both sides of the issue. Israel's leaders and her supporters have accused the activists of deliberately forcing a confrontation; the flotilla's defenders say it was a humanitarian mission. Actually, both are right. Before the eyes of a watchful world, Israel is now in the position of either lifting the siege of Gaza or continuing to enforce it with increasing brutality.

In 1960 four black college freshmen entered a Woolworth's in Greensboro, NC, where they purchased some items then sat down at the lunch counter. "We don't serve Negroes here," they were told. On the contrary, they replied, they had just been served at a cash register a few feet away. Woolworth's had taken their money, and they had the receipts to prove it. The management accused them of stirring up trouble and asked them to leave. They refused and sat at the counter until closing.

Were these four forcing a confrontation? Yes. Were they deliberately stirring up trouble? Well, that depends on which side of the issue you were on. For them, they were simply refusing to obey the South's unjust Jim Crow laws. As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (1963)

"We see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation....I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'" (2)

There is a growing grassroots movement of nonviolent demonstrations in the occupied territories of Palestine. There, with the help of the Palestinian churches, the people are waking up to the reality that hatred and violence beget hatred and violence. You Tube is filled now with media capture of Israeli forces attacking peaceful Palestinian protesters. A few days ago an American art student lost an eye when an Israeli soldier shot a teargas canister directly at her face. This morning in Jerusalem Israeli security police, trying to prevent a peaceful demonstration, barred worshipers from entering the Al Aqsa Mosque. Instead, the Muslims conducted themselves peacefully, and when the muezzin gave the call to prayer, they prayed on street corners, store fronts and sidewalks. You can't stop people from praying to God.

As I write another ship laden with relief supplies is heading toward Gaza. Let us pray its passengers will have the strength and courage to comport themselves non-violently. Let us pray that Israel's leaders too will see the futility of oppression and violence, that in King's words, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice."

(1) from "The Masque of Anarchy" (1819) by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
(2) from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (1963) by Martin Luther King, Jr.

2010-05-30T23:17:00.001-04:00

The Earth Is the Lord’s (sermon 5-30-10)

Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.-- Genesis 1:26-28

Around midnight on Dec 4, 1984 in Bhopal, India, a highly poisonous gas, methyl-isocyanate (MIC), leaked from a factory owned by Union Carbide. People were awakened by the sound of their neighbors’ screams, as the gas spread through the city choking them and burning their eyes and lungs. Many panicked, taking to the streets to flee. It must have seemed like the end of the world, or a scene from the last days of Pompeii, as families were separated and people began suffocating and dying in the streets from the noxious cloud.

When it was over, as many as 8,000 people, men, women and children, were dead, many of the bodies never identified or counted as the government quickly buried them in mass graves. Another 12,000 have since died from the lingering effects and health issues related to inhaling the MIC. Many believe that had the Union Carbide plant officials been forthcoming about what was happening at the time and shared valuable information about how people could protect themselves (such as covering their faces with a wet towel), many lives would have been saved. But the plant’s initial reaction was to deny that there was any leak at all. It was later found that the safety and refrigeration systems, which would have prevented the disaster, had been switched off-- to save money.

25 years later the company still refuses to share anything about the chemical that might help victims who are still suffering. They claim that MIC's properties are a proprietary secret (just like Coca-Cola). To this day many toxic chemicals abandoned at the plant site continue to leak into ground water, which the local population depends upon for drinking. (1)

In his book Jesus Brand Spirituality Vineyard pastor Ken Wilson writes:

One of the greatest global threats we face is the growing environmental crisis: air and water pollution, ecosystem collapse in developing countries, an alarming increase in the extinction rate of animals and plants (and with the latter, the loss of potentially disease-curing drugs) and the threats associated with climate change. Because the poor are less protected from the vagaries of the natural environment, they are especially vulnerable to the harm caused by environmental degradation. The environmental crisis therefore is a matter of acute concern to the God whose heart is especially tender toward the poor…. (2)

The passage in Genesis 1 quoted above can cause (and has caused) a lot of trouble in interpretation; at first glance the language sounds rather violent. The words "subdue" the earth, and "rule" or "have dominion over" its creatures, sound like the language of conquest. And so, not surprisingly, some have used these verses to justify a highly exploitative, profiteering, slash and burn policy toward the earth. In fact some environmental groups blame the Judeo-Christian God for our environmental problems: if he had not written those verses, we would not be in this mess. It's nice to have someone big to blame, someone bigger than Union Carbide, but God is not responsible for human sin or our misuse and abuse of his Word.

One basic rule in interpreting Scripture is that we never take a verse out of context and run with it; that is how cults are started. Every word has a context, and every verse must be weighed with its context and against the whole counsel of Scripture.

What does it mean to be made "in the image of God." Does it mean we look like God, that there’s some kind of family resemblance? Or is it something to do with God’s character, a more spiritual quality? These are important questions, because how we answer them effects everything else we do as human beings. What does it mean that we are made in the image of God?

In the culture and language of the ancient Near East, the phrase image of God had a very specific and recognizable meaning. When people heard it, they would not have said, "huh?" as we do today. To the pagan cultures of that world, there was only one person, a single human being, who was the image, the earthly visible representation, of their god. That was the king, or pharaoh. He was the image of god, the closest thing to god on earth. He was responsible for ruling in the god’s place and for exercising justice, promoting law and order, protecting and bringing prosperity to his people.

Now imagine that you are a Hebrew slave, born in Egypt. You have had it drummed in your ear since birth by your Egyptian masters, "This is Pharaoh. He is the image of god—you are but a slave." Now suddenly, you are freed from captivity, and your God, the one and only God, informs you that all human beings, not just one, but all, both male and female, are made in the image of God. What would you think? Pretty radical, huh? And what an awesome responsibility! As creatures created in his likeness, you would be responsible for taking care of creation, ruling over it as God would himself. So far from giving us license to abuse and misuse God’s creation for our own selfish purposes, this passage, in its proper context says, yes, we were given the earth to rule and not for ourselves, but for God. We are his vice-regents, responsible and accountable to him, as a viceroy is responsible for keeping order, caring for a country and representing the interests of the king who sent him. So we are responsible for ruling as God would rule.

And how would God rule? Ps 104 shows us that God cares and provides for and watches over every living creature he has made. And blessed are we when we understand that our power to rule is given not as an absolute right but in trust and that our job is to govern as God would govern: benevolently, generously, with special care and concern for the weak and needy.

Let me point out another scripture that helps further establish the context of Genesis 1. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being....The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." (Genesis 2.7,15). To "work "or "tend" in Hebrew means to "serve," and in this context to "till" or"cultivate." The verb "to care for," means "to exercise great concern for, to guard, to watch over"—the same word used to characterize the Lord’s relationship with his people, that he watches over them with care, love and concern. So in this next chapter of Genesis, we have a good illustration of exactly what God means in Chapter 1 by saying that we shall "rule and have dominion over the earth and its creatures." We are God’s servants, to care for what he has created. That's context.

I would like to expand on this passage by talking about three untruths, or misconceptions, that seem to have infiltrated the church regarding our relationship with creation. First, that the creation account shows that God gave human beings control of the earth to use and treat as we see fit-- in short, that the earth is ours. As we’ve seen already, such an interpretation does not hold water; in fact, it's blasphemy. Psalm 24 clear states, “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who dwell in it.” The earth is not ours; the Bible never says it is. And just how do we treat something that is not ours? If you borrow something from a friend, do you return it broken or dirty? No, you treat it with care and respect. How much more when the person who owns the property is God. Would it have made sense for God to say to Adam and Eve, "Here is the earth, I’ve taken great care in creating it, and I’m delighted with everything in it. Now I’m entrusting it into your hands. Go and ruin it, completely destroy it, make a pig’s breakfast out of the whole thing."? How can we say we love God and then trash his place? Yes, subduing the earth does involve us in wrestling at times with the wildness of nature, in taming it and cultivating it, plumbing its secrets, but always with respect, knowing it is not ours. If you had someone house-sit for you and you returned home to find the place strewn with garbage and human waste, how would you feel?

The second misconception is the idea that care for the environment is a form of pagan idolatry or earth worship. There are a lot of environmentalists who are not Christian. And there are some who do worship the earth. Environmentalism has in some circles become entangled with new age practices, or neo-paganism. Why is that? Because God’s people, who should be the first to lead the fight to protect the earth from devastating overdevelopment and help species that are endangered, have for too long abdicated their role, too long been silen-- and not only silent but at times complicit in the rape and pillage of God’s creation, all in name of the almighty bottom-line. There has been a leadership vacuum, and someone had to fill it. Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, author of The Purpose Driven Life, says that caring for creation should be a "no brainer for Christians." It’s just basic. It’s not pagan. Yes, there are people who worship the earth, but that is not what we’re talking about. Caring for something, exercising responsibility for something entrusted to you is not worship. We care for our children, we feed, protect them; we’re responsible for them. Does that mean we worship them?

Third, it doesn’t matter what we do with the earth, it’s all going to burn up anyhow. This idea is so widespread it's frightening. It comes from what is called pre-millennialism, a 19^th-century doctrine that believes Jesus is going to return prior to a literal 1,000-year reign on earth. It is based on a very literal reading of a passage in the Book of Revelation. Now if we’re going to be dogmatic about something, it would be smart if we were dogmatic about something that the Bible is dogmatic about. In other words, don’t build doctrines on one verse in the Bible that is hard to understand or open to various interpretations. Jesus is going to return; there is no debating that. The Bible is clear about that. But exactly when, and is there going to be a literal 1,000-year reign on earth after he returns before the last judgment, we don't know for sure. Will he return after a 1,000-year reign of his kingdom, as the post-millennialists believe, or is that 1,000 year reign more symbolic of age of the church (as the a-millennialists hold). Theologians have agued over this for centuries. The bottom line is that we don’t know for sure what it means. All we know is that Jesus is coming back. And we need to be careful that how we interpret Scripture does not justify our treating other people or the earth with indifference or disrespect. If it does, that is a sure sign that we are off track, not walking in the footsteps of Christ.

How does God feel about those who plunder and destroy creation? Here's a verse in Revelation that is frequently (or conveniently) overlooked.

       The nations were angry,
       and your wrath has come.
       The time has come for judging the dead,
       and for rewarding your servants the prophets
       and your people who revere your name,
       both great and small—
       and for destroying those who destroy the earth.-- Rev 11:18.

I wonder why they don’t take that literally. They should.

Last fall the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the leader of the world’s 300 million orthodox Christians, visited this country and gave a lecture at Georgetown University. The European press has dubbed him the "Green Patriarch" because he has been so outspoken about environmental issues (and as Kermit the frog tells us, it’s not easy being green). He has come under a lot of criticism from governments and the corporate sector, who complain that he has embraced "the liberal agenda" or that he is against "progress." This is how his All Holiness responds: “The only side we take is that of our faith-- which today may seem to land us in one political camp and tomorrow another-- but in truth, we are only and always in one camp, that of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." In other words, caring for the earth is not just a liberal concept, or a political concept; it’s a biblical concept. And we should not be ashamed to carry the banner high and speak out. So what if someone calls us a bunch of tree-huggers?

There is a fascinating but frequently overlooked detail in John's Gospel. On that first day of the week, when Mary Magdalene stood outside the empty tomb weeping, she met Jesus. Only she did not realize at first that it was Jesus. She thought it was the "gardener" (Jn 20:15). Coincidence? Jesus' resurrection was the first act of God's new creation, the renewal of all things. And as the New Adam, Jesus might appropriately be called The Gardener par exellence. How does the Gardener feel about people who trash his garden?

For some reason, God knoweth how, many believe that to be for the environment is to be against progress. If by progress one means the careless and wholesale devastation of the earth in pursuit of profit, then yes, we ought to be against that. But that is not the definition of progress. That’s just selfish greed. Progress is something that brings benefit to all humanity, not just a few; it profits posterity as well, not just one generation. Destroying the earth to line the pockets of a handful of CEOs is not progress.

Speaking of creation care, the Patriarch noted that the church has always held that our relationship with the natural world must involve a "voluntary restraint," that which ancient Christians called enkratia or "self control":

By reducing consumption we ensure that resources are left for others in the world....Our sin toward the world – the spiritual root of all our pollution – lies in our refusal to view life and the world as a sacrament of thanksgiving, and as a gift of constant communion with God on a global scale....If human beings treated one another’s personal property the way they sometimes treat the environment, we would view that behavior as antisocial.

When we are in right relationship with God, we treat all of God’s creation, including other human beings, with dignity, reverence and respect. Whether Jesus returns in five minutes or five centuries, we take care of the earth until he returns. "Why?" someone might argue; "it's just going to be destroyed anyway!" Yes, and if we keep going the way we’re headed, it should be destroyed fairly soon. When I was a little kid and my mother told me to make my bed, I'd say, "Why? I’m just going to sleep in it again." We take care of the earth out of gratitude, thanksgiving, love and respect because it’s God’s, just as we are responsible for treating our fellow human beings with love and respect because they each bear the divine image.

As Ken Wilson states, Jesus didn’t come just to help us get to heaven. He came to reestablish the kingdom rule of God and inaugurate the renewal of all things. And if we follow him, then we are to act as though the earth is the Lord’s, because it is. (3)

So practically, what are some things we can do? Here are just a few ideas:

We can pray and ask the Lord to show us ways in which we’ve misused his creation, and then repent, turn around, head back in the right direction. We can begin to practice restraint, self-control in our use or consumption of natural resources, water, oil, gas, and products like plastic that pollute the earth and oceans, and paper, which has a high environmental price tag. We can educate ourselves about the real cost of the things we consume. We know, for example, the price of a hamburger, but do we consider the real cost? Producing a pound of factory-farmed hamburger causes more pollution than driving your car for 3 weeks. Cows produce millions of tons of waste, which contaminates our water supplies. You mean you can put a dollar value on all that? Yes, you can. When all is tallied, that burger could well cost hundreds of dollars. Of course, those costs aren't passed on to us the consumer-- until later.

Next we can buy locally grown produce and support local farmers. This not only saves on transportation costs (i.e. pollution); it also supports the local economy. We can use green cleaning products, detergents, pesticides and fertilizers. Product manufacturers are often not required to list ingredients, and for good reason since many are neurotoxic, hormone-disrupting, and carcinogenic. Then they get dumped into our waterways. Lastly, we need to take a stand against greed. James Speth, the dean of Yale's School of Environmental Studies and the first scientific adviser to the U.S. President on climate change, said,

I used to think if we threw enough good science at the environmental problems, we could solve them. I was wrong. The main threats to the environment are not biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change, as I thought once. They are selfishness and greed and pride. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation, something we scientists don't know much about. maybe it's time for us scientists, including those who are not religious, to work together with people of faith to help that along. (4)

Sounds like we're needed, Church. The world needs us to speak up and out. After all, we have the answer, don't we?

(1) Annie Leonard, The Story of Stuff, pp. 90-91.
(2) Ken Wilson, Jesus Brand Spirituality, p. 57.
(3) Ibid., pp. 57-58.
(4) Ibid., pp. 59-60.

2010-05-11T12:18:00.006-04:00

Kabuki American Style

Visitors to Japan are often urged to attend a kabuki theater. There they see a very revered, if bizarre, form of entertainment, known as "the art of song and dance," in which actors in heavy makeup and elaborate costumes engage in a highly stylized dance-drama.

Here in America we have our own brand of kabuki. It's called a Congressional Hearing. Over the past many months we've been subjected to Congress' responses to various crises, from the economic meltdown to the current Gulf oil spill. Such hearings are hardly pointless; they accomplish several things while accomplishing nothing. First, they give the impression to the average American that our elected officials are on the job, defending our freedom and the Constitution. Second, they act as a safety valve when public outrage reaches a certain pressure. Third, they provide an elaborate entertainment for the media, full of delicious sound bites of senators scolding billionaire CEOs and showing the voters back home that their representatives are earning their congressional salaries, making America safe for democracy (Hi Mom!). Who cares that it's all a song and dance, paid for by the US taxpayer. It's great theater.

This week Congress has been holding hearings to investigate exactly who is to blame for the worst environmental disaster in US history. But we know the answer to that one, don't we? Just as we know who was really to blame for the economic meltdown that cost tens of millions of Americans their jobs and homes, not to mention the billions of people in other countries who are vulnerable to our policies. Sure we can blame it on corporate greed run amok. Michael Moore has mounted a campaign to "deport Wall Street," noting that at least undocumented immigrants add to the economy instead of sucking it dry.

But in a sense it's unfair to berate the wolves because they devour the sheep. That's what wolves do. They have no conscience. The question is, where were the shepherds? Where were the ones charged with guarding the sheep? Didn't you know? They've changed teams. Tired of the exhausting work of keeping the wolves at bay, all three branches of our government have joined the wolves, giving free passes to any wolf who can make it worth their while. That is why we had and still have no meaningful regulation and oversight of the banking industry. That is why anyone who wants to drill-baby-drill off our shores, destroy wildlife and pollute our waters, only has to pump enough of the green stuff into the campaign war chest of any elected official, including the President (who received millions in soft money from both Goldman Sachs and BP). As we speak other offshore drilling companies are having their projects similarly rubber stamped without review.

Is it any surprise that these congressional hearings make good theater but achieve little else? He who pays the piper calls the tune. It's as American as Pop-Tarts.

2010-05-05T11:45:00.009-04:00

Simply Out of Touch

"You don't count the dead when God's on your side." -- Bob Dylan (song)

The annual White House Correspondents Dinner is traditionally a jocular affair, an opportunity for leaders and press, usually at each others' throats, to let bygones be bygones and share a few yuck-yucks. But there was one joke at last weekend's dinner that fell flatter than a Fargo flapjack-- at least on the international stage.

"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere,” President Obama warned the teen idols, who were sitting in the audience. “Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You’ll never see it coming."

Okay, so it was a tasteless joke, and the gag writer should be fired. But more importantly, it reveals a larger problem: Americans and their leaders tragically out of touch with how we treat other countries. Isn't that why we're having to fight this futile war in the first place? Because we just don't get it. We're simply out of touch.

The gag may have gotten a laugh from the American press, but the people of Pakistan didn't think it was very funny. Far from curtailing his predecessor's drone policy, Mr. Obama has increased drone strikes in Pakistan. According to the Pakistani government, over 700 people were killed by drones last year alone (US statistics are not surprisingly much lower). Even when the strikes reached their intended targets, of those killed 90% were innocent civilians, including women and children.

Drones are silent, remotely piloted aircraft designed to save American lives. How ironic. Predictably, the increasing civilian casualties have outraged Pakistanis, doubtless encouraging the very terrorist recruitment we are fighting against. Once criticized for the quantity of civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Gen. Tommy Franks snorted, "We don't do body counts."

Yesterday a suspect was apprehended in the plot to detonate a crude car bomb in New York's Times Square. The man was a naturalized Pakistani-American. As of today authorities say his "motive remains a mystery." Really?

In his notes on Shakespeare's Othello, 19th-century poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that the villain Iago was "motive-hunting of motiveless Malignity," meaning that the character constantly seeks reasons to justify his evil actions, when all along the real motive is simply the evil nature inside him. Many would like to paint jihadists in this way.

Do we need to go that far to seek a motive for the attempt to blow up innocent Americans and tourists? Are we so out of touch with our common humanity that we cannot put ourselves in the shoes of an average Muslim man who feels so powerless and enraged that he is ready to take desperate, if unjustifiable, homicidal action? Think of the rage and vengeance we all felt on September 11, 2001. Or think of the feelings of anger and impotence that recently led a white American terrorist to fly his private plane into a government building (to the cheers of other angry white Americans). Could it be possible that people belonging to other ethnic and religious groups are human beings capable of the same emotions and tipping points? Is Faisal Shahzad's motive really such a mystery?

The drones that fly over Pakistan are piloted remotely by military personnel somewhere in the Nevada desert. It's rather like a video game. Another symbol of our being "out of touch."

Terrorism is not a military problem but a perceptual one. In other words, if we want to stop terrorism, we need to change how the world sees us. And for that to happen, guess what? (I'm not talking about spin.) We'll need to change how we operate in the world. To become a genuinely benevolent and humanitarian power (the one we think we are), instead of the selfish and clumsy-footed behemoth that strips the forest bare, chases other animals from the watering hole and muddies the water so nothing else can drink.

2010-05-03T16:19:00.009-04:00

Because We Just Don't Listen

1) An earthquake decimates Haiti, resulting in 220,000 deaths. The proportionately high death count compared to population causes some experts to call the quake the worst natural disaster in modern times. To call the disaster "natural," however, begs some qualification, since most of the nation's infamous poverty, weak economy and political corruption can be laid at the US's and IMF's door step. True, we did not cause the earthquake, but for a century our economic, military and foreign policies, fueled by corporate greed, have so weakened Haiti, her deep poverty and poor infrastructure could only hinder rescue attempts.

2) An explosion at a Massey Energy coal mine in W. Virginia kills 29, becoming the worst US mining disaster in 40 years. Said Massey board member Stan Suboleski, "I'm mystified at what occurred at the mine on April 5. Something very unexpected happened at Upper Big Branch." Gee whiz. Of course, CEOs admitted, the mine did have a record of safety violations stretching back years (only 458 violations last year, and federal inspectors fined Massey more than $382,000 for repeated violations involving ventilation and equipment. Fines like these, of course, are mere operating expenses). But even these CEOs did not try to blame the explosion on "seismic activity" near the site, as FOX News tried to do.

3) An offshore rig explodes, killing 11, and results in the worst oil spill in history, vomiting 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf and threatening habitat, wildlife and fisheries on an unheard of scale for generations to come. Get this. “We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up,” BP CEO Tony Hayward brazenly told the press. (Just ignore the fact that BP's deep-water rig had a history of fires, spills and safety and training violations over the past 10 years. Or perhaps he meant, "It's not our fault; it's Halliburton's.")

4) Record rainfall (13 inches in two days) results in massive flooding in Tennessee and adjoining states. 15 deaths reported. Parts of Nashville under water. Meanwhile, Congress is poised to pass a so-called "climate bill" that guts the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

5) Last week Goldman-Sach's Lloyd Blankfein (if you're wondering what the "blank" stands for, read on) received a tongue-lashing from Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who asked if the CEO had any regrets. Said Blankfein, “Regret to me means something that you feel like you did wrong, and I don’t have that.” I think we're in the realm of a corporate culture that borders on sociopathy.

Yes, 2010 has been a banner year for unregulated capitalism and big business run amok, for corporations that control our government, treat human beings like Kleenex and use the environment like an ever-flushable toilet.

Do you get the feeling God is trying to tell us something? Coaxing us from the edge of the abyss? Could it be we're just not listening? No, we're too busy blaming the earth while we seek more, more, more unsustainable growth. As Cassius says to Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar,

Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings. (1.2.135)

To quote Mr. Letterman, "By the way, Sarah Palin...how's that offshore drilling working for ya?"

2010-04-27T16:15:00.007-04:00

On Obeying God Rather than Men

The recent immigration law enacted in Arizona has enraged tens of millions of Americans across the country. It could also offer a moral dilemma for Christians, especially those who minister to the undocumented. The new law makes it a crime to conceal, transport, harbor or shield an illegal immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the immigrant’s legal status. (It does create a legal defense for someone providing emergency, public-safety or public-health services to illegal immigrants). How exactly does that square with the Bible's concern for the foreigner, the poor and homeless? The problem is complicated, of course, by the fact that illegals have committed a crime. But does that mean Christians should be obligated to turn them away without food, shelter or services, especially when a now hunted people seek sanctuary in the churches? What makes the law even more repugnant is the likelihood of its encouraging racial profiling on a massive scale, as its first victim, a US citizen of Hispanic ethnicity, found out just the other day. Now seven other states, from North Carolina to Utah, as well as local governments are threatening to follow suit.

Arizona has a huge immigration problem on their hands, but such draconian measures may prove more hindering than helpful. Not only is the federal government considering a law suit against the state, even one of its own Congressmen Rep. Raul Grijalva is calling for a nationwide boycott of Arizona products and tourism. In addition, the new law is also estimated to cost Arizona $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs. Perhaps that is a call to compassionate immigration reform that even the governor can understand.

Sojourners author and speaker the Rev. Jim Wallis said Monday on MSNBC that he has heard from many evangelical clergy in the state who refuse to comply with the new law on the basis that it constitutes a "social and racial sin." Are Christians bound to obey such laws? On that topic I thought it would be interesting to see what some theologians and saints of the past have said about unjust laws and Christians' non-compliance.

From St. Augustine, On the Free Choice of the Will (AD 388-395):

"It seems to me that an unjust law is no law at all."

From St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1265-1274):

Human laws are either just or unjust. If they are just, they have the power to bind our conscience because of the eternal law from which they are derived. As Proverbs says, "Through me kings reign and lawmakers decree just laws" (Prov. 8:15).

Laws are said to be just either because of their end, when they are ordained to the common good; or because of their author, when the law does not exceed the power of the lawmaker; or because of their form, when burdens are distributed equitably among subjects for the common good. For since a man is part of the multitude, whatever he is or has belongs to the multitude as a part belongs to the whole. Thus nature inflicts harm on a part in order to save the whole. Accordingly laws which inflict burdens equitably are just, bind the conscience, and are legal laws.

Laws are unjust in two ways: First, they may be such because they oppose human good by denying the three criteria just mentioned. This can occur because of their end, when a ruler imposes burdens with an eye, not to the common good, but to his own enrichment or glory; because of their author, when someone imposes laws beyond the scope of his authority; or because of their form, when burdens are inequitably distributed, even if they are ordered to the common good. Such decrees are not so much laws as acts of violence, because, as Augustine says, "An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all." Such laws do not bind the conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance, on account of which one should yield his right. As Christ says, "If someone forces you to go a mile, go another two with him; and if he takes your tunic, give him your pallium" (Mtt. 5:40f.).

Second, laws may be unjust because they are opposed to the divine good, as when the laws of tyrants lead men to idolatry or to something else contrary to divine law. Such laws must never be observed, because "one must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963)

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

2010-04-21T23:12:00.020-04:00

The Real Beatitudes
May Change Our Attitudes

It only takes a cursory look at the two different versions of the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to plant the idea that the Evangelists may have used a common source. Called Q by scholars (for quelle, German "source"), this long lost, if hypothetical, Aramaic document may have been the first written "Gospel"-- although in its original form it may have more resembled one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament than our four canonical Gospels. A few scholars even go so far as to claim that this prototypical Gospel might be that penned by the real apostle Matthew, who according to the Early Church Fathers was the first to write down Jesus' sayings in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language. (Note: Jesus spoke Aramaic, the language of his native Palestine, not English, and the Four Gospels were composed in Greek. So the words of Christ that appear in our English Gospels are perforce a translation of a translation.)

Yet comparing the two versions of the Beatitudes as presented in Mt 5:3-12 and Lk 6:20-26, one notes as many differences as similarities. It is often explained that, being a Jew, the writer of Matthew used an Aramaic copy of Q and made his own, somewhat freer, Greek translation, while Luke, a Gentile, would have depended on a Greek translation of Q currently in circulation.

Translation from one language into another is hardly an exact science. Rather, the translator is often pressed to look for "dynamic equivalents"; that is, instead of rendering a phrase literally into another language ("functional equivalence"), he tries to think as a speaker of that language and to express the same thought, although in different words.

Sometimes in translating or editing Q, Matthew and Luke expand or condense a saying in an effort to elucidate the meaning for their particular audiences, or they may substitute a word for the sake of clarity. Again, the goal being, not a wooden, word-for-word rendering, but a faithful representation of what they believe is the intended thought or meaning. Sometimes, where the two Evangelists disagree in their translations of Q, the problem can be traced to an original Aramaic word with multiple meanings, or to the peculiar thematic emphasis they wish to give the text.

To account for the discrepancies between their respective Beatitudes, some scholars have assumed that Luke, whose version is more concise, gives a more faithful or literal rendering of the original Aramaic, while Matthew tends to expand the text, at times perhaps for liturgical purposes (as with his Lord's Prayer). Of course, it may be that each depends upon a different textual tradition of Q. (Since three or more decades might have elapsed between the composition of Q and that of their own Gospels, we must allow for the possibility of the development of manuscript "families" or traditions.)

As the late renown Aramaic scholar and textual critic Matthew Black writes in his seminal work An Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts, "That our Lord's Beatitudes were originally cast in poetic form, in Hebrew or Aramaic, is obvious from the parallelism of lines and clauses still discernible in Matthew and Luke...." (Black, AAGA, p.156). Parallelism is of course the most striking and common element of ancient Hebrew poetry: instead of rhyming couplets, as in English poetry, we have pairs of verses which mirror each other, the second repeating the first thought, though in different words, or building upon it. For example,

"I sought the LORD, and he answered me;
he delivered me from all my fears.
Those who look to him are radiant;
their faces are never covered with shame.
This poor man called, and the LORD answered him;
he saved him out of all his troubles." (Ps. 34:4-6, TNIV)

According to Black, for example, there is strong textual evidence for taking Matthew's first and third beatitudes together. Note that even the Aramaic words for "poor" and "meek" mirror each other (both come from the same root which means "to be bowed down, afflicted").

Blessed are the poor [Aram. 'anayyin],
for theirs is the kingdom of God [or heaven].
Blessed are the humble [Aram. 'anawin],
for they shall inherit the earth [land]. [brackets mine]

At least hypothetically, therefore, and based on what we know of 1st-century Palestinian Aramaic, it may be possible to continue to reconstruct the Beatitudes as Jesus may have originally spoken them, and Black is able to do this for eight beatitudes, making a series of four stanzas consisting of two verses each.

Blessed are they that mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are ye that weep now,
for ye shall laugh.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called the sons of God.

Blessed are ye that hunger,
for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that thirst,
for ye shall be sated.

Although Black goes no farther, we also ought to include the blessings of purity and persecution, which could form the fifth and sixth final stanzas. Purity of heart is mentioned in Psalm 24, along with "clean hands," as a qualification for those who would enter God's sanctuary and stand in his presence. If there was originally a parallel verse to Matthew's "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," it may have been lost. But it is also possible to pair the verses in other configurations to avoid this conclusion.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men hate you, exclude you, insult you and reject you
because of my name.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy,
because great is your reward in heaven.
For that is how they treated the prophets.

Coupling the verses in this manner would seem to make sense of the different versions in the two Gospels (Matthew has nine beatitudes; Luke four). Luke also includes what looks like an original series of woes (Lk 6:24-26), which in turn mirror the blessings-- woes being a common element of Hebrew prophetic poetry.

But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

It is important to keep in mind (as both Mt & Lk emphasize) that Jesus was speaking directly to his disciples on this occasion. Indeed, in Luke the Lord addresses both the Beatitudes and woes in the second person plural, while Matthew uses the third person. Did Jesus use both? Verbs in Hebrew poetry often shift between persons (e.g., from third to second and back again). This shift may seem awkward or odd to us in English, but ancient Hebrews no doubt considered it elegant. So it is possible that the Evangelists chose one of the other while writing in Greek.

You say, well this is all very interesting. But what does it tell us about the Beatitudes, about Jesus, about God's kingdom? Much indeed.

First, it shows us a Jesus whose teaching is more firmly embedded in the OT prophetic traditions and Hebrew poetry than is suggested by the Greek translation.

Second, as Black points out, Isaiah 61 (which according to Luke he preached in Nazareth) would seem to figure even more prominently in the background of the Beatitudes. Note the parallelism here, and how "poor" and "brokenhearted" are used almost synonymously (cf. Matthew's "poor" and "humble"), as are "mourn" and "grieve."

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes,
the oil of joy instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair....

Third, it is all the more clear that through his coming kingdom, God has identified himself with the poor and oppressed. Very often, preachers tell us that being "poor in spirit" means having a contrite attitude, one of brokenness before the Lord (cf. Isa. 66:2), and has nothing to do with being financially rich or poor. This is partly true. The Isaiah 66 passage ("These are the ones I look on with favor/those who are humble and contrite in spirit/and who tremble at my word") is definitely in the background here, as Matthew tries to bring out by adding "in spirit." However, the main point Jesus makes in the Beatitudes is that real poverty and oppression, emptiness and need put one in an advantageous position for entering God's kingdom, for generally speaking, the poor and oppressed (like little children) know they are helpless, unlike the rich and powerful who oppress them.

It has become an accepted claim among many scholars that, in adding "in spirit," Matthew, writing for a relatively affluent community, felt compelled to make the verse relevant to wealthy people (who were also beggars before God). This explanation may sound a bit cynical, but there may be some justification in it, as Matthew may be merely emphasizing what is inherent in the text. Surely, Jesus is not saying that poverty of itself admits one to the kingdom, for pride and self-reliance do exist among the poor. Rather, Matthew highlights that it is the humble and broken attitude of the poor, who approach God from a posture of weakness and need, that makes them prime candidates for receiving the kingdom (as in Luke's story of the Pharisee and the Tax-collector in ch. 18). Thus, while it cannot be said that poverty itself is the E-ticket in the kingdom, there are advantages that the poor share in direct contrast to the rich. Ultimately, however, it is those who know their utter poverty and helplessness before God who gain the kingdom.

Matthew's turn of phrase may not have been motivated merely by economics. For in writing his Gospel he seeks to prevent many in his largely Jewish community from lapsing back into Pharisaism (hence the heavy invective that pervades the book). Indeed, from Jesus' perspective in the Gospel, it was the Pharisees' pride and reliance on keeping the rabbinical oral law and their peculiar interpretation of the Law, which effectively sought to put God in their debt, that made entering the kingdom so difficult. It may be this debate within Matthew's community, rather than their supposed wealth, that forms the backdrop for his choice of words here.

In addition, in the context of Isa. 61, Matthew's hungering and thirsting after "righteousness" would be a poor translation, if we are looking for its original intended meaning. For Greek dikaiosyne also means "justice." It is the poor and oppressed who suffer the worst injustices, but God has come to turn the entire world system on its head-- the Jubilee year of the Lord. God commanded Israel to celebrate a jubilee every 49 years, and during that year all land debts were to be canceled, Hebrew slaves released, and land returned to its original owner. It is this very language that Isaiah employs (ch.61), referring to the Lord's release of Jews from Babylonian captivity as a jubilee par exellence. Jesus too, quite appropriately, both in his Nazareth preaching (Lk 4) and the Beatitudes, interprets Isaiah's verses messianically and eschatologically, drawing a parallel between the jubilee year and God's kingdom. And this is not merely "pie in the sky when we die," to quote Wobbly Joe Hill; rather, the wonderful news (terrifying for some) is that God's kingdom is already present.

2010-04-16T10:59:00.016-04:00

One Lump or Two?

A few days ago NPR reported how the Tea Party Movement draws its inspiration (at times erroneously) from Boston history. Specifically, it was pointed out, the original Tea Party in 1773 was a protest against, not just high taxes or fiscal profligacy, but taxation in the Colonies without representation in Parliament. Britain had incurred great debt protecting her American possessions in the French and Indian War (1754-63) and felt it only right that the colonists share in the expense. But "taxation without representation is tyranny" became the rallying cry, and soon the Mother Country had a full-scale rebellion on her hands.

In reality, taxation without representation was nothing new for Englishmen. At that time in Britain only about 3% of the male population could vote for their representatives in Parliament. The rest were considered to be "virtually represented." As British evangelist John Wesley wrote in his "Calm Address to Our American Colonies" (1775), in which he tries to defuse bellicose sentiments on the other side of the Atlantic: "Indeed you had no vote for members of Parliament, neither have I, because I have no freehold [property] in England. Yet the being taxed by the Parliament is no infringement either of my civil or religious liberty." Or as lexicographer Samuel Johnson had maintained earlier, "They [America] are represented, by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." That did nothing to satisfy the colonists, however, who saw such "virtual representation" as a mask for political corruption.

The Boston Tea Party was also the direct result of a government bailout of a major corporation. Tea imported to Britain had been subject to a 25% duty, not to mention other taxes. The high price tag had forced many Brits to buy blackmarket tea smuggled from Holland (where it was not taxed). The British East India Company had been hit hard by this turn of events and begged His Majesty's Government for relief. This came in the form of a reduction of the tea tax in Great Britain and a refund to the Company of the duty levied on tea exported to America. (Wow, corporate socialism, even back then!) To make up for the loss in revenue, Parliament laid additional taxes on the Colonies, thus adding more tinder to an already smoldering situation.

But there are more similarities, not mentioned in the broadcast (or even in most American history classes). The French and Indian War had resulted in an economic downturn in the Colonies. Many were out of work, adding to the growing gap between rich and poor. If you asked the average working class colonist in 1763 whom he was angry with, Parliament or King George would probably not have topped the list. By 1770 wealth in the cities had become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Anger against the rich, whose increasingly lavish lifestyles drew deep resentment, erupted not infrequently in the burning of the homes of the wealthy. A bitter class war seemed likely.

Meanwhile, not only was Britain taxing her Colonies at a growing rate, but colonists could not sell the products they harvested or manufactured on the open market. Instead, they were offered a low fixed price, and the goods were then sold by British middlemen at a mark up. In addition, the British government had made a treaty with the Native American tribes that the Colonies would not expand beyond the Appalachians. That was bad news for those who had purchased land to the west or who had been given land grants there in exchange for military service. The economic elite among the colonists were outraged at these conditions, which limited both their profits and their ability to expand westward. Feeling their oats, they believed they no longer needed the Mother Country, though the Mother Country desperately needed their revenue.

The Sons of Liberty, therefore, who were agitators for separation from Britain and by no means poor or "average" colonists, saw an economic opportunity. As men of property and education, they detested mob violence. They also must have realized that to have the British Empire off their necks and out of their pockets was a capitalist's dream, but if they did not act soon, their own interests too might be harmed by class warfare. What they needed to do was to find a way to channel the anger of the lower classes into the cause of freedom from colonial rule. Indeed, these patriots needed a groundswell of popular support to achieve their ends. As historian Howard Zinn points out, there was no covert conspiracy here, but a series of choices based on class interest, which had the same result. And that, folks, is how a class war became a war for economic and political independence. The rest, as they say, is history.

In a similar way, today the seething anger of average, hard-working Americans over the recent bank bailouts, rising deficits and unemployment, and corporate control of government has been seen as a threat to what our Founders called the "moneyed interests." So the latter (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, etc.) have fought back by funneling tens of millions into self-serving propaganda, Tea Party organizing and the so-called Astroturf Summer, in an attempt to deflect rage away from the privileged and powerful (who caused the crisis to begin with) and to focus it on weaker or easier targets, such as immigrants, the welfare poor, minorities, Muslims, homosexuals, or progressive liberals, in addition to opposing issues such as climate change legislation, health care and immigration reform. To be fair to the Tea Partiers, I'm not saying that their sole inspiration came from the boardrooms at Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, and Exxon-Mobil, but that what may have started as a grassroots movement of outraged citizenry has been to a great extent hijacked by corporate spin doctors.

Divide and conquer. That is how the privileged class has remained in control and kept the lower classes in check from time immemorial. And you can imagine why. If the oppressed sectors of society ever joined forces again with a disaffected middle class, the resultant wave would flatten everything, making a more level playing field for all-- in other words, real change. (I suppose to some I probably sound like a Marxist. I assure you I am not. I just love history.)

2010-04-13T20:43:00.005-04:00

Those Taxation Blues

"Taxation with representation ain't so hot either." ~Gerald Barzan

Like many of my fellow Americans, I waited till this week to file my taxes. It's not that I am a habitual procrastinator or a Tea Partier. Nor am I morally opposed to taxation on religious grounds. It's just that the experience of filling out a 1040 form with all the accompanying schedules is so invariably and extraordinarily stressful. Doing my taxes appears on my Julie Andrews list of Favorite Things, right after "colonoscopy prep." (Note that Miss Andrews never mentions Schedule D in her song. There are several reasons for that, which I won't waste time enumerating here, except to say that Mr. Hammerstein obviously had the good sense to realize that sentimentalizing the tax code does not make for socko good theater.)

For a few years in succession, I have used Turbotax. As many know, it does tend to make a pig's breakfast of your return, but at least you have someone else to blame. Like the man with B.O. who bought a camel because it smelled so much worse.

Besides the stress involved in completing such a complicated tax form is knowing that 53% of my tax dollars will go to pay for an ever ballooning Defense budget. Don't get me wrong. Defense is a really good idea. The first duty of any government. I just happen to resent having to pay for all those padded invoices (you know, $90,000 for a flush rivet), the bloated salaries of defense industry CEOs, an increasing flood of greedy contractors in the theater that now outnumbers our soldiers, and the daily murder of scores of innocent civilians in a War on Terror that makes the Crimean War look like a tactical marvel. Why do I have to pay for that? I didn't break it. All this while hatred of America continues to grow worldwide and care of our wounded soldiers and veterans takes a backseat to Pentagon spin.

Here is a modest proposal. How about instituting a voluntary tax (let's call it the Patriot Tax) for those who wish to fund this war. You know, one of those contributions at the end of the tax form that asks, "Would you like $1 of your refund to go to Save the Red-Bellied Newt or the Congressional Dominatrix Pension Fund?" Or better yet, since some defense spending is certainly justifiable, how about granting us taxpayers the line-item veto? Or perhaps something like a charitable contribution:

Please apply my defense donation toward

__Defense lobbying on Capitol Hill
__Bribing a congressman
__1 machine screw
__Filing tabs
__Drone attacks
__Raking a bus full of Afghans
__Where needed most

What many Americans get wrong is that the publicity stunt staged in Boston Harbor in 1773 was not spawned by outrage over having to pay high taxes, but by taxation without representation in Parliament. I think I know how they felt.

2010-04-07T23:38:00.006-04:00

Living in a World of Co-Abusers

In counseling circles the term co-abuser refers to a person who knows of or willingly facilitates the act or acts of abuse by their silence, inaction or even cooperation. A mother, for example, who knows her children are being molested by the father but does nothing to stop it is a co-abuser and in most States is just as guilty under law. When the children approach the mother for help or protection, they are often told to be quiet or their pain is minimized. This is classic co-abuse.

We live in an age of co-abuse-- and to some extent I suppose we always have-- when institutions and individuals who should uphold the public's trust and welfare have become angry bastions of denial, coverups and disdain for the truth. Their motto, never admit a mistake or error in judgment, and certainly not guilt. And when confronted, blame the victim.

Under Israeli pressure, last September's Goldstone Report, detailing the war crimes of both sides in the offensive in Gaza, was dismissed by this administration as "deeply flawed." Thus Muslims everywhere had their hopes dashed by a President who failed to live up to the very principles of his Cairo speech. Justice denied. Again.

Over the past few weeks, thousands of victims of clergy sex abuse worldwide have felt re-abused, listening to a series of mixed messages from a church reeling under the blows of scandal after scandal. And just when the odor of guilt begins to waft into the highest chambers of the Vatican, the big bronze doors clang shut: the newest charges dismissed as "petty gossip" and the efforts of the media to uncover the truth labeled as a kind of persecution akin to "antisemitism." Seeking a reassuring embrace from Mother Church, victims have instead received the cold shoulder reserved for naughty children who air the family secrets in public.

Dissident watchdog group WikiLeaks this week released video of a bloody 2007 massacre of unarmed journalists and civilians by US troops in Baghdad. The Pentagon's original response to the mayhem was of course to exonerate all involved-- just as it initially denied all involvement in a badly botched nighttime raid on an infant's birthday party in eastern Afghanistan February 12, which left 5 dead, including two pregnant women.

Co-abusers are always angry when confronted, always blaming the victims; that is to be expected. It's just painful and embarrassing to watch, because if you've lived any reasonable length of time in this world, you know that the truth always comes out-- eventually. "The arc of the universe is long," said Dr. King, "but it bends toward justice."

It is also deeply demeaning to those who have suffered to have their pain minimized or the reality of their ordeal denied. This kind of injustice or re-abuse can be even more damaging than the initial abuse.

Yet this week has also brought a whiff of much needed fresh air. In response to the Wiki leak, which went viral, the Pentagon has called the video authentic. They have also admitted to killing the two pregnant Afghans. And Gen. Stanley McChrystal has actually publicly acknowledged the useless carnage at US checkpoints in that country:

"...In the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

It is indeed a strange world we live in when the Pentagon pulls ahead of the Church of our Lord in its willingness to begin to admit it screwed up.

Justice delayed is justice denied. So goes the maxim of the law. But I say no. Justice delayed is justice delayed. It will never be denied. Not while there is a just God.

2010-03-29T20:49:00.004-04:00

Taking a Hard Look at Your Investments

"I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."-- Luke 16:9

Saving for retirement is a wise thing. But if you have retirement investments, such as an IRA, 401(k), or 403(b), you know that most high yielding mutual funds are made up of an interminably long list of individual stocks (index funds), many of whom resemble a Dick-Tracy-like rogues' gallery of oil spillers, chemical polluters, coal burners, privacy invaders, big agra, big pharma, or the military-industrial complex: from Monsanto and Shell Oil to Haliburton and Walmart. For some of these, treating the environment like an endless roll of toilet tissue may be the least of their crimes. They are also actively engaged in oppression of workers, child labor, downright slavery, or even war crimes or crimes against humanity.

I suppose most investors are not aware of these issues. Perhaps we don't ask because we don't want to know. We're looking for the big return, if we're going to enjoy retirement and avoid working at CVS into our eighties. But complicity is complicity, whether it's done with foreknowledge or merely out of ignorance. We do have a responsibility to make sure our money is invested ethically and that big return does not come with a high human and environmental cost.

18th-century Methodist evangelist and theologian John Wesley was one who challenged his followers in the ethical use of mammon. His sermon "The Use of Money" is still a sound practical guide for the Christian who wants to make good return on his earthly investments without doing harm to himself or his neighbor in body or soul.

Fortunately, there now is a growing market for what are called Socially Responsible Investments (SRIs). These are investments in corporations that are screened for certain ethical, economic, environmental and labor practices. An SRI fund selects stocks in companies that have taken a stand on sustainability (in their use of the planet and human beings) or have reformed their corporate culture in terms of executive compensation and financial transparency. But the emphasis here is not on ethics alone; it's also on good return. It is actually possible to have both.

For more information on SRIs, check with your investment management company. Many have at least a few of these. If you are not satisfied, change companies if you can. [That may not be possible with a 401(k) or 403(b), but speak to your employer and let your voice be heard.]

For more information on SRIs, click here or here.

2010-03-26T21:47:00.005-04:00

Addams Family Values

With the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan have come increasing civilian deaths: bodies of innocent women and children pulled limp and lifeless from the rubble of what used to be their homes, as well as hushed accounts of abuses, civilian executions and rape by U.S troops. War is always war against women and children.

With all these headlines one wonders where are our purported "family values"? America's conservative Christian population has used the phrase as a rallying cry for a generation, but what does it mean?

Well, if you ask what it means biblically, the phrase family values means that I should want for your family and every family what I want for my own. But if you are merely concerned with what it means in common practice, then it would probably go something like this: I want to protect my family from the evils of modern life in a "free society."

Don't get me wrong. As a husband and parent I am deeply concerned to protect my family from the evil influences of an increasingly secular world. I just happen to believe that fighting the world also means engaging it, as opposed to the circle-the-wagons laager mentality.

I also believe that if I do not seek justice for the oppressed, plead for the victims of war and for those who have no voice, then how can I expect my voice to be heard by a just God when I cry out? What right have I to expect him to protect my family values if I do not do what I can to protect those of others?

Do I want my children to grow up in a safe neighborhood free of bombs, mines, and unexploded ordnance? Do I want them to be able to sleep at night without lying awake listening for the quiet whir of drones overhead? Do I want them to be able to believe that all human life is sacred, whether in the womb or on a playground or a battlefield and not have to live in fear of being snuffed out at any moment?

If family values are something we want only for ourselves and not for others, then we shall have neither. It does not take a prophet to say this. The divine order of the universe decrees it to be so. As long as people in other countries are only dots on a map to us instead of anguished faces crying out for justice, for food, for God, then we have no right to cry out to God and expect him to answer our prayers for our-selves, our families, our communities.

Perhaps the problem is that we seek family values for ourselves and Addams Family values for others.

Let's try an experiment. Look at the picture above. See the face of the anguished father. Now replace the face of the child with that of one of your children or a loved one. What do you feel? I'm sorry to have to be so graphic, but we Americans are so desensitized to what is done in our name, this may be the only way to make it real to us.

Now consider that we together have the power to stop this.

2010-03-24T00:21:00.003-04:00

Tribute to Romero

Today marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was murdered by a death squad while celebrating mass, one day after calling on Salvadoran soldiers to obey God's higher law and stop oppressing the people and violating human rights. Romero was a courageous and outspoken voice for social justice at a violent time in his country's history. Sharply critical of both Marxism and Capitalism, he spoke on behalf of the poor and the victims of civil war. Along with such towering figures as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr., he is considered one of the 20th-century martyrs of the church. Here is an excerpt from his last sermon, preached before his death:

"Let no one be offended because we use the divine words read at our mass to shed light on the social, political and economic situation of our people. Not to do so would be unchristian. Christ desires to unite himself with humanity, so that the light he brings from God might become life for nations and individuals.

"I know many are shocked by this preaching and want to accuse us of forsaking the gospel for politics. But I reject this accusation. I am trying to bring to life the message of the Second Vatican Council and the meetings at Medellin and Puebla. The documents from these meetings should not just be studied theoretically. They should be brought to life and translated into the real struggle to preach the gospel as it should be for our people. Each week I go about the country listening to the cries of the people, their pain from so much crime, and the ignominy of so much violence. Each week I ask the Lord to give me the right words to console, to denounce, to call for repentance. And even though I may be a voice crying in the desert, I know that the church is making the effort to fulfill its mission....

"Every country lives its own 'exodus'; today El Salvador is living its own exodus. Today we are passing to our liberation through a desert strewn with bodies and where anguish and pain are devastating us. Many suffer the temptation of those who walked with Moses and wanted to turn back and did not work together. It is the same old story. God, however, wants to save the people by making a new history....

"History will not fail; God sustains it. That is why I say that insofar as historical projects attempt to reflect the eternal plan of God, to that extent they reflect the kingdom of God. This attempt is the work of the church. Because of this, the church, the people of God in history, is not attached to any one social system, to any political organization, to any party. The church does not identify herself with any of those forces because she is the eternal pilgrim of history and is indicating at every historical moment what reflects the kingdom of God and what does not reflect the kingdom of God. She is the servant of the Kingdom of God.

"The great task of Christians must be to absorb the spirit of God's kingdom and, with souls filled with the kingdom of God, to work on the projects of history. It's fine to be organized in popular groups; it's all right to form political parties; it's all right to take part in the government. It's fine as long as you are a christian who carries the reflection of the kingdom of God and tries to establish it where you are working, and as long as you are not being used to further worldly ambitions. This is the great duty of the people of today. My dear Christians, I have always told you, and I will repeat, that the true liberators of our people must come from us Christians, from the people of God. Any historical plan that's not based on what we spoke of in the first point-the dignity of the human being, the love of God, the kingdom of Christ among people-will be a fleeting project. Your project, however, will grow in stability the more it reflects the eternal design of God. It will be a solution of the common good of the people every time, if it meets the needs of the people.... Now I invite you to look at things through the eyes of the church, which is trying to be the kingdom of God on earth and so often must illuminate the realities of our national situation...."

More Romero quotes...

“Do you want to know if your Christianity is genuine? Here is the touchstone: Whom do you get along with? Who are those who criticize you? Who are those who do not accept you? Who are those who flatter you?”

“Even when they call us mad, when they call us subversives and communists and all the epithets they put on us, we know we only preach the subversive witness of the Beatitudes, which have turned everything upside down.”

“A church that suffers no persecution but enjoys the privileges and support of the things of the earth - beware! - is not the true church of Jesus Christ. A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospel’s call.”

“Before an order to kill that a man may give, the law of God must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God.”

“Peace is not the product of terror or fear. Peace is not the silence of cemeteries. Peace is not the silent result of violent repression. Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution of all to the good of all. Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity. It is right and it is duty.”

2010-03-22T23:15:00.005-04:00

Pax Israeliana

Undeniably, next to slavery, one of the greatest blots on the collective American soul is the treatment of the native peoples who once inhabited this land from coast to coast: our systematic displacement and cultural and physical annihilation of whole people groups is not often taught or discussed in detail, since it's usually the winners who write the history books. But if you want to know how 'twas done, you need look no further than the current occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, sponsored by none other than the good ol' U.S. of A. The mindset of manifest destiny, the racism that fuels and justifies it, the settling and downright grabbing of native land, the gradual but violent encirclement resulting in devastating poverty, malnutrition and despair-- ethnic cleansing in all its hideousness-- all of this could be taken from a page of our own history (if we had recorded it).

In 2Chronicles 19, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, returns from assisting Ahab, the wicked king of Israel, in battle. Jehoshaphat was supposedly one of the "good kings" but he made a grave mistake in allying himself with the house of Ahab, not only marrying his son to that dynasty but also sending military support. The alliance would prove poisonous and almost fatal to the kingdom of Judah for generations to come--indeed it almost got Jehoshaphat killed. Upon his arrival home he receives a rebuke from the prophet Jehu, who asks, "Should you help the wicked and make an alliance with those who hate the Lord? Because of this the wrath of the Lord is upon you...."

Yes, the Lord did promise Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you;" yet this was not a command to enter into treaties with wicked kings like Ahab, who stole land that was not his. In this instance, Jehoshaphat blessed cousin Israel and came under the Lord's judgment instead. Fancy that.

I remind my fellow Christians of this passage, since it offers a much needed counterbalance to the dispensational belief that has permeated the church through Christian media that the nations will be judged on the basis of how they treat the nation of Israel in the last days (such is their interpretation of the "least of these" in Mt 25:31-46). Actually, Jesus' reference to the "least of these" is similar to his teaching on "who is my neighbor?" (Lk 10)-- the answer there being, quite obviously, anyone who is in need, even an enemy. The Lord does not show favoritism. Anyone who is poor or suffering, therefore, is the "least of these brothers of mine." And if that is the case, where do the Palestinians fit? Even if we limited the "least of these" to the church, as some do, what about Palestinian Christians?

It is an oft-repeated tragedy of history that the persecuted can just as easily become the persecutor. Such is certainly the case with the church, and with modern day Israel, created as a haven for Jews who have suffered centuries of pogroms and holocaust, but now become one of the greatest threats to peace in the region and a violent oppressor of Muslims and Christians alike. How sadly tragic. As Passover nears when Jews everywhere reenact the story of slavery and deliverance in Egypt, one wonders will their hearts reach out to the suffering Palestinians? "Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice.... Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this" (Dt 24:17,18) It is a frequent refrain in the Law of Moses.

Mr. Netanyahu's Likud government last week showed our Vice-President what it really feels about us and that it is committed in no way to the peace process, only to unbridled expansion on the back of an already despairing native people. Why does a country that is dependent on the US for 4 billion a year in aid, not to mention military supplies, act so arrogantly? Because it can. As one Israeli journalist put it, "To wipe the spit off his face. Biden had to say it was only rain" (an Israeli expression referring to someone too weak to defend himself).

Gen. Petraeus himself contacted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to register his concern that Israeli intransigence endangers American lives in Afghanistan (he failed to mention American lives at home too). That at least was helpful; the Pentagon carries a big stick in Washington. But the only way to restrain Israel in its mad rush over the precipice (and taking us with it) is to establish consequences for such behavior-- consequences mean $$$. Such discipline has not been used since the elder Bush Administration but would be in Israel's own self-interest as well as our own, since their current course is nothing short of self-destructive, stirring up Muslim hatred for both themselves and us worldwide. There can be no real or lasting peace or security for Israel (or the US) without justice.

So massive is the fist of the Israel lobby in Washington, however, (given even greater heft by the economic and political support of much of American conservative evangelicalism) that hope for change is bleak-- as evidenced by the Obama administration's almost pusillanimously apologetic backpeddling after its initial rebukes of Bibi's behavior. Unless...

If enough Christians start caring enough to register their objections and clamor for a less lopsided and more just approach to peace in the region, both Congress and the Administration will have to take notice. Or let me put it bluntly, fellow believers: you can be either part of the problem and a persecutor of the church (remember Palestinian Christians who suffer just as much as their Muslim neighbors) or you can be part of God's solution to bring justice and lasting peace to a troubled region. Unless, of course, like many American Christians, you don't give a hoot about anyone but are hellbent on stirring up Armageddon so Jesus will beam you out of here. In that case, I can only hope for you that the pre-tribulationists are right.

Consider writing to your elected officials today. Tell them Israel does not have to be abandoned to be held accountable and you do not want your hard earned tax dollars used in this way to prop up such an oppressive regime.

2010-02-27T13:05:00.008-05:00

A Cry of Hope

This past December patriarchs and leaders from the historic churches in Jerusalem gathered to issue a statement on behalf of their beleaguered Palestinian Christian congregations. Known as the Kairos Palestine Document, the statement is a moving cry to the world for help, as well as a Christian message of hope and love in the midst of suffering. Here are some highlights:

We, a group of Christian Palestinians, after prayer, reflection and an exchange of opinion, cry out from within the suffering in our country, under the Israeli occupation, with a cry of hope in the absence of all hope, a cry full of prayer and faith in a God ever vigilant, in God’s divine providence for all the inhabitants of this land. Inspired by the mystery of God's love for all, the mystery of God’s divine presence in the history of all peoples and, in a particular way, in the history of our country, we proclaim our word based on our Christian faith and our sense of Palestinian belonging – a word of faith, hope and love.

Why now? Because today we have reached a dead end in the tragedy of the Palestinian people. The decision-makers content themselves with managing the crisis rather than committing themselves to the serious task of finding a way to resolve it. The hearts of the faithful are filled with pain and with questioning: What is the international community doing? What are the political leaders in Palestine, in Israel and in the Arab world doing? What is the Church doing? The problem is not just a political one. It is a policy in which human beings are destroyed, and this must be of concern to the Church.

We address ourselves to our brothers and sisters, members of our Churches in this land. We call out as Christians and as Palestinians to our religious and political leaders, to our Palestinian society and to the Israeli society, to the international community, and to our Christian brothers and sisters in the Churches around the world....

1.1.1 The separation wall erected on Palestinian territory, a large part of which has been confiscated for this purpose, has turned our towns and villages into prisons, separating them from one another, making them dispersed and divided cantons. Gaza, especially after the cruel war Israel launched against it during December 2008 and January 2009, continues to live in inhuman conditions, under permanent blockade and cut off from the other Palestinian territories.

1.1.2 Israeli settlements ravage our land in the name of God and in the name of force, controlling our natural resources, including water and agricultural land, thus depriving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and constituting an obstacle to any political solution.

1.1.3 Reality is the daily humiliation to which we are subjected at the military checkpoints, as we make our way to jobs, schools or hospitals.

1.1.4 Reality is the separation between members of the same family, making family life impossible for thousands of Palestinians, especially where one of the spouses does not have an Israeli identity card.

1.1.5 Religious liberty is severely restricted; the freedom of access to the holy places is denied under the pretext of security. Jerusalem and its holy places are out of bounds for many Christians and Muslims from the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Even Jerusalemites face restrictions during the religious feasts. Some of our Arab clergy are regularly barred from entering Jerusalem....

1.1.8 Jerusalem is the heart of our reality. It is, at the same time, symbol of peace and sign of conflict. While the separation wall divides Palestinian neighbourhoods, Jerusalem continues to be emptied of its Palestinian citizens, Christians and Muslims. Their identity cards are confiscated, which means the loss of their right to reside in Jerusalem. Their homes are demolished or expropriated. Jerusalem, city of reconciliation, has become a city of discrimination and exclusion, a source of struggle rather than peace.

1.2 Also part of this reality is the Israeli disregard of international law and international resolutions, as well as the paralysis of the Arab world and the international community in the face of this contempt. Human rights are violated and despite the various reports of local and international human rights' organizations, the injustice continues....

1.4 In the face of this reality, Israel justifies its actions as self-defence, including occupation, collective punishment and all other forms of reprisals against the Palestinians. In our opinion, this vision is a reversal of reality. Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity. This is our understanding of the situation. Therefore, we call on the Israelis to end the occupation. Then they will see a new world in which there is no fear, no threat but rather security, justice and peace.

1.5 The Palestinian response to this reality was diverse. Some responded through negotiations: that was the official position of the Palestinian Authority, but it did not advance the peace process. Some political parties followed the way of armed resistance. Israel used this as a pretext to accuse the Palestinians of being terrorists and was able to distort the real nature of the conflict, presenting it as an Israeli war against terror, rather than an Israeli occupation faced by Palestinian legal resistance aiming at ending it....

Again, we repeat and proclaim that our Christian word in the midst of all this, in the midst of our catastrophe, is a word of faith, hope and love....

2.3.3 Furthermore, we know that certain theologians in the West try to attach a biblical and theological legitimacy to the infringement of our rights. Thus, the promises, according to their interpretation, have become a menace to our very existence. The "good news" in the Gospel itself has become "a harbinger of death" for us. We call on these theologians to deepen their reflection on the Word of God and to rectify their interpretations so that they might see in the Word of God a source of life for all peoples....

2.4 Therefore, we declare that any use of the Bible to legitimize or support political options and positions that are based upon injustice, imposed by one person on another, or by one people on another, transform religion into human ideology and strip the Word of God of its holiness, its universality and truth.

2.5 We also declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God. It distorts the image of God in the Israeli who has become an occupier just as it distorts this image in the Palestinian living under occupation. We declare that any theology, seemingly based on the Bible or on faith or on history, that legitimizes the occupation, is far from Christian teachings, because it calls for violence and holy war in the name of God Almighty, subordinating God to temporary human interests, and distorting the divine image in the human beings living under both political and theological injustice....

3.3 The Church in our land, her leaders and her faithful, despite her weakness and her divisions, does show certain signs of hope. Our parish communities are vibrant and most of our young people are active apostles for justice and peace....

3.3.2 We can add to this the numerous meetings for inter-religious dialogue, Christian–Muslim dialogue, which includes the religious leaders and a part of the people.... They all try to breach the walls imposed by the occupation and oppose the distorted perception of human beings in the heart of their brothers or sisters....

3.3.3 ...Likewise significant is the developing awareness among many Churches throughout the world and their desire to know the truth about what is going on here.

3.3.4 In addition to that, we see a determination among many to overcome the resentments of the past and to be ready for reconciliation once justice has been restored. Public awareness of the need to restore political rights to the Palestinians is increasing, and Jewish and Israeli voices, advocating peace and justice, are raised in support of this with the approval of the international community. True, these forces for justice and reconciliation have not yet been able to transform the situation of injustice, but they have their influence and may shorten the time of suffering and hasten the time of reconciliation....

3.4.1 The mission of the Church is prophetic, to speak the Word of God courageously, honestly and lovingly in the local context and in the midst of daily events. If she does take sides, it is with the oppressed, to stand alongside them, just as Christ our Lord stood by the side of each poor person and each sinner, calling them to repentance, life, and the restoration of the dignity bestowed on them by God and that no one has the right to strip away....

3.4.3 Our Church points to the Kingdom, which cannot be tied to any earthly kingdom. Jesus said before Pilate that he was indeed a king but "my kingdom is not from this world" (Jn 18:36). Saint Paul says: "The Kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17). Therefore, religion cannot favour or support any unjust political regime, but must rather promote justice, truth and human dignity. It must exert every effort to purify regimes where human beings suffer injustice and human dignity is violated. The Kingdom of God on earth is not dependent on any political orientation, for it is greater and more inclusive than any particular political system....

4.2 This word is clear. Love is the commandment of Christ our Lord to us and it includes both friends and enemies. This must be clear when we find ourselves in circumstances where we must resist evil of whatever kind.

4.2.1 Love is seeing the face of God in every human being. Every person is my brother or my sister. However, seeing the face of God in everyone does not mean accepting evil or aggression on their part. Rather, this love seeks to correct the evil and stop the aggression.

The injustice against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation, is an evil that must be resisted. It is an evil and a sin that must be resisted and removed. Primary responsibility for this rests with the Palestinians themselves suffering occupation. Christian love invites us to resist it. However, love puts an end to evil by walking in the ways of justice. Responsibility lies also with the international community, because international law regulates relations between peoples today. Finally responsibility lies with the perpetrators of the injustice; they must liberate themselves from the evil that is in them and the injustice they have imposed on others....

4.2.3 We say that our option as Christians in the face of the Israeli occupation is to resist. Resistance is a right and a duty for the Christian. But it is resistance with love as its logic. It is thus a creative resistance for it must find human ways that engage the humanity of the enemy. Seeing the image of God in the face of the enemy means taking up positions in the light of this vision of active resistance to stop the injustice and oblige the perpetrator to end his aggression and thus achieve the desired goal, which is getting back the land, freedom, dignity and independence....

4.2.6 Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations, NGOs and certain religious institutions call on individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation. We understand this to integrate the logic of peaceful resistance. These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice. The aim is to free both peoples from extremist positions of the different Israeli governments, bringing both to justice and reconciliation. In this spirit and with this dedication we will eventually reach the longed-for resolution to our problems, as indeed happened in South Africa and with many other liberation movements in the world....

5.1 We all face, today, a way that is blocked and a future that promises only woe. Our word to all our Christian brothers and sisters is a word of hope, patience, steadfastness and new action for a better future. Our word is that we, as Christians we carry a message, and we will continue to carry it despite the thorns, despite blood and daily difficulties. We place our hope in God, who will grant us relief in His own time. At the same time, we continue to act in concord with God and God’s will, building, resisting evil and bringing closer the day of justice and peace....

5.4.1Our message to the Muslims is a message of love and of living together and a call to reject fanaticism and extremism. It is also a message to the world that Muslims are neither to be stereotyped as the enemy nor caricatured as terrorists but rather to be lived with in peace and engaged with in dialogue.

5.4.2 Our message to the Jews tells them: Even though we have fought one another in the recent past and still struggle today, we are able to love and live together. We can organize our political life, with all its complexity, according to the logic of this love and its power, after ending the occupation and establishing justice.

5.4.3 The word of faith says to anyone engaged in political activity: human beings were not made for hatred. It is not permitted to hate, neither is it permitted to kill or to be killed. The culture of love is the culture of accepting the other. Through it we perfect ourselves and the foundations of society are established....

6.1 Our word to the Churches of the world is firstly a word of gratitude for the solidarity you have shown toward us in word, deed and presence among us. It is a word of praise for the many Churches and Christians who support the right of the Palestinian people for self determination. It is a message of solidarity with those Christians and Churches who have suffered because of their advocacy for law and justice.

However, it is also a call to repentance; to revisit fundamentalist theological positions that support certain unjust political options with regard to the Palestinian people. It is a call to stand alongside the oppressed and preserve the word of God as good news for all rather than to turn it into a weapon with which to slay the oppressed. The word of God is a word of love for all His creation. God is not the ally of one against the other, nor the opponent of one in the face of the other. God is the Lord of all and loves all, demanding justice from all and issuing to all of us the same commandments. We ask our sister Churches not to offer a theological cover-up for the injustice we suffer, for the sin of the occupation imposed upon us. Our question to our brothers and sisters in the Churches today is: Are you able to help us get our freedom back, for this is the only way you can help the two peoples attain justice, peace, security and love?

6.2 In order to understand our reality, we say to the Churches: Come and see. We will fulfil our role to make known to you the truth of our reality, receiving you as pilgrims coming to us to pray, carrying a message of peace, love and reconciliation. You will know the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike.

6.3 We condemn all forms of racism, whether religious or ethnic, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and we call on you to condemn it and oppose it in all its manifestations. At the same time we call on you to say a word of truth and to take a position of truth with regard to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. As we have already said, we see boycott and disinvestment as tools of non violence for justice, peace and security for all.

7. Our word to the international community is to stop the principle of "double standards" and insist on the international resolutions regarding the Palestinian problem with regard to all parties. Selective application of international law threatens to leave us vulnerable to a law of the jungle. It legitimizes the claims by certain armed groups and states that the international community only understands the logic of force. Therefore, we call for a response to what the civil and religious institutions have proposed, as mentioned earlier: the beginning of a system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel. We repeat once again that this is not revenge but rather a serious action in order to reach a just and definitive peace that will put an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories and will guarantee security and peace for all....

9.1 This is a call to see the face of God in each one of God’s creatures and overcome the barriers of fear or race in order to establish a constructive dialogue and not remain within the cycle of never-ending manoeuvres that aim to keep the situation as it is. Our appeal is to reach a common vision, built on equality and sharing, not on superiority, negation of the other or aggression, using the pretext of fear and security. We say that love is possible and mutual trust is possible. Thus, peace is possible and definitive reconciliation also. Thus, justice and security will be attained for all....

9.3 Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority....

2010-02-24T23:21:00.009-05:00

Time to Take on the Corporate State

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens....a time to be silent and a time to speak...a time for war and a time for peace." --Ecclesiastes 3

When it came to America, I used to be a cockeyed optimist, like most of my countrymen. I used to think that no matter what challenges we faced, we would get through it. As a nation, after all, we have been through a lot together: a Revolution, a bloody Civil War, slavery, Reconstruction, two World Wars, a Great Depression, a Cold War, Vietnam, the turbulent 60s and the struggle for civil rights, and Watergate. Often there arose leaders of integrity, strong voices of reason, faith or sanity (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King, Jr., RFK) who helped steer our bark through the storm; at other times, it was the people themselves who banged on the gates and clamored for justice, when our leaders were silent.

Now we are facing a new set of challenges, perhaps the most formidable in our short history: a conspiracy of powerful moneyed interests, coupled with a corruption that has spread to all three branches of government, and a public that is uninformed and easily led. A deadly concoction for an ailing republic. And one has to admit, history is against us. When faced with similar problems, the great democracies and republics of the past have all tanked. So pardon me if I do not wax patriotic about America's great heritage and her destiny upon the world stage, or of Americans themselves and their penchant for hard work and stick-to-itiveness. When the patient is dying, it's not a time for poetry or duck-billed platitudes, but for prayer and action.

Our Founders never took it for granted that America would endure or endure long. They were not so foolish. For them the new nation was but an "experiment in democracy." They knew their history well and they trembled at the grave pitfalls and temptations they knew we would face as a people. They were hopeful but hardly optimistic. As James Madison wrote, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

As I have watched the last decade unfold and how we have reacted to it, there are several reasons that I fear for the future of my country:

1. An ignorance and contempt for the Constitution. In the face of fear, too many Americans seem too eager to chuck what generations fought so hard for. And they seem unaware of what is at stake. Our leaders have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, but it is not just up to them. "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder," said George Washington. Our leaders may have sold themselves at auction (and if you knew for how much you would wonder at their pretensions to patriotism), but we cannot afford such cynicism. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Tag, we're it.

2. A contempt for basic human rights. The thought that a majority of Americans not only do not oppose but actually support the use of torture makes my head spin. That they also do not oppose the President's policy of ordering the assassination of individuals, including American citizens, who are suspected of terrorism, is a grievous moral failure. And God is not blind. We will reap what we sow. "The arc of the universe is long," Dr. King said, "but it bends toward justice."

3. The break down of the system of checks and balances. Congress has basically abdicated its role in making war, giving that power instead to the Chief Executive. Our Founders would flip! And with both parties and every branch of government now beholden to the moneyed interests (whether Congress, White House, or judges, it's pay to play), it's not surprising that there is essentially one party line: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

4. A blind support for an increasingly imperial Presidency. I'm not referring to a single individual here but to the office itself. Most Americans are resigned that we are in a perpetual state of war with no specific goals or end in sight. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, firmly believed that "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement."

5. An indiscriminate consumption of media. With the ever increasing corporate control of media and the dismal failure of public education, Americans are the among the worst informed and least educated people in the industrialized world. It's not that we lack media stimulus, but our brains are like our bodies, fat but malnourished. When official press releases, infotainment and propaganda pass for news and fact, and "fair and balanced" means exactly the opposite, we have as a nation entered a frighteningly Orwellian stage. "And they drink up waters in abundance" (Ps 73:10). John Adams fervently believed that the success of any democracy depended upon an educated and informed citizenry. That is why we cannot depend on media to educate us; we must search for the truth and educate ourselves.

If America does not pull through the present storm, it will be because we do not deserve to. If we will not put down our Ring-Dings and remote controls, rise up and take on the corporate state, then we may well deserve to lose all that has been handed down to us. If the powerful have taken our democratic institutions hostage, it is because we have allowed them to do so. Like dogs mating in the street, they no longer have any shame, but now do openly and without fear what was once done in back rooms-- because they have nothing to fear from us, so they think.

And the church in America is either AWOL or, like the head lemming, it is leading the charge over the cliff. A dog that cannot bark, it has lost its prophetic voice. And Satan is so deeply invested in keeping it so. Would that the church would focus its political crusade against the injustice of the corporate state, instead of some imaginary socialism.

Some may say, Forget about those things and focus on the kingdom of God. By all means, let's. But is not God's kingdom one of justice and truth? And when we have led them to Christ, what kind of church will we be bringing them into? Can the church be part of the problem and the solution at the same time? No. God's kingdom is good news for the poor and the oppressed. It is bad news for greed and oppression. When the church starts doing its duty and speaks out against evil instead of coddling it, then I don't believe most people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to church. The world knows better than we what the church ought to look like. It ought to look like Jesus. And Jesus is attractive.

So pray for this nation, pray for God's mercy, pray for our enemies; get involved, get organized, speak out, clamor for peace, clamor for justice; write, email your elected officials, speak truth to power; talk to your children about what is happening; and don't be afraid to be a pain in the keister-- the prophets of old were just that.

We're going to be a pain in somebody's backside, either man's or God's. So let us choose wisely.

2010-02-14T17:38:00.011-05:00

The Course of Empire

"Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: 'With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down....Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray....'"--Rev. 18:21,23

Regarding such a strange book as Revelation, there is no shortage of interpretations. Yet, whether one takes a strictly preterist view (that the book speaks of events fulfilled in the 1st century), a futurist view (that it speaks only of the future), a historicist view (that it speaks of various stages within church history), an idealist view (which looks for no specific fulfillment but recurrent themes within history), or a historical-critical view (which attempts to set the book within the 1st century and the literary context of apocalyptic), it is clear that Revelation describes an empire doomed to destruction. Whether a specific empire is in mind (such as the Roman or some later worldwide empire) or the entire corrupt world system controlled by Satan, scholars have rarely agreed.

If we assume, however, that the author, who identifies himself merely as John, certainly had something to say to his own as well as to later generations, we may wish at least initially to identify Babylon as a cypher for Rome, the hub of an evil empire. In ch. 17 Rome is described as a prostitute dressed in purple and scarlet and seated upon a scarlet beast, colors here associated with wealth and imperial power. The seven heads of the beast represent seven hills on which she sits (the famous Seven Hills of Rome?) as well as the seven emperors who had reigned up to that time (vv. 9,10). This prostitute is portrayed as drunk on the blood of the Lord's saints and prophets, for indeed when the book was written, Christians in the province of Asia (to whom Revelation is addressed) were experiencing a harrowing persecution.

Yet the author sets this macabre image against the backdrop of coming judgment and the even wider context of the end of this present evil age and God's ultimate justice. For in the next chapter we see that the empire's doom is indeed sealed. Though written in the last decade of the 1st century, the prophecy here looks ahead to a time when the power and terror wielded by such an evil system would dissolve "in a day" (19:8). The author did not know when this demise would take place; like all prophets he saw from mountain top to mountain top, without the valleys in between, and so time for him was telescoped. Doubtless he felt the day of wrath very near indeed.

In reality it was not until three centuries later that Rome began to receive her Tarkingtonian comeuppance, when in AD 410 the Visigoths sacked the city. By that time the empire had been "baptized" and Christianity become her official religion. But that did not deter the Almighty from judging her for her sins. For though she was now a Christian empire, her armies carrying Christ as their standard instead of the former blasphemous images, she was still an empire. And as Gertrude Stein might have written, "An empire is an empire is an empire." There are no good empires anymore than there are good witches. The myth of the "benevolent empire" is indeed an oxymoron.

As political scientist and historian Michael Parenti notes emphatically, "...Imperialism is what empires do. And by imperialism I do not mean the process of extending power and dominion without regard to material and financial interests." Instead, he defines imperialism as "...the process whereby the dominant investor interests in one country bring to bear their economic and military power upon another nation or region in order to expropriate its land, labor, natural resources, capital, and markets-in such a manner as to enrich the investor interests. In a word, empires do not just pursue 'power for power's sake.' There are real and enormous material interests at stake, fortunes to be made many times over."

These are the very material and economic interests that John so fiercely condemns: her arrogance, her luxury and consumer mentality, and a contempt for the suffering of others.

"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more— cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men" (18:11-13).

When news spread throughout the empire of the Visigoth's sack of Rome, it seemed like the end of the world. People wandered the streets in a daze or sat stupefied. Even St. Jerome commented on the event, "My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken." And "Who would believe that Rome, built up by the conquest of the whole world, had collapsed, that the mother of nations had become also their tomb." It was as if "the bright light of all the world was put out" and "the whole world perished in one city." Roma Invicta, unconquered Rome, had fallen. Yet the city was rebuilt and over the ensuing decades regained some of her wealth, only to be sacked again in 455 and 546 by other Germanic tribes. From these she never recovered. Nevertheless, though the empire in the West had crumbled, in the East Rome continued to hold on for another thousand years, until, having shrunk to a mere toe-hold of land, it fell prey to the Ottomans. Perhaps it was no coincidence that Constantinople, too, was built on seven hills.

It may be no accident that the most popular interpretative view of Revelation in this country is the futurist. And why not? It spares us looking at ourselves. This is the view beloved of most of my fellow conservative evangelicals, who tend to see almost any other nation as Babylon except our own. This works well as they goad America's imperial and militaristic appetites, turning Jesus into a capitalist mascot or a hood ornament for their Humvees. (They already have him inscribed on their rifle sights.)

"Then I heard another voice from heaven say: 'Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues...'" (18:4). Here John employs a common prophetic warning reminiscent of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Only here the exhortation refers perhaps more to a spiritual than a geographical separation. God's saints are to refrain from participation in the sins of an evil empire and to consecrate themselves to the Lord alone, lest they become ensnared and share its doom.

It is a tragedy that we spend so much energy trying to identify the antichrist with whichever leader we currently hold in contempt or using the prophecy of Revelation as a survivalist guide for the end times, while remaining stone deaf to the book's true message.

2010-02-12T12:53:00.009-05:00

Life Among the Lowly

"And yet, oh my country! these things are done under the shadow of thy laws! O, Christ! thy church sees them, almost in silence!"-- Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin, ch. xl.

Among the canon of American literature, the abolitionist novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Life Among the Lowly (1852) needs no introduction. Its imprint is found on our history, our imaginations, as well as our language. Yet I am embarrassed to say that I had never read it. Having just finished the book for the first time, I was surprised to find the novel nothing like I had been led to believe.

For example, even as early as the late 19th century, the author was charged with sentimentalism. The book is sentimental, to be sure; it's style and language belong to the first half of the 19th century, when audiences wept buckets over the death of Dicken's Little Nell. Yet Stowe's is not a sentimentalism for its own sake. Wretched situations produce strong emotions (at least they should) as well as commanding our own, and her melodrama is not as stilted nor her sentiment as exalted as that of Mr. Dickens. Nor can she be charged with depicting unrealistic characters or situations: slave children being torn away from their frantic mothers; the lingering, almost ethereal death of a child through consumption; the devotion of a slave to a kindly master; or the sadistic use of power by those who claim to own another human being.

Yet if a "feminine inclination" toward sentiment can be laid at her door, there was certainly method in it. As she writes in the last chapter:

"And you, mothers of America, -- you who have learned, by the cradles of your own children, to love and feel for all mankind, -- by the sacred love you bear your child; by your joy in his beautiful, spotless infancy; by the motherly pity and tenderness with which you guide his growing years; by the anxieties of his education; by the prayers you breathe for his soul's eternal good; -- I beseech you, pity the mother who has all your affections, and not one legal right to protect, guide, or educate, the child of her bosom! By the sick hour of your child; by those dying eyes, which you can never forget; by those last cries, that wrung your heart when you could neither help nor save; by the desolation of that empty cradle, that silent nursery, -- I beseech you, pity those mothers that are constantly made childless by the American slave-trade! And say, mothers of America, is this a thing to be defended, sympathized with, passed over in silence?... If the mothers of the free states had all felt as they should, in times past, the sons of the free states would not have been the holders, and, proverbially, the hardest masters of slaves; the sons of the free states would not have connived at the extension of slavery, in our national body; the sons of the free states would not, as they do, trade the souls and bodies of men as an equivalent to money, in their mercantile dealings." (ch. xlv)

A later generation also accused the novel of being too religious. It is, after all, an abolitionist work; it's goal, to waken a sleeping church to action against slavery. The novel reflects a time, quite foreign to us today, when religion, the Bible and pious language permeated most aspects of American society. Christianity was a glue that held much of "respectable society" together, and Stowe did not shy from using it as a switch to chastise her co-religionists. Indeed, it was to that respectable element of society that she addressed much of the book:

"Northern men, northern mothers, northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves.

"But, what can any individual do? Of that, every individual can judge. There is one thing that every individual can do, -- they can see to it that they feel right. An atmosphere of sympathetic influence encircles every human being; and the man or woman who feels strongly, healthily and justly, on the great interests of humanity, is a constant benefactor to the human race. See, then, to your sympathies in this matter! Are they in harmony with the sympathies of Christ? or are they swayed and perverted by the sophistries of worldly policy?

"Christian men and women of the North! still further -- you have another power; you can pray! Do you believe in prayer? or has it become an indistinct apostolic tradition? You pray for the heathen abroad; pray also for the heathen at home. And pray for those distressed Christians whose whole chance of religious improvement is an accident of trade and sale; from whom any adherence to the morals of Christianity is, in many cases, an impossibility, unless they have given them, from above, the courage and grace of martyrdom.

"But, still more. On the shores of our free states are emerging the poor, shattered, broken remnants of families, -- men and women, escaped, by miraculous providences from the surges of slavery, -- feeble in knowledge, and, in many cases, infirm in moral constitution, from a system which confounds and confuses every principle of Christianity and morality. They come to seek a refuge among you; they come to seek education, knowledge, Christianity.

"What do you owe to these poor unfortunates, oh Christians? Does not every American Christian owe to the African race some effort at reparation for the wrongs that the American nation has brought upon them? Shall the doors of churches and school-houses be shut upon them? Shall states arise and shake them out? Shall the church of Christ hear in silence the taunt that is thrown at them, and shrink away from the helpless hand that they stretch out; and, by her silence, encourage the cruelty that would chase them from our borders? If it must be so, it will be a mournful spectacle. If it must be so, the country will have reason to tremble, when it remembers that the fate of nations is in the hands of One who is very pitiful, and of tender compassion." (ch. xlv)

Neither is the figure of Uncle Tom the stock character cartooned on stage or in popular speech. Tom is a Christian of deep piety, faithful to his master because he is faithful to his Master, and yet, like any man, he deeply yearns for freedom, family and self-determination. In the characters of Tom and George, we have two opposite poles of character: one the long-suffering man of prayer, who would rather die than harm another of "God's critters"; the other a man of action, prepared to use violence to protect his family and reach the shores of freedom. Stowe neither condemns nor prefers one character over the other. Their choices are ones of temperament and, perhaps, calling. God has his saints as well as his soldiers.

Perhaps if there is one fault in the book, it is that Stowe herself was not a slave and so could not have entered into the real thoughts, dreams, rage and despair of her subjects, but perhaps she comes as close as she could. Yet as an expose of an evil institution and the northern complicity that made it possible, as a story of the demoralizing effects of slavery on both slave and master and on a young nation bound so firmly in its grasp; as a record of the cultivated ignorance and the myriad of prejudices and justifications that perpetuated the institution, as a portrait of the very best and worst in human nature and a snapshot of a turbulent ante-bellum America, Uncle Tom's Cabin is and always will be unsurpassed in our literature.

There is an anecdote, perhaps apocryphal, that when the author visited the White House during the Civil War, President Lincoln remarked, "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." Stowe could hardly be blamed for that. In fact, if the book had had the effect she had hoped, the war would not have had to have been fought at all. But the exchange says something of the enormous impact and influence the book had on the minds of a generation, as well as those to follow.

Although, as a legal institution supported by our Constitution, slavery may seem no longer to exist in this country, it has not disappeared from our shores. It still thrives here, albeit in hiding, in agriculture, sweatshop manufacturing, and the sex trade-- supported by unjust immigration laws, our insatiable hunger for pornography, our mad pursuit of cheap food and clothing, and a general blindness or indifference to its existence. Slavery also continues to grow apace overseas, where more of our food and clothing are produced, thanks to so-called "free-trade" agreements, and where the sex trade flourishes.

But there are other forms of slavery in which poor nations groan under heavy foreign debts they can never repay, designed to keep them under heel, breeding a steady stream of cheap labor for Western countries-- some of the greatest and most egregious examples being in our own hemisphere. There are also those nations which we keep in a kind of slavery through our support of repressive regimes, whose cruelty and suppression of human rights make Stowe's Simon Legree look like a Swedish au pair.

In honor of Lincoln's birthday, I thought it appropriate to conclude with an excerpt that forms the final, apocalyptic words of the novel:

"This is an age of the world when nations are trembling and convulsed. A mighty influence is abroad, surging and heaving the world, as with an earthquake. And is America safe? Every nation that carries in its bosom great and unredressed injustice has in it the elements of this last convulsion.

"For what is this mighty influence thus rousing in all nations and languages those groanings that cannot be uttered, for man's freedom and equality?

"O, Church of Christ, read the signs of the times! Is not this power the spirit of Him whose kingdom is yet to come, and whose will to be done on earth as it is in heaven?

"But who may abide the day of his appearing? 'for that day shall burn as an oven: and he shall appear as a swift witness against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger in his right: and he shall break in pieces the oppressor.'

"Are not these dread words for a nation bearing in her bosom so mighty an injustice? Christians! every time that you pray that the kingdom of Christ may come, can you forget that prophecy associates, in dread fellowship, the day of vengeance with the year of his redeemed?

"A day of grace is yet held out to us. Both North and South have been guilty before God; and the Christian church has a heavy account to answer. Not by combining together, to protect injustice and cruelty, and making a common capital of sin, is this Union to be saved, -- but by repentance, justice and mercy; for, not surer is the eternal law by which the millstone sinks in the ocean, than that stronger law, by which injustice and cruelty shall bring on nations the wrath of Almighty God!" (ch. xlv)

2010-02-09T22:33:00.007-05:00

Are the Terrorists Winning?

terrorism, noun, defn: 1. the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes; 2. the state of submission and fear produced by terrorism or terrorization; 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Although there is currently no internationally acknowledged definition of terrorism, it is commonly agreed that terrorism involves the use of violent acts as staged events to create fear within a population for ideological purposes. Terrorism especially targets civilians, since such attacks create a feeling of chaos and bring the battlefield to Main Street. Terrorists hope that by sufficiently unhinging a population, they will force a government to use police-state tactics, resulting in loss of freedoms and privacy, as well as massive expenditures for security, all of which may cause citizens to cry uncle.

In the U.S., which is relatively new to the phenomenon, we have had few acts of terrorism, but the catastrophic events of a single day (9-11) and the accompanying loss of life were of sufficient magnitude to sow the seeds of fear deep within the national psyche. The "relatively few acts" may cause many to conclude that we are "winning." Yet if we examine the goals of the terrorists, the opposite may in fact be true.

The British applied terroristic tactics during the American Revolution by burning farms, shooting civilians, and starving and freezing prisoners. When Congress and the Continental Army declined, on moral grounds, to respond in kind, the more cynical among the enemy remarked that "humanity" may be a "Yankee virtue," but they will be "governed by policy"-- in other words, "Just wait; they'll soon have to cave in to fear and chuck their scruples like the rest of us." The fact that we did not do so had a profound impact on the war and its aftermath (including the desertion of many of His Majesty's mercenaries to the American side).

Tragically, two centuries later we seem to have forgotten that lesson. Instead, throwing humanity and all caution to the wind, we are indeed now governed by "policy": electronic eavesdropping, racial profiling, preventive detentions without trial, torture, targeted assassinations of American citizens, among other egregious violations of our civil rights and Constitution, as well as an ever expanding militarism, ballooning deficits, and unconscionable acts of violence abroad. What the American people will not put up with in the quest for "security"!

Sadly, the one thing we will not put up with is an honest look at ourselves.

If the terrorists are winning, it is because they have, with little effort, bullied us into chucking the better angels of our nature, sacrificing our liberty and our Constitution, and dropping our benevolent mask, revealing the cruel and rapacious empire beneath. This is what they have wanted. This is how terrorism works. And they have had their way.

Unfortunately, the winner of this contest will not be determined by the last man standing on some rugged mountain in AfPak, but by how we have defended that which ought to be more sacred to us as a nation: our humanity, our compassion, and the rule of law.

As John Adams wrote at the height of the war in 1777:

"Is there any policy this side of hell that is inconsistent with humanity? I have no idea of it. I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this, piety, humanity, and honesty are the best policy. Blasphemy, cruelty and villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America in this contest, because I find the more of them are employed the less they succeed."

2010-02-01T23:37:00.010-05:00

John Adams: Defending the Innocent

Boston. March 5, 1770.

British soldiers have been garrisoned in the colonial city to help keep order, a presence that only exacerbates the growing tensions between Colony and Crown. Resentment between Bostonians and their red-coated keepers frequently breaks out in shoving, shouting and even fistfights. Still, the British make every effort to avoid violence.

On this memorable night, an unruly mob faces down a troop of jittery soldiers, who are pelted first with snowballs, ice and oyster shells, then with clubs. When the smoke clears, three civilians lay dead, two dying. The city is outraged. Eight British soldiers are arrested on charges of murder. With the public crying out for blood and the Sons of Liberty hoping to use the incident to further their cause, the chances of the redcoats' receiving a fair trial in such a hotbed seems slim.

One stout, 34-year-old lawyer, known to all as a man of integrity, agrees to take the case for the defense when no one else will-- knowing he and his young family will be resented, reviled, perhaps harmed and that his career and growing popularity as a patriot might be at an end. In his opening statement before the court he states why he has taken the case: "I am for the prisoners at the bar, and shall apologize for it only in the words of the Marquis Beccaria: ‘If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, his blessings and tears of transport, shall be a sufficient consolation to me, for the contempt of all mankind.’ . . ."

And as his argument proceeds, he makes the case, based on English law, that every effort should be made to guard against too hasty a condemnation of an accused, lest the man be innocent, even if that means many more guilty men go free.

"...We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; we are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it is of more importance to the community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever." (Adam's oratory on this occasion has long been considered one of the greatest speeches in world history. To read it in its entirety, click here.)

If Mr. Adams lived in the U.S. today, it would surely seem to him a foreign country. In our fear and zeal to prevent any act of terrorism, we have ruined many innocent lives through years of detention and even torture. Yet few Americans seem to care, as so many of us have bought the lie that the ends justify all, that the freedom of a few innocent must be sacrificed to insure the safety of thousands.

I would like to think that if he were here today, Adams would disagree and feel duty-bound to represent these detainees, whether innocent or guilty, to insure that they received the due process that is the hallmark of any free, democratic society. And for that, he would no doubt receive in return the curses and hatred of his countrymen, as he so often did in his lifetime.

*********

Update: 2-4-10

In the course of the speech, Adams quotes a well known maxim of Roman law: Satius est impunitum relinqui facinus nocentis, quam innocentem damnari. ("It is better that a crime is left unpunished than that an innocent man is punished."--Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta, 6th century)

The ancient Roman jurists recognized the danger in having so fine a net of justice that even the innocent are not safe. They knew the gods would avenge such an injustice, and so innocence had to be protected, even if that meant the guilty go free.

I am also reminded of this quotable exchange from Robert Bolt's 1960 play A Man for All Seasons. Here, Sir Thomas More's family chastises him for allowing an obviously corrupt man to walk away free. "And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!" is his reply. His son-in-law Roper, a zealous Lutheran, is shocked at More's willingness to "grant the Devil the benefit of law," but Sir Thomas holds his ground:

"What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

The idea here is that if we mow down our own laws in order to try to get at every evil, we render ourselves vulnerable in the end, since no law would remain to protect the innocent.

2010-01-27T22:57:00.003-05:00

What Constitution?

What is happening to us? A Washington Post article today reveals that the Obama White House has adopted a former Bush Administration policy of keeping a secret "hit list" authorizing the assassination of American citizens living abroad, if strong evidence exists of their organizing or having organized attacks against the United States or U.S interests.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Some may claim, "They're terrorists. They belong to Al-Qaeda. This is war." Yes, we are at war with the world, and the entire globe is our battlefield. But these "terrorists" are not killed on a battlefield; they are usually murdered in their sleep, along with their wives and children. And will someone please show me the evidence that they are indeed terrorists or Al-Qaeda operatives? Have not dozens of our foreign detainees (so-called "terrorists," apprehended on the flimsiest of evidence, held without charge and tortured for years outside our shores) been recently released for lack of any evidence that they were terrorists? How dare we execute American citizens without due process of law? Can't we see how dangerous this is? Hello! Is there anybody home?!

Looking at history, from ancient Greece and Rome, down to the British Empire, we see that when a democracy (or republic) becomes an empire, it cannot do so without essentially violating its own values, having one type of law or justice for its own citizens and another for the poor suckers who live under its iron boot. We saw that in our own nation's early history. That is why we have a Bill of Rights (1st-10th Amendments. Have you read them recently? An amazing document.), without which the States would not have ratified the Constitution. They did not want to endure from a new government the violations of civil liberties that had been endured from the British Empire (unlawful searches and seizures, the quartering of troops in homes, censorship of the press, military justice instead of trial by jury for Colonists who were British subjects, etc.).

Here we have just another outgrowth of the U.S. "War on Terror" turned against its own citizens. If there is evidence, then let them be brought to trial and tried on the basis of that evidence by a jury of their peers. But do not murder U.S. citizens in their beds simply because there is "strong evidence" that they may be Al-Qaeda operatives and you can get away with it in a foreign country. For the trigger-happy, the mere suspicion of guilt may be enough to warrant liquidation. But thank God we have a Constitution to protect us from such vigilante justice. At least, we used to.

2010-01-26T23:19:00.004-05:00

I Know the Price, But What Does It Cost?

"Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing."-- Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

With these words scholar and activist Raj Patel begins his new book The Value of Nothing. “We’ve come to believe that the only way we can value things is by sticking them in a market,” he says. “The trouble is, as we’ve seen through this recession, that markets are a tremendously bad way of valuing things, tremendously fickle.”

We think, for example, that we know the price of a BigMac ($3.57), but do we consider the real cost? If that cheap imported meat was grown on land that used to be rainforest, what is the cost of the rainforest, the increase of greenhouse gases, the loss of biodiversity, rare animals and plants? You mean you can put a dollar value to that? Yes, you can. Furthermore, if that tomato was grown in southern Florida by workers held in slavelike conditions, what is the cost to them? Then there's the health aspect, fast food being on the public enemy list for causing lifestyle diseases such as diabetes. What is the cost to the American economy for treating diabetes? You get the picture. When all is tallied, that BigMac could well cost hundreds of dollars. Of course, those costs aren't passed on to you the consumer-- until later.

In case you haven't noticed, this way of thinking is not exactly part of the Western Industrial worldview. You mean, actually to consider the cost to other human beings, to creation, to the planet, of the choices we make each day, the cheap food we consume and clothing we wear? In fact, it's based on a way of thinking and living that is as old as human culture itself: call it "community." I know, a radical word, right?

Alan Greenspan recently admitted before a Congressional committee that he had "found a flaw" in his own fundamentalist free-market model. If that model has failed, asks Patel, what do we replace it with?

Last year's Nobel Prize in economics was given to an American, Elinor Ostrom, for her analysis of a kind of economic governance called "the commons." The commons are resources that are collectively owned. In her study Ostrom showed how some cultures interact with ecosystems to maintain sustainable resource yields, thus preventing ecosystem collapse. In other words, these communities hold resources, such as forests or water systems, in common and find a way to use them without destroying them.

Unregulated capitalism has brought us unbridled greed, unsustainable growth, climate instability, pollution, slavery, and a widening gap between rich and poor. It's time we put a price on that.

For more of Raj Patel, click here, here and here.

2010-01-23T17:06:00.003-05:00

A New Constitution

In light of recent developments, I thought it appropriate to update the U.S. Constitution. It's been a long time in coming, but at last now we have a document that reflects the state of our nation and our vision for the future.

"We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect oligarchy, establish injustice, insure domestic servitude, provide for the military-industrial complex, promote corporate welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and ourselves alone, do ordain and establish this new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Actually, cynicism aside, there is something we can do. A constitutional amendment to be sent to the States is already in the works, one that will clarify what the majority of the Court seems to overlook: that in speaking of the right of free speech, the First Amendment refers to individuals, not corporations. You can petition Congress to act here or here.

2010-01-23T00:16:00.006-05:00

Are Free Markets Really Free?

"It [the U.S.] is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other."-- Mark Twain, 1901

"For globalism to work, America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is.…The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist—McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."-- Thomas Friedman, 1999

"Free market" capitalism is the sacrosanct fetish of this nation. Few would dispute that. But how "free" is it? Let's take Haiti as an example.

Haiti's rich soil could once grow enough food to feed itself and other countries to boot. In fact, it once did. Rice is the staple of the Haitian diet, and up until the 1980s, the country imported little if any rice. But trade liberalization policies, demanded by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in exchange for loans, lowered the 35% tariff on imported rice to just 3%. The result? Haiti was flooded with cheap U.S. rice (an industry subsidized by our government). Unable to compete, Haitian rice production collapsed, so that today, most all of the rice consumed by Haitians is imported.

This is a scenario repeated every day in the developing world. Is that a free market? It's free if you're wealthy and can compete. It's free if your government lavishes vast subsidies on your industry. If we look at the so-called "miracle economies" of Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, their growth was insured at first through a form of trade protectionism.

"Free trade" then is really just another stacked deck, stacked high against the developing world.

For an in-depth history of the Haitian rice trade and the effects of trade liberalization, click here.
For an interesting discussion on this topic, click here.

2010-01-18T13:34:00.003-05:00

MLK, Jr.: Civil Rights and Beyond

On this day our nation honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Most Americans remember him as a shining light beckoning on the road to racial equality in this country, a proponent of non-violent resistance, an authentically American prophet who suffered and ultimately was murdered for having the temerity to dream of a nation where children would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King was all these things. But we too easily (and perhaps it is no accident) end the chapter there in 1963, forgetting particularly the last few years of his life when increasingly he began to widen his focus to other forms of injustice, the backdrop of the war in Vietnam, the bigger picture of American imperialism and an exported system of economic inequality that made racial injustice possible everywhere.

In April 1967 he spoke to a convocation of concerned clergy and laity at the Riverside Church in New York City. His words seem all the more relevant today. Let's listen in...

...It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war....

To read or listen to the entire speech, click here.

2010-01-17T11:50:00.006-05:00

Loving in Truth

Back in June of last year, Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical, a letter to the bishops of every country. The letter is long and couched in the academic language of theologians, so it may have largely passed unmentioned beneath the media radar. But Caritas in veritate (Love in truth), as the encyclical is called, responds with clear voice to the various social, economic, and environmental crises of our day by demonstrating how love and truth are interrelated and how the church is called to show God's love in practical ways. He states,

... In Paul VI's words, “evangelization would not be complete if it did not take account of the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man's concrete life, both personal and social.” “Between evangelization and human advancement — development and liberation — there are in fact profound links”: on the basis of this insight, Paul VI clearly presented the relationship between the proclamation of Christ and the advancement of the individual in society. Testimony to Christ's charity, through works of justice, peace and development, is part and parcel of evangelization, because Jesus Christ, who loves us, is concerned with the whole person. These important teachings form the basis for the missionary aspect of the Church's social doctrine, which is an essential element of evangelization. The Church's social doctrine proclaims and bears witness to faith. It is an instrument and an indispensable setting for formation in faith.

Here are more highlights from the letter:

On greed and the unequal distribution of wealth...

...The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone. All things considered, this is also required by “economic logic”. Through the systemic increase of social inequality, both within a single country and between the populations of different countries (i.e. the massive increase in relative poverty), not only does social cohesion suffer, thereby placing democracy at risk, but so too does the economy, through the progressive erosion of “social capital”: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence....
...Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

The Church has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society. In and of itself, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak. Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations. Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.

The Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or “after” it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner....

On care for God's creation...

...This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment.

It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”.

Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable. Desertification and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their economic and cultural development, nature itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about the use of resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of the societies concerned.

The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology” is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature. In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.

On ethical consumerism...
...Global interconnectedness has led to the emergence of a new political power, that of consumers and their associations. This is a phenomenon that needs to be further explored, as it contains positive elements to be encouraged as well as excesses to be avoided. It is good for people to realize that purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act. Hence the consumer has a specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in- hand with the social responsibility of the enterprise. Consumers should be continually educated regarding their daily role, which can be exercised with respect for moral principles without diminishing the intrinsic economic rationality of the act of purchasing. In the retail industry, particularly at times like the present when purchasing power has diminished and people must live more frugally, it is necessary to explore other paths: for example, forms of cooperative purchasing like the consumer cooperatives that have been in operation since the nineteenth century, partly through the initiative of Catholics. In addition, it can be helpful to promote new ways of marketing products from deprived areas of the world, so as to guarantee their producers a decent return. However, certain conditions need to be met: the market should be genuinely transparent; the producers, as well as increasing their profit margins, should also receive improved formation in professional skills and technology; and finally, trade of this kind must not become hostage to partisan ideologies. A more incisive role for consumers, as long as they themselves are not manipulated by associations that do not truly represent them, is a desirable element for building economic democracy....

2010-01-15T00:11:00.010-05:00

Haiti: Living in the Shadow

As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. -- John Dewey

The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power. -- Patrick Bellegarde-Smith

This week in response to the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the Rev. Pat Robertson remarked with his customary tact that this is only one of a long string of tragedies for the impoverished country because it had "made a pact with the devil" in exchange for its independence. It's comments like this that make one almost wish one were Muslim.

Another newscaster sighed wistfully that Haiti went from being the "most prosperous" of France's colonies in the 18th century to one of the world's poorest nations. She omitted mentioning the fact that Haiti's quondam prosperity was built on the backs of African slaves, who endured savage treatment but did not share in the colony's riches.

Tuesday's massive earthquake was only part of the tragedy. Extreme poverty, economic stagnation and a weak government and infrastructure have only exacerbated the calamity. While it is true that voodoo still exists in Haiti, and there is a story in which slaves prayed to their god for help in their victory over the French, one can draw a direct line from the country's ravaged economy and failed democracy to U.S. and European intervention over two centuries.

At the dawn of the 19th century, as a result of a massive slave uprising, Haiti became the world's first independent state founded by former slaves. With the loss of such a jewel in its colonial crown, France pressured the new government for compensation for the loss of "property" (i.e., slaves). Being a slave-holding state itself, the neighboring U.S. with its high ideals of liberty felt threatened and remained far from supportive of such independence, thus continuing its creed that "all [white] men are created equal." And so little Haiti became indebted to France for its freedom. The full amount (60 million francs, in gold) was not paid off until 1947. If Haiti is accursed, as Robertson claims, it has certainly been cursed with debt. If it made any pacts, one of the devils in the bargain was most certainly France, and as we see later, the U.S.

Fast forward a century to 1915. Political instability in Haiti prompts President Woodrow Wilson to send U.S. Marines, supposedly, to "protect U.S. interests." In reality, we were protecting U.S. corporations and luring the impoverished nation into a net of further debt and economic dependency. By 1918 a Haitian law was passed at the point of American rifles that allowed the U.S. to turn Haiti effectively into a U.S. plantation. Haiti was under our military occupation for 19 years.

Among poor nations political turmoil, natural disasters and economic crises are often used as a pretext for the developed world to foist massive loans on a struggling government and the sale of the country's precious resources to the highest bidder. This is one of the ugly sides of capitalism (especially when governments like ours go to bed with corporations) and it is a game repeated for centuries throughout the developing world. Native populations are forced out of rural areas, where they have lived for generations, and into cramped cities to work in manufacturing, making trinkets for the white man. This is what happened to Haiti, as well as much of Africa.

In addition, capitalist nations force the weaker governments to lower tariffs on imports, especially on commodities that the poor countries grow themselves, thus further crippling their agriculture. This too is Haiti's history, and we only have to go back to 1994, when President Aristide was returned to power under the "kindly' auspices of the very country who helped topple him in a CIA-backed coup. Then President Bill Clinton (now ironically U.N. special envoy to Haiti) exacted a high price for Aristide's return, including lowering tariffs so that the U.S. could dump its excess rice on a population that grew its own. Haitian rice growers could not compete with the heavily subsidized U.S. commodity and so never recovered.

Like so many darker-skinned nations, Haiti's greatest sin in the eyes of the West has ever been her desire to be free. An unpardonable crime. It's enormous debts have from its foundation rendered its government ineffectual, causing some leaders to focus on merely pillaging rather than rebuilding its economy.

The United States is not the sole cause of Haiti's ills (France, Germany, the World Bank and IMF have also done more than their share of damage) , but it cannot be denied that had the island had the good fortune to be located in some other hemisphere, away from the shadow of this "bastion of democracy" we call America, the people of Haiti would have fared far better. With friends like us who needs enemies?

To read more about the U.S. occupation of Haiti (1915-1934).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-31.htm

2009-12-30T20:56:00.008-05:00

Weighing Our Options

In the wake of another failed attempt to blow up an airliner, there has been a cacophony of voices, many arguing for restrictions on racial profiling to be lifted. Take my own representative in Congress, Pete King, now top dog on the House Homeland Security Committee (now there's a scary thought). He's been doing the rounds this week (CNN, MSNBC, Meet the Press, etc.) to capitalize on this near tragedy in his usual tasteless fashion. "If you're looking for the IRA," he says, "you go to Irish bars and Catholic churches; if you're looking for the Mafia, you go to Little Italy; if you're looking for the Ku Klux Klan, you don't go to Harlem." Well, Mr. King, the great Archibald Bunker could not have put it better. No one could accuse either of you of compounding ignorance with inaudibility.

Racial profiling seems like an easy solution, but it's exactly the kind of thing we shouldn't do. Instead of our usual outraged, knee-jerk hysteria, rejoicing in another opportunity to fling more of our civil liberties to the wind, we should weigh our choices carefully.

First, Jesus teaches us that "in everything do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As Christians we should stand up for those who are the victims of racial profiling. Why? Let's remind ourselves of the words of Martin Niemoller, who was a pastor during Hitler's rise to power. Like many clergymen, he at first supported Hitler because of the German leader's firm anti-Communist stance. But when Nazism began to deify the state, Niemoller turned against Hitler and actively opposed him. For this he was arrested and sent to Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. After the war, he had this to say. The words may sound familiar:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I realize that is not enough for some Christians, so here are a few other practical reasons:

Second, terrorist recruiters would like nothing more than to have us start rounding up more and more Muslims because they are Muslims; it proves to them that we truly are the enemies of Islam.

Third, profiling based on race, ethnicity or religion would not be effective. Why not? Read yesterday's exchange between former Sec'y of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and NPR's Robert Siegel:

SIEGEL: How should the U.S. reconcile reasonable, ethical restraints on profiling with some obvious facts that this sort of thing has been done by Muslim men, typically, and also of a certain age. One could focus pretty heavily on Muslim men under 40 and come up with lots of the people who are posing threats.

CHERTOFF: Actually Robert, I'm going to argue that this case illustrates the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people's conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn't match reality. In this case we had a Nigerian, for example, not a person from the Middle East or from South Asia. If you look at the airline plot of 2006, two of the plotters were a married couple that were going to get on a plane with a young baby. The terrorists understand that the more they vary the kind of operative they use, the more likely they're going to be able to exploit prejudices if we allow those prejudices to guide the way we conduct our investigation.

SIEGEL: Your objection to profiling is not just as an ethical matter, it's a point of efficacy also. You're saying it doesn't work.

CHERTOFF: I think it's not only problematic from civil rights' standpoint, but frankly, I think it winds up not being terribly effective.

I'm glad he footnoted the civil rights' issue as well as the pragmatic one. They are both important. Chertoff was on NPR to promote the use of body scanners in airports. Incidentally, he did admit to being a paid "consultant" for several firms that manufacture such scanners, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, such scanners would be a boon to security. The ethical and privacy issues, however, are labyrinthine.

Call me a cynic, but the lapses in security surrounding the recent bomb attempt are so bizarre, I can't help wondering if the whole incident weren't somehow a coordinated effort on the part of our government to sell the idea of body scanning to a frightened American public. Usually, I'm one who tends to poo-poo conspiracy theories; if there's any conspiracy afoot it's usually one of incompetence. Our government is rarely coordinated enough to organize conspiracies; it's more like a loose confederation of warring tribes. However, the older I get, the less I trust my own government, I'm sad to say. So my suspicion stands. A few years from now, someone will probably come out with a book about it, but by then the American public will be so desensitized to having their bodies ogled by security personnel, they won't care. For 2010 I suggest we all start hitting the gym.

2009-12-28T22:33:00.006-05:00

Vested Interests

In his first play Widowers’ Houses (1892) Bernard Shaw presents us with the character of Harry Trench, an idealistic young medical student who falls in love with Blanche Sartorius, the spoiled daughter of a real estate tycoon. All goes well with their engagement until Trench discovers that Mr. Sartorius is a notorious slumlord who makes his fortune off the misery of the poor. Morally outraged, the young doctor insists that he and his bride-to-be will refuse her father’s help and live on Trench’s own modest seven hundred a year. Accustomed to a more lavish lifestyle, Blanche protests and calls off the engagement.

A more conventional Victorian play might have ended there, with the hero choosing the moral high ground over true love, or else with the couple escaping together and striking out on their own in a respectable middle-class manner. But at this point Shaw’s play is only half over, as his characters are about to be ground through the kind of Mephistophelian motive machinery that only exists in real life.

In his daughter’s defense, the real estate magnate takes it upon himself to acquaint his future son-in-law with the facts of life: that slumlording is a necessary evil, without which the poor would be on the streets, and worse yet, that Trench’s own inherited income comes from an old mortgage on one of Sartorius’ substandard tenements. Checkmate.

Part of a collection the playwright later entitled Plays Pleasant & Unpleasant, Widowers’ Houses is an “unpleasant” play since it depicts a hero who, once he has faced his own complicity in grinding the poor and the option of losing his income, can only shrug and accept the way of the world. After all, he says, “A man must live.” His ultimately marrying the slumlord’s daughter then becomes, symbolically, not just a romantic union, but one of socio-economic collusion between the rich and middle class. As Shaw himself states in the play's preface:

"Here we are confronted not only with the comedy and tragedy of individual character and destiny, but with the social horrors which arise from the fact that the average homebred Englishman, however honorable and good-natured he may be in his private capacity, is, as a citizen, a wretched creature who whilst clamoring for a gratuitous millennium, will shut his eyes to the most villainous abuses if the remedy threatens to add another penny in the pound rates and taxes which he has to be half cheated, half coerced into paying."

As a socialist and an atheist, Shaw was wrong about many things, from Jesus Christ to Stalin, and many of his plays seem dated by today’s standards. But this first play remains as shocking and distasteful as the day it was written-- shocking and distasteful, that is, because it is only too true. The world has changed a lot in twelve decades. But some things never do, especially in economics.

I bring this deeply flawed, little-known and seldom-seen play to our attention not because it is Shaw’s best play (it's far from that), but because its indictment of British society (specifically, the exploitation of the working class by the middle and upper classes) still brings a sharp sting to us here in America. At least, it should.

We whine about the price of a cup of coffee, not pausing to consider whether the poor soul who picked the beans was paid a fair wage (or any wage at all). We check out at Walmart, our cart laden with bargains, blissfully unaware of the high cost of our discount culture. In the words of President William McKinley, "Cheap merchandise means cheap men." Someone pays for that bargain, and if not us, then who? Ask little Rosita in Honduras or Chandran in Bangalore.

"And sure, everyone ought to have adequate health care; just don't raise my taxes." The average American will put up with the worst villainies, chicaneries, pettifoggeries, and corruption from his elected officials, provided they promise not to raise his taxes. And the church? The American church has drunk so much Kool-Aid we can no longer recognize the gospel when it is presented to us, but call it Bolshevism. If we do not see, it is because vested interest blinds our eyes.

Cheap, cheap, cheap. Now we are fighting two wars to insure that cheap oil continues to flow into our factories and gas tanks. But then, all this is nothing new. American prosperity has always been borne on the backs of slaves. It is the prerogative of empire.

What will we say when we stand before Him? I shudder.

2009-12-25T18:32:00.005-05:00

Another Close Call

Looks like Vatican police go through the same security training as the White House Secret Service. Last night, while processing down the aisle of St. Peter's, Pope Benedict was tackled by a mentally ill woman in a red hooded sweatshirt.

After successfully hopping the barricade, the woman headed straight for the Pontiff and, grabbing the sacred vestments, pulled him to the ground as security guards attempted to neutralize her. The Holy Father seemed shaken but unharmed and continued the service. News reports claimed the Pontiff "popped back up," but let's be realistic. Nobody pops up at 82. Actually, he lay there for a few moments before being helped to his feet, as terrified onlookers held their breath.

Ironically, at last year's Christmas midnight mass at the Vatican, a similar incident occurred. A woman in a red hooded sweatshirt managed to hop the barricade but she was tackled by security before she could reach the Pope. Hmm. Could it be the same woman? If not, it must be some cult that wears red hoods and believes in leveling clergy. (Actually, Vatican police confirmed today that it was the same person, an Italian-Swiss mental patient who comes to Rome each year to attend the mass and evidently to horizontalize the Holy Father.)

Vatican officials said today that it is hard to guarantee the Pope "100% security." The faithful who flock there each Christmas want to be close to him. Granted. But how hard is it to spot someone in a red hooded sweatshirt? One would think such a sophisticated disguise would not be difficult to detect. After last year's bravura performance, why was she allowed within 50 feet of the Holy See? Apparently, Vatican security is notoriously lenient, as one would expect of any benevolent institution. But a French cardinal, who was not so lucky, broke a hip in this year's fracas. Italy's Prime Minister was also attacked recently, breaking his nose and two teeth.

One wonders if the woman, exhibiting such tenacity of purpose, had ambitions of starring in some new reality series. As one mentally ill person I know said of the incident, "It's people like her that give us a bad name." We hope she gets the treatment she needs. We also hope the Pope's security force, which include the centuries-old Schweizergarde as well as the more daunting Vatican and Italian police, will take a lesson from the White House and inspect its guests more carefully.

Security is an issue always in the news these days; it seems to have taken all of us hostage, not to mention our governments and constitutions. Whether it be an activist "detained" without charges in the name of "national security," or a journalist bullied at a border crossing, we've almost come to accept the officiousness of our over-zealous security forces and our subsequent loss of freedom as a fact of life. That is why it is so ironic to see such lax incompetence toward a head of state, such as the Pope, Berlusconi, and our own President.

We're relieved His Holiness was unhurt, and we wish Cardinal Etchegaray (87) a speeding recovery. Viva Il Papa!

2009-12-23T22:46:00.010-05:00

Promises, Promises: On Presidential Memory Loss

Wow. And I thought I had a bad memory. Yesterday, Mr. Obama further distanced himself from supporters of the public insurance option by insisting that he had never promised such an option would be included in any reform.

Speaking to the Washington Post, he said, "...I didn’t campaign on a public option. I think it is a good idea, but as I said in that speech on September 9th, it's just one small element of a broader reform effort.”

Actually, Mr. President, you did. In fact, during your campaign you promised on your website: “...Any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” Okay, so politicians always make promises they don't keep. So what else is new? But only last summer, during one of his weekly addresses, he stated emphatically:

“That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange — a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what’s best for your family.”

One small memory loss for man; one giant loss for America. (You can see the speech here.)

Oops. This President must have one of the shortest political memories in history. Or perhaps he thinks we do. I don't like to embarrass politicians needlessly. They certainly don't require my assistance to do that. And frankly, none of this should come as a surprise. But I do feel angry for the sake of those who pinned such hopes on Mr. Obama as an agent of change. (What change is that, except of course maybe a change of mind?) One party has used my fellow evangelicals to further its ends; another has used the poor and downtrodden. Nothing sacred. It just goes to prove, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Or as controversial historian Howard Zinn stated on Moyers a few weeks ago:

"Whenever the government has done anything to bring about change, it's done so only because it's been pushed and prodded by social movements, by ordinary people organizing.... Traditional history creates passivity because... it makes you think that all you have to do is go to the polls every four years and elect somebody who's going to do the trick for you."

Damn straight.

2009-12-21T20:58:00.006-05:00

U.S. Missiles Strike S. Yemen

Memo: To the Oval Office Staff.
Please file this one under "J" for "Just Doesn't Get It."

ABC News reports that Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Obama ordered cruise missile strikes against two "suspected terrorist targets" in South Yemen last Thursday.

Pardon me, but if you're going to use cruise missiles, shouldn't they be "confirmed terrorist targets"? As it happens, reports claim that the real target of the attacks, Al-Qaeda leader Qasim al Rim, was not among the dead, which included 49 civilians, among whom were 23 women and 17 children.

I hope they're not going to call this a "surgical strike." If a surgeon were supposed to take out your appendix and took out your whole neighborhood instead, he would surely lose his license to practice (in any state, of course, excepting the District of Columbia). This sort of attack, along with the use of drones in Pakistan, is lauded as "clean, saving American lives." It's clear our President does not count Arab or Muslim children as "lives."

Thank you, Mr. President, for helping to foster terrorism and hatred of America worldwide. The images of dead women and children are just what Al-Qaeda needed for its next recruitment video. Rather like trying to put out a fire by smothering it with gelignite. Nice going. Your predecessor could not have done it better.

Mr. Bin Laden must be sniggering himself to sleep at night knowing that everything he's said about America is being played out on the world stage, only with a lot more gore, insensitivity and stupidity than even he gave us credit for.

As a Christian I shake out my clothes against this kind of foreign policy. It's murder and it's cowardly. Who's the terrorist? I can't decide.

2009-12-19T21:39:00.009-05:00

Time to Wake Up & Smell the Coffee

How many hundreds of times have I heard that song and never really understood it? This evening in church we sang "O Holy Night," one of the most melodious and moving of Christmas carols. When it came to the part,

Chains shall he break, for the slave shall be our brother,
And in His name all oppression shall cease.

the verse hit me in the face like a wet mackerel.

Slavery is something most of us Americans cannot relate to. In our minds it belongs to another century, another world. But slavery is so very much alive. In a sense, our prosperity as a nation was and always has been built on the backs of slaves. Even today? Yes, even today. So many of the things we take for granted (coffee, sugar, bananas, cocoa, cotton, bricks) are the product of modern-day slave (often child) labor, and those cheap bargains we congratulate ourselves on obtaining at stores like Walmart, Pier 1, Old Navy, and Kohls, may have been made by oppressed workers who labor in appalling conditions and without a living wage. I have often felt spiritually smug thinking that buying cheap clothing is something Jesus would do. But it's not; not if what I wear is the fruit of cruelty, greed and injustice.

In his letter to Philemon, the apostle Paul addresses slavery in detail. Oh, not by attacking the institution directly; he was too shrewd for that. Contemporary critics often give him demerits for not coming out full force against slavery. Some go so far as to make him an accomplice in the slave trade because of his supposed silence. But Paul was no friend to slavery. This letter shows it. You see, he knew that Christians were just a tiny struggling minority, with no vote, no rights of citizenship (unless, like Paul, you happened to have been born in a Roman colony). The economy of the ancient world was built on slave labor, and to attack the institution openly would have been quixotic, if not suicidal for the church, whose enemies were always on the lookout for signs of subversive activity. Instead, in this letter the apostle demonstrates what happens when two kingdoms collide and how the gospel transforms a culture.

Philemon, a slave owner, is informed that his runaway slave Onesimus has been found and is now in Paul's company. Having led the slave to the Lord, the apostle convinces him to do the right thing and return to his master, but not without a letter from Paul asking Philemon, an old friend, to use mercy. Paul then reminds the slave-owner that the man who was once his property is now a brother.

It is difficult for us to imagine how radical and subversive such an idea would have been to the ancients. Slaves were chattel, the lowest rung of society, and they comprised as much as a third of the total population of the Roman empire. The threat of slave uprisings waas therefore a real and constant source of anxiety. Slavery was and always has been founded on fear and force. But how does one now "own" or hold the whip hand over a brother? The new relationship in Christ (in whom "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female," but all are one) makes slavery, with all its brutality and inhumanity, impossible. Christianity came not to destroy slavery from without, but from within, by raising the slave and lowering the master to the same status before God. Indeed, Philemon must consider setting one free who is already free in Christ; to keep Onesimus in bondage no longer makes any logical sense.

Chains shall he break, for the slave shall be our brother,
And in His name all oppression shall cease.

During this Christmas season, let us consider that the slave who picked the beans to make that cup of cocoa or the sweat-shop seamstress who stitched together that Christmas sweater is our brother or sister. And how can we allow a sibling to suffer to make us well-clad and comfortable?

In many ways both our prosperity and security as a nation are a mirage. There is no true prosperity, no true security without justice, only impending judgment. If these statements are true, the appropriate response is, of course, "What then should we do?"

Taking action against slavery and injustice takes both courage and sacrifice. It starts by educating ourselves about the products we consume. We can start by looking at websites such as these that help us to become ethical shoppers not just blind consumers. Once you start you will be shocked at how wide and strong and intricate the web of slavery and injustice is and how thoroughly our nation and our lifestyles are implicated in supporting them.

Buy Fair Trade products whenever possible. These are products, such as coffee, sugar, chocolate, bananas, etc., whose producers pay a living wage and do business in an environmentally sustainable manner. Look for the Fair Trade label. You will pay more, but who said doing the right thing was cheap? Speak to your local supermarket. Ask them to stock more Fair Trade products. Most grocers do nothing because we say nothing.

Clothing. The garment industry is responsible for a large portion of the world's sweatshop and child labor. Chains such as Walmart and the Gap (which also owns Old Navy and Banana Republic) and brands such as Nike have been deeply implicated in using sweatshop and child labor. Educate yourself about the clothing you buy and the merchants you buy from. There are many small online companies dealing in Fair Trade clothing. If you can't find what you want there, you can always find great bargains and good quality clothing at thrift stores-- and you'll be stylin' (at least in the Lord's eyes).

Lastly, fight pornography. The porn industry is the biggest consumer of slave labor in the world. Don't feed it. Fight it.