In Matthew 6:24, Jesus tells us that we cannot serve God and mammon. OWS is telling us that we cannot serve mankind and neoliberalism. Finally, most climate scientists are warning us that we cannot survive and serve wanton prosperity. Each has a message of their own but their messages have a common theme. That theme is the love of money will lead to our demise. For either God will judge us, societies will implode and wars will rule, or we will make the earth as unlivable as the other planets in our solar system already are if we continue to bow down to the bottom line.
The above are the prophets of our time. We could call them prophets against profits. And when they start to speak, their message might initially appeal to us; but that appeal is short lived. It isn't long until what they are saying begins to rub us the wrong way. It isn't long until we, the haves, realize that these prophets are asking us to change. They are asking us to stop putting money, and the lifestyles that wealth brings, first. They require that balance to the force of our personal desires we must bring. And once we hear the call to repent, we return, sometimes reluctantly, to the same old same old, while daring God in heaven or the gods of science to strike us with lightening.
We then respond by either co-opting their gospels or shooting the messenger. Many prefer to do the former because it is self-flattering to do so. By accommodating their gospels to our lifestyle, we give ourselves self-assurance that it isn't our selfishness that is causing problems. So some worship Jesus on Sundays and ignore him on Mondays. Some Democrats will protest with OWS or read reports on the climate but still support the kinds of policies that Clinton did or Obama does now.
However, others prefer to shoot the messengers. In most cases, they do so with words. But regardless, the goal is to silence these pesky prophets and our own consciences. We reason that if we can find significant fault with them, we are not responsible to do what they say and thus there is no need to change. And in the end, whether we discredit the source or hijack their message, the goal is to relieve oneself from our responsibilities.
So we blame the prophets. We do so by waiting until they display an all too human fault. Tea Partiers, for example, become aghast that OWS protesters commit misdemeanors when taking their protests to the street or occupying a public park without a permit. Other Conservatives say they will listen when these occupiers get a job, a haircut and take on some real responsibility. Others will throw out the message with the minimal violence that has occurred in a few occupations. Certainly the violence must be rejected, but the validity of the message is not negated by the faults of the messengers.
Meanwhile, climate scientists have already been dismissed by a majority of the population. This occurred during the email scandal that was reported in the news. What was unfortunate here, however, is that people didn't follow up on the issue after the scandal broke out. If they had, they would have found that the basic message of the climate scientists was still valid.
The final, and perhaps most deadly, way of shooting the messenger is done by asking a simple, albeit, rhetorical question: "will they succeed?" For if OWS does not succeed, then why listen? Of course, success here is measured by the number of people who join the movement. This question, however, is also disingenuous. That is because, with this criteria for success, if we don't listen, they cannot succeed. Asmaa Mahfouz, an Egyptian protester, complained about such logic by saying, "if you say there is no hope, then there will be no hope."
Perhaps the key to understanding how we are blaming our prophets is to examine our working definition of success. Again, success is measured by numbers. At least, that is how a pragmatist would define success here. And, according to that definition, then Jesus and Climate Scientists have already failed while it is just a matter of time until OWS fails. Jesus has certainly failed because, despite the fact that many claim to be his followers, few actually try to follow. The vast majority who say they believe are Jesus' conditional followers. They follow on the condition that what Jesus said does not interfere with their pursuit of prosperity.
But how do others, besides pragmatists, define the success of our prophets? How would a moralist, one who struggles with moral standards, define their success? Wouldn't a moralist measure success by the truth in the message? Wouldn't a moralist interpret the rejection of a good message as a failure on the part of the audience? And thus the real guilty culprits are those who are called but choose not to follow.
When Jesus uses the parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matthew 25, to teach about the necessity of help all of the least of these, who is judged as a failure, was it the goats or Jesus? Who will be judged as a failure if OWS fails because of lack of support and Wall Street continues it economic abuse of the nation? Will it be just OWS or the 99%? And who will be judged as a failure if we refuse to heed the advice of the climate scientists? Will it be the scientists or our children and grandchildren?
If we look at the Bible for guidance, we will find that it wasn't Lot who failed when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. And when the flood came, it wasn't Noah who failed. So why would a moralist blame Jesus, OWS, or climate scientists if people don't accept the message? And if we find ourselves blaming them, what does it say about us?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Why Many Christians Don't Occupy
Of course, the many Christians here refer to conservative American Christians, American Fundamentalists to be precise. My informal research tells me that conservative Christians from other nations are more politically liberal than their American counterparts. But try to get a conservative American Christian to join the Occupy movement is like trying to get a rabid American football fan to buy season tickets to watch soccer.
Why is there such resistance by conservative American Christians to occupying? After all, aren't those in the occupy movement trying to speak out for those in need and against those enslaved to greed? Why would any conservative American Christian not want to join a group that tells us that our future depends on how well we cooperate with each other? And why would any American Christian not want to join a group that promotes a more participatory democracy than what we have now?
Lately, some writers from the Left have attributed the political convictions of American conservative Christians to their faith. They feel that those who believe in Creation over Evolution or in a world where God works miracles as being incapable of working for Social Justice unless such Christians leave their faith. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are conservative Christians who also promote Social Justice and support more liberal and even Leftist views. The majority of such Christians, however, are not American. And perhaps, this gives us a hint why many conservative American Christians are not occupying today. The reason for why they are not occupying is not because of their faith but because of something else. But what would that something else be?
When one is raised as a conservative Christian in America, there are certain associations made with the faith. One such association is made between American patriotism and Christianity. We, that is those who are conservative American Christians, have been taught since when we were in the womb, that our nation was founded as a Christian nation by Christian Founding Fathers. Therefore, the American way, at least back when America was a Christian nation, is the Christian way and to criticize our Founding Fathers is to ridicule God and to protest against this Christian nation of ours is to attack the Gospel.
We should note that to reconcile our nation's history with the notion that America was ever a Christian nation places enormous demands on one's logical skills. The genocide and ethnic cleansing of the America's indigenous people and our nation's abuse and persecution of Blacks, both up through and after the Civil War, along with our emerging empire and use of dictators as proxy rulers over other countries, make it problematic to reconcile our history with the Beatitudes. And even when our history is partially acknowledged by the conservative American Christian, there is an emotional disconnect that protects such a Christian from the dissonance that should arise. That is, we might acknowledge some of the abuses in the past, but we can still call ourselves a Christian nation and a "city on the hill" without batting an eye. In the end, what the patriotic American Christian is saying to the world is that, despite the evidence, we must feel good about ourselves. We demand our Constitutional right to self-exalt.
And what goes for American Patriotism, goes for Capitalism. After all, since Capitalism is our economic system and we are a Christian nation, Capitalism is God's preferred economy. We supplement this reason with some common sense. For we reason that since the greatest prosperity in the history of the world has been enjoyed by Americans and we practice Capitalism, Capitalism must be God's economy. Such an argument has a point. That is, we, in the nation, have experienced some of the greatest prosperity in the history of the world.
But there is a problem lurking in the shadows. For just as we must acknowledge the high level of prosperity we have enjoyed, we must also ask a very damning question. That question is, when in the history of Capitalism, has it prospered without exploiting large numbers of people? Many times those who were exploited were hidden from the view of most Americans though their invisibility does not contradict the fact that they were exploited.
And what has caused the Occupy Movement to emerge now is the fact that a too big to deny percentage of Americans have now become victims of capitalism. As a result, we have the current Occupy movement. This movement is challenging American Patriotism by opposing the wars and is challenging Capitalism by insisting that people and their needs have priority over profits. Thus to suggest that being patriotic and practicing capitalism has spread more evil than good is to try to Occupy the Gospel because of the close association many conservative Christians have made between it and both patriotism and capitalism.
But there is still another reason why conservative American Christians have not occupied yet. That is because the Occupy movement is seen as a protest movement that does not respect authority. From an early age, conservative American Christians were injected with spiritual steroids when being taught to respect authority, exclusively from Romans 13 of course, so that we not only learned to respect authority, we worshiped it. We see authority figures as our saviors. To challenge the authorities, as it states in Romans 13:1ff, is to challenge God himself because it is God who has put in charge every authority figure.
A side effect of our hyper regard for authority can be seen in our preference for labels over concepts and thus for credentials over reason. For example, we have taught to so respect our conservative teachers that we now have great difficulty in distinguishing between between conservative theologies and conservative politics and between liberal theologies and liberal politics. As a result, we tend to uncritically accept the tenets of conservative politics, not because it is biblical, which it is not, but it has the conservative label. Likewise we will automatically reject, and have a phobic reaction to, liberal and leftist policies because of the label. This knee-jerk acceptance of whatever is conservative and rejection of whatever not conservative enables authoritarianism. And just as self-exaltation is the reason why we equate American patriotism and capitalism with Christianity, so self-interest is the reason why we have a hyper regard for those in authority. That self-interest tells us to be good little boys and girls so that those in charge will reward us rather than spank us. And perhaps, it is a desire to remain children that leads us to authoritarianism's embrace over the self-rule that the Occupy movement has been practicing. It is the desire to spend more time playing than making responsible decisions, to spend more time enjoying our trivial pursuits than being bogged down with the serious issues of life and how we will be with one another that causes us to prefer rule by elites than autonomy.
Why most conservative American Christians won't occupy isn't because of their faith, it is because of the extra ingredients added to their faith. And thus to include them in the occupy movement requires that we learn how to exorcise those extra ingredients without attacking their faith.
Why is there such resistance by conservative American Christians to occupying? After all, aren't those in the occupy movement trying to speak out for those in need and against those enslaved to greed? Why would any conservative American Christian not want to join a group that tells us that our future depends on how well we cooperate with each other? And why would any American Christian not want to join a group that promotes a more participatory democracy than what we have now?
Lately, some writers from the Left have attributed the political convictions of American conservative Christians to their faith. They feel that those who believe in Creation over Evolution or in a world where God works miracles as being incapable of working for Social Justice unless such Christians leave their faith. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are conservative Christians who also promote Social Justice and support more liberal and even Leftist views. The majority of such Christians, however, are not American. And perhaps, this gives us a hint why many conservative American Christians are not occupying today. The reason for why they are not occupying is not because of their faith but because of something else. But what would that something else be?
When one is raised as a conservative Christian in America, there are certain associations made with the faith. One such association is made between American patriotism and Christianity. We, that is those who are conservative American Christians, have been taught since when we were in the womb, that our nation was founded as a Christian nation by Christian Founding Fathers. Therefore, the American way, at least back when America was a Christian nation, is the Christian way and to criticize our Founding Fathers is to ridicule God and to protest against this Christian nation of ours is to attack the Gospel.
We should note that to reconcile our nation's history with the notion that America was ever a Christian nation places enormous demands on one's logical skills. The genocide and ethnic cleansing of the America's indigenous people and our nation's abuse and persecution of Blacks, both up through and after the Civil War, along with our emerging empire and use of dictators as proxy rulers over other countries, make it problematic to reconcile our history with the Beatitudes. And even when our history is partially acknowledged by the conservative American Christian, there is an emotional disconnect that protects such a Christian from the dissonance that should arise. That is, we might acknowledge some of the abuses in the past, but we can still call ourselves a Christian nation and a "city on the hill" without batting an eye. In the end, what the patriotic American Christian is saying to the world is that, despite the evidence, we must feel good about ourselves. We demand our Constitutional right to self-exalt.
And what goes for American Patriotism, goes for Capitalism. After all, since Capitalism is our economic system and we are a Christian nation, Capitalism is God's preferred economy. We supplement this reason with some common sense. For we reason that since the greatest prosperity in the history of the world has been enjoyed by Americans and we practice Capitalism, Capitalism must be God's economy. Such an argument has a point. That is, we, in the nation, have experienced some of the greatest prosperity in the history of the world.
But there is a problem lurking in the shadows. For just as we must acknowledge the high level of prosperity we have enjoyed, we must also ask a very damning question. That question is, when in the history of Capitalism, has it prospered without exploiting large numbers of people? Many times those who were exploited were hidden from the view of most Americans though their invisibility does not contradict the fact that they were exploited.
And what has caused the Occupy Movement to emerge now is the fact that a too big to deny percentage of Americans have now become victims of capitalism. As a result, we have the current Occupy movement. This movement is challenging American Patriotism by opposing the wars and is challenging Capitalism by insisting that people and their needs have priority over profits. Thus to suggest that being patriotic and practicing capitalism has spread more evil than good is to try to Occupy the Gospel because of the close association many conservative Christians have made between it and both patriotism and capitalism.
But there is still another reason why conservative American Christians have not occupied yet. That is because the Occupy movement is seen as a protest movement that does not respect authority. From an early age, conservative American Christians were injected with spiritual steroids when being taught to respect authority, exclusively from Romans 13 of course, so that we not only learned to respect authority, we worshiped it. We see authority figures as our saviors. To challenge the authorities, as it states in Romans 13:1ff, is to challenge God himself because it is God who has put in charge every authority figure.
A side effect of our hyper regard for authority can be seen in our preference for labels over concepts and thus for credentials over reason. For example, we have taught to so respect our conservative teachers that we now have great difficulty in distinguishing between between conservative theologies and conservative politics and between liberal theologies and liberal politics. As a result, we tend to uncritically accept the tenets of conservative politics, not because it is biblical, which it is not, but it has the conservative label. Likewise we will automatically reject, and have a phobic reaction to, liberal and leftist policies because of the label. This knee-jerk acceptance of whatever is conservative and rejection of whatever not conservative enables authoritarianism. And just as self-exaltation is the reason why we equate American patriotism and capitalism with Christianity, so self-interest is the reason why we have a hyper regard for those in authority. That self-interest tells us to be good little boys and girls so that those in charge will reward us rather than spank us. And perhaps, it is a desire to remain children that leads us to authoritarianism's embrace over the self-rule that the Occupy movement has been practicing. It is the desire to spend more time playing than making responsible decisions, to spend more time enjoying our trivial pursuits than being bogged down with the serious issues of life and how we will be with one another that causes us to prefer rule by elites than autonomy.
Why most conservative American Christians won't occupy isn't because of their faith, it is because of the extra ingredients added to their faith. And thus to include them in the occupy movement requires that we learn how to exorcise those extra ingredients without attacking their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)