Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace

Blaming The Prophets

2011-11-12T05:58:00.010-05:00

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?

Why Many Christians Don't Occupy

2011-11-02T12:39:00.010-04:00

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.

Caring Sucks!

2011-07-26T13:50:00.002-04:00

Seriously, it does. Whether it is for a sick child or an aging parent, caring can kill us with anxiety, to say the least. Caring can also cost us an arm and a leg. Caring steals the time we could spend on being part of America's Idle by either watching American Idol or predicting who will finish in first place. And our suffering is compounded when the person we care for is not just unappreciative, but is hostile. Now if that can happen when one cares for family, guess what could happen when one cares for those outside of the family!

Caring might mean skipping the newest Harry Potter movie or not buying a 3-D TV--HDTV is so ancient now--because our time is needed elsewhere or we don't have the energy to be interested.

Caring kills conversations. While we could be discussing who's wearing what or who's seeing who, and while we could be talking about what dad did now, we instead speak about our neighbor, our neighborhood, or someone else's neighborhood. And when those about whom we care belong to a questionable group, caring can start heated arguments some of which end friendships.

Caring adds to our already heavy workload. Caring can dump a 2nd or 3rd job on our laps, a job that is not only unpaid with horrendous hours and no benefits, it charges us by the hour while putting us under the supervision of unreasonable bosses.

Caring steals our time as we read and think about or travel to speak for those whom we will never meet. Such caring can cost us this year's dream vacation as those funds are spent elsewhere.

Caring can lead to depression when those for whom we care have no hope because power & wealth have become manic. Caring can cost us either our self-esteem as we are constantly ignored or even ridiculed or our job when we care for the wrong people.

Caring can lead to crime when one becomes desperate in getting the attention of society's players or the government whose only response is: "Talk to the hand."

And despite the fact that caring has so many hazards that the Surgeon General should put a warning label on it, everybody cares. Yes, they do! Some, however, have learned the secrets to caring and I am going to share them with you not for $100, not for $50, or not even for $19.95, but for FREE! What are the secrets that allow us to care with impunity? The first secret is to not care too much. That is right! All one has to do here is to say they care but add that maturity demands that they move on with life and be responsible for themselves.

The second secret that immunizes us from the diseases caused by caring is, just as one should not care too much, one should not care for too many. It is similar to Jack Byrnes' "circle of trust" from the movie Meet The Parents. Jack's circle was not disruptive because it was small for Jack only trusted those whom he could control. Likewise, if we limit the number of people we care for, while not forgetting the first secret, we can get away with caring.

So now that you know how to care without needing care, CARE ON! But be sure you follow the two secrets or you could become like the poor sap described below:

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,

And like a root out of parched ground;

He has no stately form or majesty

that we should look at him,

Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

He was despised and forsaken of men,

A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;

And like one from whom men hide their face,

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,

And our sorrows he carried;

Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53: 2-4,

and that's not all folks!

Is The American Dream A Christian's Nightmare?

2011-04-16T10:42:00.037-04:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a counter-intuitive interpretation of the monasticism of Martin Luther's days. Bonhoeffer saw it as an inconspicuous way of "loving the world"." This is puzzling for some because one does not normally think of leaving the world by entering a strict religious order as a way to enjoy the world. But our surprise here shows our blindness. Monastic life, during Luther's time, allowed monks to build the kind of world they could love rather than live their faith in the world that was. Thus Bonhoeffer saw Luther's leaving the monastery as the true not loving the world because by living in the world, Luther could then confront it rather than comply with.

When one looks at the American Dream, one must ask how much of Bonhoeffer's interpretation of monasticism applies. We must ask this because the American Dream has at its core an escaping from the real world to build a world that could be loved. Basically, the American Dream is a build-an-island--a fantasy island at that. Those of us who were taught to pursue this dream were told to live an isolated life for as long as possible. If we work hard enough to make enough money, we will be able to buy a house in the right neighborhood so our kids go to the right schools and buy enough stuff so as to please ourselves and shut out the world.

But the house and our neighborhoods are not the only part of our island. Our cars give us the power to choose almost everything such as where our work, houses, churches, and friends can be. Our cars allow us to escape we don't like about the neighborhoods we must visit.

If that is not enough, our TVs and our internet connections allow us filter out whatever else could intrude on us. And it is not that we need help to filter out what is unpleasant, the media does that for us already--testified to by those who are from other countries. Our media protects us from the real life negative stories about what our country and corporations do to others. In lieu of the unpleasant truth, our media, as Herman's and Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent states, reports only that which does not interfere with our consumption of their sponsors' products. And out of that small selection that is left from all of this filtering, we use the remote to choose shows based on how they make us feel.

The Christian sees this isolation by his secular fellow-American and raises his own theological hiding. For many conservative Christians have embraced theologies that further sequester them from others. For example, in my domination's magazine, I rarely see any articles that deal with current events no matter how many people are suffering. Rather, their articles are concerned with fine theological points, evangelical efforts, or how to run church services.

But it is not just the articles that are printed in our literature that show how we distance ourselves, we use our gospel of individual salvation to shut out what is disturbing. We so reduce our standing before God to the current state of our inner self and beliefs that we become hyper vigilant over our own internal state. As a result, we become agitated and even panicked when the concerns of the world ask for our time. And it isn't just the negativity of the news that disturbs us, it is its complexity. Since things are simple when we only have to care for ourselves, we prefer to pay as little attention as possible to others.

And when we do see and respond to the suffering of others, it is only to a chosen few--fellow Christians or to those whom we cannot avoid. But such an approach to helping others goes against what the Bible teaches. Isaiah chapters 58 to 59 and Jeremiah 22:16 closely tie helping those in need with having seen the light. Likewise, Jesus's parable of the sheep and the goats not only taught that those who helped those in need were the sheep who received eternal life, it also showed that those who neglected the needy were banished from paradise. He also demonstrated this latter principle in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus and in His parable of the rich man who built extra barns to hold the excess of his harvest and told himself to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow he could die--and sure enough, he did. Last in our list but not in the Bible, Amos 6:1 pronounces judgment on those who live at ease in a land where there is a great deal of injustice.

But perhaps the most pathetic way that Christians remove themselves from the world is by submitting to authority. It is not that Christians are not called to submit to those in authority, quite the contrary. But many of today's Christians do so as a way of shielding themselves from the risks that come with confronting evil rather than from punishment. Thus, submission to authority is sometimes practiced not in order to love God and others, but to secure for oneself the kind of world that is most tolerable if not lovable. And so when evil prevails in either the private or public sector, this legitimate command to submit to the authorities is used to hide oneself, as Jonah tried to do, from the mandate to preach the Gospel. But not only are we negligent when we fail to confront who abuse power, we become complicit in its evil ways. And we do so in order to ride in on the coattails of evil and power rather than risk any reprisal for challenging it.

Martin Luther King faced this very dilemma when he stood up to the legal racism and hatred that was rampant in the South. He wanted to honor and follow the commandment in Romans 13 that told him to submit to the authorities. At the same time, he knew that many authorities were enforcing unjust laws and allowing abuse and terrorism. He could have submitted and just gone along with the status quo and he would have avoided making himself a target. But that would be the coward's way out! For if he was quiet, then others would continue to suffer horribly. So King concluded that he could meet both responsibilities by using respectful dissent and peaceful protest. When arrested, he made no effort to resist. He did not challenge authority of the police; but he did challenge the validity of unjust laws and the society that enjoyed them.

Finally, there is still even a greater escape from our responsibilities to the world that many Christians use and I am not referring to belief in the rapture. That flight consists of relying solely on prayer to confront the sins of the status quo. It isn't that prayer should be forsaken. But prayer without the actions can be dead, especially when we passover opportunities to speak out.

What makes the last two reasons for not speaking out most despicable is that when using them, we use a veneer of righteousness and concern to cover our fear and apathy. While neglecting the suffering of others, we say to them that we care but our lack of actions show that it is only for ourselves. Some Christians will protest by pointing to individual acts of helping those in need or to mission trips taken to help those in need. But while such actions should be passionately embraced, they cannot excuse us from failing to defend those who are being oppressed. Private acts of charity must be done in conjunction with preaching the Gospel to power.

There is a Biblical reason why the American Dream is so desirable to Christians. It is because we see the American Dream as Paradise restored and thus our Christian duty to enjoy. In fact, some think that the purpose of God's Word is to make Paradise accessible again. Such Christians argue that basing one's life on God's Word is like following the right blueprints when constructing a building and they have a point. The more we follow God's Word, the more we can avoid the hazards of sin.

But the big question becomes did God give us His word to return us to the Garden or to help us through the Wilderness? But before answering that question, we must understand why would Jesus commanded us to collect our treasures in heaven rather than on earth and why the writer of the book of Hebrews tells us we to look for a home to come rather than a home here.

To believe that God's Word tells us how to regain Paradise, even in part, is to believe a lie. The real attraction to the American Dream isn't the opportunity to restore what was lost but to worship what can be found--mammon. The American Dream is a monasticism with benefits. Its preachers assure us that we can be righteously selfish. It allows us flee from what is unpleasant and distasteful in the world while enjoying its corruptible fruit. This makes the American Dream a trap for the Christian. For when we try to take what we want, we become deaf and blind to both the world God wants us to share His love with as well as our own spiritual condition.

It Is Time For Christians To Moral Up

2010-11-17T13:53:00.020-05:00

By now, we have all too often heard the expression "man up." This expression has a number of meanings from picking the right beer to being tough enough to suffer everything to conquer a foe to doing the right thing. The context of its use tells us the intended meaning.

Christians must create their own version of this expression that will cut across all contexts. This version would address our need to do what is right but differently from "man up." Instead of appealing to any machismo belief about oneself such as the expression "man up" does, Christians need to elevate the role of morals, values and principles in what they choose to do and support. Thus Christians, especially American ones, need to moral up.

We need to moral up because of today's descent into a conditional morality as practiced by most in our country. This rejection of being virtuous is exercised by both conservatives and liberals. Certainly conservatives and liberals don't implement conditional morality in the same way, but what they have in common is that their approach to certain ethics is contingent on some factors or effects that threaten what they treasure.

Though American conservatives pride themselves on values and being responsible and, in terms of personal moral issues, this pride has some merit; their standards go AWOL when their sense of patriotism or love for the Free Market comes to town. That special feeling of significance that comes from belonging, such as is experienced in patriotism, acts as a filter that strains out any morally based criticism of their heroes. This is especially true when it comes to assessing policies that call for American or Israeli military actions. Wanting to feel proud about their country and thus special, they project all sorts of angelic qualities on America and minimize its sins while they demonize all opponents. This love for country is also extended to Israel.

This is conditional morality. Conditional morality is the selective application of values and standards depending on the country or group being judged. If the U.S. or Israel invades, kills civilians, tortures people, or commits other war crimes, then there is no moral judgment passed. But if the U.S. or one of its allies are attacked, then we are quick to accuse the attacker of the most heinous of crimes possible. This is despite the fact that attacks on us just might be a response to what we or an ally have done first.

Such a conditional morality forgets what Augustine said in the 4 chapter of the 4 book of The City Of God. There one can paraphrase Augustine as saying that without justice, the only difference between a nation and a gang is size. Augustine states that if a gang becomes big enough, it is considered to be a nation.

This distinction is not lost on the common person. When Martin Luther King went up to New York, he would challenge the kids not resort to violence to settle their problems. But the kids came right back at him by pointing out that the U.S. uses violence to try to settle its problems in Vietnam. This logic was one of the factors that compelled King to speak out against the war. We should note that in that war, we were the invaders and we stopped a democratic process by which the South Vietnamese would choose whether or not to reunite with the North. In addition, we destroyed much of the country and participated in the killing of millions of South Vietnamese. Of course we would justify our murders by saying that our enemies were more murderous than us and thus what we did was still ok if not good.

Since Vietnam, it has been the same old same old with our interventions. We supported and committed horrible atrocities in Latin America, we supported the "Freedom Fighters" of Afghanistan because they opposed the Soviet Union--unfortunately for us, some of those fighters would help in the 9-11 attacks. We supported Saddamn Hussein especially after the dictator we had installed in Iran in 1953 was overcome by a revolution. And there were others as well. In all of this, American Conservatives see it as their patriotic and even religious duty to support all that our leaders have set their hearts on and they have done this while almost equating criticism of our country's policies with treason.

Conservatives also have a warm place in their heart for American Free Enterprise as it is manifested by corporations. It seems that for them, because they are not part of the government, corporations are the canaries in the mine of the Free Market and society. This view is despite all of the abuses that corporations engage in. My own blogging experience tells me that American conservatives are just has stringent in their defense of corporations as they are of American foreign policies.

But there is one thing we have to give credit to Conservatives for. At least they have no reluctance about speaking out on all of their views whether moral or immoral. In contrast to that, we have liberals. Their morals depend more on convenience than standards. Liberals want to give the appearance of caring, but their caring can be best described by a journal entry of Rachel Corrie as she wrote about how we care for the homeless in the book Let Me Stand Alone.

We love them when they are far away and we are snug and warm.

But when they are close to us,
And we can smell their rotting breath
And look deep through sunken eyes into the eddying minds,
We choke with fear and distaste and pull away from the outside.

Liberals tend to pull away from the ethical treatment of people when it isn't "practical," meaning agreeable. Sometimes that practicality is measured by whether they are standing alone. At other times, that practicality is measured by the effects that acting morally will have on their own prosperity. Finally, that practicality is measured by the effects a moral stand will have on their heroes, the Democratic Party. Sometimes these reasons stand in conjunction. I remember the 2004 election when Ralph Nader was challenging Kerry and Bush. Many of the Democrats I talked to admitted that Nader represented their values far more than Kerry did. But these same people would never vote for Nader. They refused to vote for him because they didn't think he had a chance to win and so they voted for someone who neither won nor represented their values. And because they wouldn't leave the fold, their Democratic Party is as much a part of the problem as the Republicans they despise. That is because the Democrats have such people in their pockets and thus can vote with which ever way the wind of corporate donations and lobbyist gifts are blowing.

For the most part, Liberals show their moral failure by their inactivity rather than their activity. Perhaps this is why, according to my personal observation, conservatives make much better activists than liberals. Liberals care far more about preserving the status quo to which they belong regardless of its morals. Such liberals have either a supernatural faith in the god of the pendulum or resigned themselves to fate. In either case, they see speaking out, unless directed to by their heroes, as a sign of having Tourette's Syndrome.

How do Christians need to moral up? Christians need to reject conditional morality. They need to realize that conditional morality is an oxymoron. For once we make a moral standard conditional, we have annulled it and show ourselves to be capricious when employing it. Thus for conservative Christians, they need to reassign their primary allegiance from their country, conservatism, and the Free Market to principles and absolute values, to God, or a universal moral code, without which what is left is the law of the jungle. And indeed, that is what many conservatives celebrate when they revel so much in our military might.

Liberal Christians must learn that to be silent is to be complicit, or "silence is betrayal" as Martin Luther King put it. Liberals must face the fact that trying to avoid anger, which is what they do when they silently and secretly support a moral position so as not to antagonize anyone, merits the anger of all. When this approach is employed, it shows that the liberal's highest moral value is self and the preservation of one's treasures.

Both liberal and conservative Christians must look to the Old Testament prophets for mentors. There, the prophets constantly stood alone and risked it all in order to represent God and defend His proclamations whether those decrees challenged idolatry or the neglect and oppression of the vulnerable. Conservative Christians need to look to these examples to balance their concern with submitting to authorities. Liberal Christians need to look to these examples to inspire them to overcome that comfortable reluctance to boldly speaking out when no one else is simply because it is the right thing to do.

There is a group that has been providing plenty of examples of practicing unconditional morals. That group is the Left--realize that the Left and liberals are not one and the same. It is the Left that not only preaches that we should take moral stands for morality's sake but practices it. Modern examples could be seen during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War protests. Both started small. Both challenged the status quo. And both came at a high cost for some of its participants. The Left still is basing its protests on principle. Take some of those who are supporting the civil disobedience sponsored by Veterans For Peace. Certainly there are not enough people participating in the civil disobedience to make any discernible difference. But they are doing what they can to speak out regardless of who is standing with them.

This taking a moral stand for the sake of morality is part of what was discussed at the Left Forum that recently occurred at Pace University not too long ago. As Cornel West said there that being on the left means giving voice to the suffering who have no voice. Conservative Christians have done this in the abortion issue, though not always in a moral way, but it appears that once you are born, conservatives lose interest in your right to life while liberal only pay lip service to it.

Yes, it is time for American Christians to moral up. If we don't, the Gospel we preach will be relegated to irrelevance by the world and such will be an understandable and tragic error that would condemn the audience and implicate us preachers. In addition, much preventable suffering will be experienced by more and more people including our kids and grandchildren. But perhaps the most important reason why we must moral up is because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Krauthammer, Only God Determines What Is Sacred

2010-08-13T07:06:00.005-04:00

In a recent article, Charles Krauthammer criticizes the proposed building of a Mosque and Islamic Center "at" Ground Zero. This is because of the horrific 9-11 attacks and the deaths of close to 3,000 Americans at that site has made the ground sacred. Krauthammer joins a chorus of conservatives in implying that building a religious building belonging to the group responsible for the destruction is sacrilege (http://article.nationalreview.com/439065/sacrilege-at-ground-zero/charles-krauthammer). We will leave it to the reader to prove the implication. The answer key says false.

Mr. Krauthammer seems to not know what sacred means. Rather, he shows the all too natural human tendency to deify one's own group, this is similar to when we anthropomorphize what is dear to us. According to both the Old and New Testaments, only God is holy and thus only He declares what is sacred. If we were to put this in modern jargon we would say that only God can say what is special. Everything else is profane, including us and all of our endeavors.

The human tendency to try to do God's job of declaring what is sacred is sometimes used to maintain one's superiority over others and that is what Mr. Krauthammer et. al. are doing here. In the land of religious liberty, these conservatives are calling for an exception to the amendment guaranteeing this liberty because who would be exercising this liberty are Muslims--see the above implication.

In addition, the conservative logic here has another problem because it pits a "sacred" place vs a "sacred" document: Ground Zero vs the First Amendment. And to conservatives like Krauthammer, the winner is obvious. The problem for the rest of us is that this puts the Constitution in the loser's bracket where we would have to speculate what else could beat it and thus what liberties do we have left.

So Krauthammer suggests that if the Islamic religious center is built anywhere else, there would be no problems. And we could believe him unless we watched a recent episode of the Daily Show where Americans were protesting the building of mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California.

If we would keep to the rule that only God determines what is sacred, then, perhaps, we would stop trying to use religious language to declare our own superiority over others. If only God determines what is sacred, perhaps we would truly regard all others as equals. If only God determines what is Sacred, perhaps we would be better people who have a realistic chance at making peace than being those bent on committing global suicide through war. If only God determined what is sacred.

America's Konkordat

2010-06-23T08:16:00.076-04:00

Sometimes, there is an uneasy peace, or capitulation, between good and evil that threatens the moral identity of good. One such compromise was the agreement between Hitler's government and the Roman Catholic Church known as The Konkordat.

In 1933, Germany's newly elected Nazi government was consolidating power and preemptively silencing dissent. Oppression and threats were not the only ways to prevent protests. In fact, with regards to revered institutions, force or intimidation could have easily been counterproductive. So Hitler worked out a compromise with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. In exchange for loyalty oaths and promises not to oppose Nazi policies, many of which promised to eliminate diversity and democracy, Hitler's government promised peace and protection for practicing Catholics and exemption from military service for the clergy. An added incentive for the Roman Catholic Church here was that Pope Pius IV supported all who stood against Communism.

This agreement not only led to the horrifically tragic consolidation of power by Hitler, it led to a moral suicide by all Catholics who bought into Hitler's demonic visions of glory and power. Had it not been for this agreement, even if Hitler had succeeded, at least those in the Church could have had the opportunity to escape from participating, passively or actively, in some of the worst atrocities committed in history. Had there been no deal, practicing Catholics could have been led away from joining the Nazi's extreme Nationalism and resulting Holocaust by their spiritual shepherds. And if a significant number of German Catholics had refrained from joining the Nazis, perhaps history during the 1930's and 1940's could have been different.

Of course it is wrong to talk about the moral surrender of the Roman Catholic Church to Hitler that was part of the Konkordat without speaking about the failure of German Protestants. Protestants allowed themselves to be seduced by the significance promised in Hitler's German exceptionalism and thus allowed their church to be nationalized. Protestant protests to this nationalizing of the church were limited and shortsighted by a misguided focus on Church concerns only as demonstrated by the Barmen Declaration. Though that declaration rightly speaks against the Nazi infringement on Protestant religious liberties, because protesting German Protestants were concerned solely about their own religious concerns, the declaration made no mention of the welfare of those who were being persecuted by the Nazis.

So even in its protest against Nazi rule, the response of the German Christian churches was limited by a myopic awareness of Nazi rule. Only individual Christians, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, spoke out on broader issues, such as how should the Church reach out to the victims of the Third Reich. Americans should be cognizant of the fact that Bonhoeffer had developed his sensitivity to the plight of the Jews from attending a Black church in America where the sermons combined an emphasis on both the Scriptures and social justice. Bonhoeffer saw some parallels between the plight of Blacks here with the suffering of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Thus he believed that for the Church to truly represent Christ, it must stand with the victims of the regime it was protesting.

Movements do not need to be as monstrous as Nazi Germany to merit opposition from the Church nor do victims need to suffer through a holocaust to morally mandate its support. If that was not the case, Nazism would serve as a minimum standard of evil. Thus, it is always time for Christians of every nation to examine their nation's practices and policies and to reach out to the victims. For my fellow Americans, I believe it is time to consider whether our current form of Capitalism merits both confrontation and support for its victims.

Why American Capitalism? Why not pick an easier target? After all, asking American Christians, especially conservative Christians, to oppose Capitalism is like asking them to protest against apple pie, baseball, football, hot dogs, and everything else we enjoyed while growing up. This is especially true for conservative American Christians because we have often been taught that American Capitalism is not just American, it is Christian. We have been taught that American Capitalism is based on the Protestant work ethic and pushes us to rely on God rather than on man--the State. In addition, babyboom Christians grew up with one of the most egalitarian economic boons in Capitalism's history. The time period between 1950 to the mid 1970's saw many Americans, from all economic classes, benefiting greatly from American Capitalism. Asking American Christians to oppose this Capitalism is like asking a baby to throw a tantrum when offered its mother's breast.

So why should we, American Christians, consider opposing something that has served us so well? One reason is that we do not want to repeat the sins of German Christians who lived in the Third Reich. They capitulated because of what they were getting out of the system but without regard what that system meant to others. Even many of those who joined the resistance did so solely out of a concern for themselves. So while we, American Christians who grew up in great prosperity, have enjoyed the fruits of American Capitalism, we have done so without any awareness of the price that others have had to pay for our Capitalism. What many Americans are unaware of is that the prosperity and freedom we associate with American Capitalism is not enjoyed by others who have been affected by the same. The success of our Capitalism is partially due to economic and/or political expansionism that has robbed others of their prosperity and rights. During the time period from 1950 to the mid 1970's, many of American Capitalism's victims were from other countries.

We should note that the above mentioned economic windfall did not occur in the same kind of Capitalistic system as the one we employ today. There were far more governmental controls over currency and the economy exercised by most countries during the period of prosperity. But since the mid 1970's, the control over the currency and economy was transferred to the private sector in an approach called Neoliberalism. Since the mid 1970's, income for most Americans has stagnated or decreased when adjusted for inflation. In addition, under Neoliberalism, we have seen an attack on labor, both by the government and the private sector, so that much of American manufacturing has been gutted. Our leading manufactured export are weapons which gives an ominous incentive to those seeking to increase their profits and for our country to try to balance our trade deficit.

In the meantime, much of the future that Marx envisioned for the Proletariat is coming true. Work is reduced to being a mere commodity on par with any raw material. This results in the constant state of flux that Capitalism always finds itself because the owner is constantly asking the worker "How much do you cost today?" So no worker, regardless of how cheaply they sell themselves, is secure in their job and all workers have become disposable along with their dependents and communities. The reduction of labor to being a mere commodity in an ownership culture obsessed with making the highest short-term profit seems to have erased any "Invisible Hand" once seen by Adam Smith. On top of that, when we add in Neoliberalism, which has eliminated the Visible Hand of government, nobody, who does not belong to a center of power and wealth, is safe.

America's Konkordat, which was primarily established between American conservative Protestantism and the current centers of wealth and power, makes many American Christians, especially conservative ones, impotent in his or her society. For not only do American Christians fail to challenge the wealthy regarding their victimization of their workers, they blame the victims for their destitution for daring to challenge authority by making demands of the employers. This current blaming of the American work force would be akin to the Churches in Nazi Germany blaming the Jews for their sufferings. Of course, this is said recognizing the difference in the severity of suffering between the two groups.

If American Christians were to be faithful to the Gospel, not only would they be preaching a message of repentance to those who profit by impoverishing others, they would stand with the victims of our economic system. We can stand with the victims of American Capitalism by sharing what we have and by demanding that changes be made to reverse the hopeless future that many of the unemployed realistically have.

To those apologists for American Capitalism, please inform the rest of us about the promise our Capitalism offers to the unskilled laborers, the vast number of unemployed who live in our cities, and even to the college educated specialists who have lost their technical jobs? The last job recovery estimate made was that 40% of those who lost their jobs would never get them back. With the manufacturing sector having already be reduced, there are fewer and fewer places for displaced workers to go to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." What is to become of these workers? And what will become of our country if that 40% figure was accurate or an underestimate?

There are differences between America's Konkordat and the Konkordat of 1933 made in Nazi Germany. With America's Konkordat, the agreement is an informal agreement made between Protestants and the centers of power and wealth in Capitalism; Nazi Germany's Konkordat was a formal agreement made between the Roman Catholic Church and the government. We should also again note the vast difference in the severity of suffering between the Jews, Communists, Socialists, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and others who were singled out for atrocities by the Nazis and the sufferings of many American workers. Yet, we should note that unless we want to establish that the suffering of those who were persecuted in the Holocaust provides a minimum standard for intolerable suffering, we should acknowledge the severe suffering of those who have lost their jobs and cannot find any opportunities to reverse their fortunes. They too are being oppressed by having job prospects denied from them so that those who are either already wealthy and powerful or who seek to become more wealthy can hoard wealth.

But despite those differences, severely disturbing similarities exist as well. Many American Christians are too preoccupied with power, wealth, and their own personal welfare to both acknowledge that there Capitalist system is abusive and to stand with its victims. In addition, many American Christians, like most of the German Protestants who opposed the Nazis, have dropped out of the real world of the suffering of others by being solely concerned about Church or Christian issues. Also, some teachings of the Church push American Christians into the camp of the wealthy and powerful. For example, because of what many American Christians have been taught about role of authority in both the Church and the State, they are reluctant to challenge the authority of those who run the system whether that source of authority is in the private or public sectors. We should only note that obedience to authority was strongly emphasized in the German churches before the Nazis came to power.

American Christians who seek the "abundant life" are reluctant to challenge centers of wealth. This is partly because many American Christians have their hearts set on joining such a center or they have pinned their hopes on the wealthy and powerful by hoping to ride in on their coattails. But there are religious reasons why American Christians are reluctant to challenge centers of wealth. For one thing, American Christians, especially conservative ones, see economic success as implying God's approval on one's endeavors--part of the Protestant Work Ethic. As a close friend of mine said when defending American Capitalism, America has produced the most wealth and given its citizens the most freedom of any country in history. But there are problems with this apologetic. For one thing, all great empires that have attained great power and wealth for its citizens. Rome was such and example. Even Hitler's Germany could say that prior to the turning point of the war when they lost the battle for Stalingrad that their policies made Germany wealthy and free. What is conveniently ignored in these empires are the personal costs to those who have suffered because of the empire's success? Romans often benefited when Rome conquered a new territory. But what was the plight of the conquered? The same can be said of America. Many, but not enough, Americans have benefited from America's economy and empire. But how did Americans suffer because of America's policies and how many countries were oppressed as we overthrew their governments only to replace them with dictators or forced economic policies on them? Is it Christian to ignore actions that benefit me but oppress others? This issue is difficult for Christians who have been taught about the Protestant Work Ethic and Capitalism.

There is another path that we American Christians can can choose in response to American Capitalism. Rather than maintain the current American Konkordat with Capitalism, we could follow the directions provided by Nazi dissident and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as he told the German Church how it should respond to oppression. First, Bonhoeffer told the Church that it was to confront those who are being oppressive. At this point we should note that in doing so, we would be imitating the OT prophets. Second, he told the Church that it sould stand with those who are oppressed. This is what King Josiah did in the OT. As Jeremiah reminded Josiah's son that doing so is what it means to "know" God (Jeremiah 22:15-16). Third, he said that the Church could resist by interfering with the system.

What Bonhoeffer challenged Christians to do in Nazi Germany was to be concerned about more than their own immediate issues. They were also to be concerned about others, particularly those who were suffering. There are plenty of commands and examples from the Scriptures that support his challenge. The question for American Christians is whether they will repeat the mistakes from the past, such as those made by many Christians who lived in Nazi Germany, or will the be ministers for Jesus?

References
1. The Theological Declaration Of Barmen, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm
2. The Konkordat, http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211
3. Hopes And Prospects by Noam Chomsky
4. The DVD Bonhoeffer, Produced by Journey Films

Is Your Mirror Too Big To See Your Neighbor?

2010-02-10T10:12:00.017-05:00

One of the refreshing changes we are noticing at our Flaming Fundamentalist Church is that the young people are discontent with the status quo. This is refreshing not because of their discontentment per se, but because of why they are unhappy. They feel that our Church is not a church because it is not contributing enough to those in the community.

Why isn't Church involved enough with the community? Perhaps, one reason for this weakness is because of one of our church's strength, its personal message of salvation, is also its weaknesses.

Personal salvation is preached in the Gospel. We are told, and rightfully so, that we should repent of our sins and believe in Jesus. We are also correctly told that what we believe about Jesus matters. That is because if we do not believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then we do not believe in a Jesus who could save us from our sins and reconcile us to God. Jesus being God incarnate follows from Jesus being the Son of God (see Athanatius's argument). If Jesus is God incarnate, then Jesus was born of a virgin. And if Jesus was God's son, then Jesus had to rise again from the dead. With God the father, Jesus is son, and the Holy Spirit, we have the Trinity. The Trinity is an essential doctrinal belief.

In addition we need to believe the right things about ourselves in order to be saved. We must believe that we are sinners. But that is not enough. We must understand, from God's law, just how sinful we are. We must believe that we are so dead in sin that we can contribute nothing to our salvation. We must realize that God saves us when we put our trust in Jesus alone.

But we are not yet finished. One result of being saved is that we, with God's help, change how we live. We need to repent of sin. We need to do what God says and do it for the right reasons. We are told that when nonbelievers do good, it does not count because they do what is right for the wrong reasons--they are not trying to glorify God. An unfortunate result of that not only are we encouraged to focus more and more on ourselves, we are to easily discount, and even have disdain for, the good works of others because their lack of faith means their motives were wrong.

As correct as what we are taught is, there is a flaw that brings us back to the complaint made by the young people at my church. The flaw is that though the Church equips us with the right information, it is also telling us to focus more and more on ourselves. There comes a point as the more the Church tells us to have the right beliefs about God, how sinful we are, and how to keep ourselves pure from sin, the more we end up focusing on ourselves. And the more we focus on ourselves, the more difficult to even see one's neighbor let alone love them. In addition, another problem arises. That problem is because technology has made it easier to access those in other parts of the world, the number of those who qualify as our neighbor is increasing exponentially. Because of technology, the world has become our neighbor.

But there are other attributes of the conservative Church that prevent their memebers from being concerned about others than the Gospel of personal salvation. Authoritarianism and apocalyptic messages do their part too. Church authoritarianism tells Christians who to listen to and who to ignore. We are told to listen to qualified like minded people and to turn a deaf ear to all others. And, of course, most of the time these teachers are telling their audience how to refine their personal salvation. Apocalyptic messages inspire a fatalism that piles on more urgency to taking care of one's personal salvation and further relegates the addressing of earthly hardships--especially when those who are suffering are unbelievers.

Finally, the spirit of American individualism adds a significant final touch to the conservative Christians' tendency to be so preoccupied with their own spiritual status that they neglect caring for or even noticing their neighbor. American individualism pushes us towards a preoccupation with ourselves in two ways. First, American individualism pushes us to prove ourselves. Second, American individualism puts a damper on both our concern and our willingness to help those who, we feel, are responsible for themselves.

There is an old saying that describes some Christians as being "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." The problem with this saying is the premise. The reason why many conservative Christians cannot do any earthly good is not because they are too heavenly minded, it is because they are too preoccupied with themselves and spiritual status to notice or care about those who need them to be a good Samaritan. It is our tendency to spend too much time in front of the mirror that keeps us from seeing and helping others.

Our extreme self-preoccupation and even narcissism puts at risk the credibility of the Gospel we claim to believe and love. Here, we give an unnecessary reason for people to be offended by the Gospel. Our extreme self-preoccupation also deceptively keeps us from following the part of God's law that tell us to love others as we are to love ourselves. That is as we think we are learning how to follow God closely by practicing more and more introspection, we sabotage ourselves from exercising the love God wants us to show. Thus we must find ways to pay the proper attention to the Gospel of personal salvation without spending too much time standing in front of the mirror.

Righteously Selfish

2009-08-18T10:06:00.000-04:00

Few institutions represent what America is all about like the Free Market. The Free Market can be charitably described as an economic system that relies on man's self-interest alone to control his greed. In other words, we only need to think of what is good for us, this usually involves considering long term consequences, to keep us from going too far. Some might say that the Free Market teaches us that the ONLY way to fight fire is with fire.

The Free Market mentality has permeated much of American culture which puts the Christian in a dilemma. The dilemma is how a Christian controls greed by relying solely on self-interest. Though most Christians recognize the need to pull in the reigns on the wild horse called greed, using self-interest to do so is questionable because it has often been looked at with suspicion and rightfully so. But the Free Market, being an American Icon, gives self-interest a strong endorsement. Thus, the American part of the American Christian is saying let self interest be your guide. And many American Christians have concluded that while greed could destroy them, self-interest can protect and save them by telling them when to say no.

The self-preserving wisdom that comes from self-interest would have to be on guard for two problems caused by greed. The first problem is when what we want is ok, we just want too much. The second problem would be when we want what is bad for us.

No doubt there is a wisdom that comes from an enlightened self-interest. Such wisdom should not be dismissed. It can bring us a better life and thus, it could be beneficial. One could argue that Jesus used self-interest as a motivation for obeying his Word. For example, in Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus tells his followers to lay up treasures in heaven rather than earth because the vulnerability of earthy goods. A little later, Jesus assures his disciples that if they seek God's Kingdom first, God will provide for them.

Though the right self-interest can help, the problem is when we use it as our only guide. When that happens, we turn inward and look outside of ourselves less and less until, because of atrophy, we become blind to the world around us. At the same time, as we think that choosing out of self-interest leads us away from excess or choosing what is wrong, we begin to think of it as righteous. In the end, we have become righteously selfish. Righteous because of what we are not doing and selfish because of our focus.

But is being righteously selfish possible for the Christian? If we look back at Matthew 6:33, Jesus not only tells his followers of God's provision as motivation, he commands them to seek God's Kingdom rather than self-interests. And according to Jesus, all of God's commandments are fulfilled by obeying two of them: you are to love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). Paul fleshes out an implementation of the latter command when talking about doing things your conscience allows but offends a brother or sister. He basically says to let the welfare of your brother or sister be your guide because we are to live for the Lord (Romans 14).

It doesn't take much reading to realize that the Bible is completely at odds with the notion of letting our self-interest be our only guide. This puts the Bible at odds with America's Free Market mentality. That self-interest is sometimes appealed to does not imply that it can always be appealed to. Rather, love for others and, more importantly, love for God should trump self-interest. This is the kind of love Jesus demonstrated when He died on the cross for us.

But what about society? Should people who live in a society that is based on religious freedom be required to using other criteria besides self-interests when making decisions? That is a tough question but it could also be the wrong question. The more important question is can a society survive where self-interest is the only guide for each person? Considering that there are many important occupations and vital needs where too much attention to self-interest by the participant is counterproductive to performance, a society where every member uses self-interest their only guide will turn against itself. Again, it is not that self-interest should never be a guide for every person; rather, the question is society livable if everyone used self-interest as their only guide. Such a society provides no logical basis for anyone who is discontent to respect the laws of that society. You would then have a messy anarchy where there is less incentive for the disgruntled to respect the rights and property of others.

Conservatives often complain that our country seems to be headed for the abyss because of the values it is abandoning. Perhaps that is not the entire story. When we look at the potential destructive power of a society where each person makes decisions based only on what is good for him or herself, then we might also want to say that America is going downhill because of the values it is holding on to. The values that we have embraced is a staple to the Conservative's diet. We can see how the embracing of the Free Market mentality pushes America downhill by looking at two groups.

One group whose adoption of the Free Market mentality is hurting America consists of those who are comfortably content. Too often, these people live in a bubble world where they remove themselves from the harsh life that the have-nots experience. Because they are not doing anything wrong, they feel quite justified in neglecting those who are in need. Another group who adopts the Free Market mentality that is hurting America are those who are discontent. Those who are not satisfied with what they have can consist of both the haves or the have-nots. People in this group show a lack of concern for the law and for the rights of others as they grab all they can for themselves.

It is time that American Christians look at all of the implications of the Free Market mentality instead of taking it for granted because the Free Market is an established American institution. Many of the ideas inherent in the Free Market mentality stand diametrically opposed to what God has said in the Bible. Therefore, to adopt the Free Market mentality is to have a mindset that leads us away from Jesus.

But even America's society that is based on religious freedom should also start questioning the Free Market mindset. That is not because of the mentioning of self-interests, but it is because a society whose members are only concerned with themselves will eventually destroy itself.

Forgetting The Ties That Bind

2009-07-31T22:45:00.029-04:00

There is an old hymn entitled "Bless Be The Ties That Bind." The hymn talks about those things that Christians have in common. What is written in the hymn is important. But unfortunately, Christians can come away from singing that hymn with some wrong ideas.

The wrong ideas that many Christians have after singing "Bless Be The Ties That Bind" revolve around thinking that there are no significant ties between Christians and non-Christians--that is no ties outside of citizenship for patriotic Christians.

The result of this kind of thinking is that we have an Amish movement amongst some of my fine fellow flaming fundamentalists friends and family with the English of the world. To the Amish, the English are what the nations were to the Jews in Biblical times; that is you are in or your are out. You are either a part of the in group or you don't get it. And what we have is a sincere attempt, by many Christians, to be separate from the non-believers and even non-Christian fundamentalists of the world.

This separation though is not a physical separation simply because that would be impossible; rather, the separation is personal. In a very real sense, many Christian fundamentalists are refusing to be engaged with the world around them. Not that these Christians have grown tired of telling the world what to do, they haven't. But they have had it with reading, listening to and caring about those in the world, especially those who suffer in war zones. They have concluded that the world has nothing good to offer and so they have insulated themselves from the world with "Christian" topics and/or Christian sources. Some of these sources tell Christians that the solution is to take America back. But that back is a place that America never was in the first place.

Such Christians have little difficulty in finding scriptural justification for shunning the world's advice. For example, Paul tells us in II Corinthians 6:14, 17 that we should not bound together with unbelievers and that we should separate ourselves from them just as the OT Jews were called to come out from the Gentiles. These verses are tough to interpret because, at face value, they seem to imply that Christians should cut off all relationships with non-Christians. Thus it seems that a Christian would be obligated to leave a spouse if the spouse remained an unbeliever. And yet, Paul says the opposite in I Corinthians 7: 12-13. In addition, it is difficult for Christians to live amongst unbelievers without being connected.

And yet, these issues have not stopped many conservative Christians from trying to obey the II Corinthians passage by engaging in one-way relationships with non-Christians. These relationships consist of Christians feeling free to share their faith and expecting the non-Christian to listen while boldly asserting that the unbeliever has nothing worthwhile to say until they repent. The result is that the lives of some believers become islands as these Christians become more and more preoccupied with their own world. You can imagine how this could affect the carrying out of the Great Commission as more and more Christians tell the world that part of believing is to let the world crash and burn.

Is it true that the only ties a Christian has is with other Christians? Should Christians should separate themselves from the world as the Amish do from the English? Is there no common ground that the Christian and the unbeliever can share with each other that should move the Christian to listen to those outside of the faith and care about what is happening to others besides fellow Christians?

A variety of sources, both Biblical and others, says no! We could start with the liberal branch of Christianity which claims that all of us are the children of God and thus we are all brothers and sisters. The latter sentiment was expressed in a journal entry by Rachel Corrie when talking about the homeless. She said:

These are our brothers and sisters.
And that is what terrifies us.
They are us. And we could as easily be them.[1]

The Christian fundamentalist balks at regarding everyone as a brother or sister and thus sometimes ignores the non-Christian who is in need. The titles of brother and sister, according to many conservative Christians, belong to fellow children of God only and with good reason. Nowhere in the New Testament do we read of anyone outside of the faith being called a brother or a sister. At best, non-Christians are called neighbors. We are told to love them as we would love those outside of the family. Thus there is a hierarchy in terms of whom the Christian should help. The Christian must help fellow believers first and then non-believers second. But with Christians turning their personal lives into islands and their churches into gated communities, the help that conservative Christians are giving non-Christians is shrinking fast except through the proxies called the missionaries.

Martin Luther King went beyond calling everyone his brother and sister as how he regarded the Vietnamese. [2] He called them God's children. That is what King called every person because each person is made in the image of God. He then concluded that what touches one touches all. [3] But is King justified in calling all people children of God? After all, not all people are fellow believers. In addition, Jesus called the religious leaders who rejected him children of the devil.

Adam is called a son of God(Luke 3:38). Why was that? In the third chapter of Luke, each person who was called the son of someone was a descendant of that person. Thus Adam, because he was both made directly by God and was made in God's image, was called a son of God. But note that the others were not called sons of God. They were merely called sons of their ancestors. Does that mean that Christians do not have to regard non-Christians as brothers and sisters? Is the closest tie that we Christians have with non-Christians is that of being a neighbor?

The answers to the last two questions are clearly NO! Since all people are said to be made in God's image, we can correctly regard everyone as a brother or sister regardless of their faith. These titles of brother and sister show a closer relationship that carries more grave results if we were to neglect those in need than if we just call people our neighbors. For to neglect someone in need who is made in the image of God shows an apathy or even hatred for God.

Having said this, Christians still need to distinguish between their brothers and sister by way of being made in God's image and their brothers and sisters by way of redemption. Much weight is put on Christians helping fellow Christians because Christ died for them. But our responsibilities to help fellow believers for whom Christ died do not eliminate the ties we have with nonbelievers. They are important too because they are made in the image of God.

Finally, we should also note that this tie of being made in the image of God allows us to share common values and to be helped and instructed by nonbelievers. J. Gresham Machen, one of the most fundamentalist Christian teachers in 20th century America said the following:

Many ties -- ties of blood, of citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor-- unite us to those who have abandoned the Gospel. [4]

We have these ties because we are made in the image of God. The current Christian trend of insulating oneself from the world and making one's church into a gated community to keep the world out goes against the Scriptures. The let the world crash and burn if it does not repent mentality goes against valuing people because they are made in the image of God. Listening only to Christians goes against recognizing that all are made in the image of God and against the explicit words of some honorable fundamentalist Christians. If we Christians are going to make a difference in the world, then we cannot afford to treat nonbelievers as if they are from another planet.

[1] Let Me Stand Alone by Rachel Corrie, pg 15
[2] http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html
[3] http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276406.shtml
[4] Christianity and Liberalism by J Gresham Machen, pg 44

Are All Wars Gang Wars?

2009-07-17T08:01:00.023-04:00

The contrast could not be more stark. When we think of gang wars, we think of senseless killings, cruelty, innocent children getting killed, drugs, and turf battles. When we think of the wars our own troops fight, we think of sacrifice, freedom, honor, and loyalty. So to compare gang wars to the wars our country's troops fight seems to show the height of ingratitude, ignorance, contempt, idiocy, and lunacy. To compare gang wars and our nation's wars would indicate the worst of a person until we read Augustine and former Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler.

Who was Augustine? Augustine lived in the fourth and fifth centuries and was a Bishop in the Christian Church. He was a prolific writer who was respected and followed by theologians from both the Roman Catholic and Reformed traditions.

What did Augustine say that would make our nation's war comparable with gang wars? Consider the following from the 4th chapter of the fourth book of Augustine's "City Of God." Augustine said that when a kingdom is without justice, it is merely a gang of robbers, or, in our language, a street gang. He continued in comparing the two by saying that both had authority figures, pacts and rules. The latter determined how their bounty was divided. When a gang grows large enough, it becomes a nation. [1]

This is what people of every nation must consider before embracing nationalism. Is one's nation merely a gang? The answer to that question lies in the presence or absence of justice. However determining whether a nation is just can be difficult because every country's résumé consists of claims of nobility, righteousness and justice. Even in the worst of nations, such as Nazi Germany, each nation sees itself as source of nobility and defender of freedom. Hence, we should go beyond the self-description of any country, especially one's own, and examine the actions of each nation using the same standards.

Now who was Smedley Butler? Smedley Butler was a Marine Corp Major General who lived from 1881 until 1940. He served in the Marine Corp for 34 years. He was awarded the Medal of Honor twice, which is a rare accomplishment.

What did Major General Butler say? He introduced us to a great divide between why the troops fight and why they are sent. He stated that for many years, he suspected that he was fighting for business interests, later he became sure of it. To make his point, Major General Butler pointed out some financial results of war. Results include the creation of 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires by the end of WWI. Results also include a ballooning national debt that consisted of $1,000,000,000 in 1898 when we had no outside territories $25,000,000,000 sometime after WWI and after acquiring outside territories that contained private investments as well as a future conflict with Japan over territories in the Pacific.[2] What is interesting about Major General Butler's points is that he made many of the same points made by Helen Keller in a 1916 speech warning President Wilson not to enter WWI. In particular, Keller foresaw a war with Japan as a result of US acquisitions in the Pacific.[3] We should note that the Japanese called WWII the Great East Asian War and that it was fought to liberate East Asia from Western colonialism.

We should then note Howard Zinn, a historian and WWII veteran, and his observations about why we fought WWII. He stated that despite all that was happening in Europe and the Pacific, we were doing business with and helped fascism emerge in Europe and we did not fight until one of our territories was attacked. [4]

And though we might think that we were fighting against racism in Europe by trying to save the Jews, Zinn shows how we were slow in responding to their plight. In addition, when our Black soldiers returned home, they faced the same hateful racism here as they faced before the war. [5]

And while we were told that we were that we were fighting for the freedom of the world and self-determination, our Secretary of State assured the French that we were sympathetic toward their desire to keep their territories, such as Vietnam. Other assurances were given and it wasn't long after the war, that we started to assist France in trying to maintain their hold on Vietnam. [6]

The point here is that there is a divide between the aspirations of the troops who fight and the reasons why our presidents send them into harm's way. Though our most of our troops see themselves as liberating the oppressed overseas and defending freedom at home, the reasons why they are sent to fight are often quite different. The reasons why our leaders send our troops off to war, according to Zinn, is for sake of profits for the wealthy and power for the government. That is not to deny that some good came from fighting; but it is to say that our ideals were not the main reason for sending our troops. [7]

We only need to examine our methods then to see how concerned we have been with justice. Here again, we find failure. For whether it was in Vietnam, in the Middle East, in Latin America, or even in Europe, we find that our methods either targeted civilians or made their deaths inevitable. In addition, we supported dictators and suppressed many democracies.

We now come back to Augustine. Without justice, our nation is nothing more than a gang and our wars become gang wars. It isn't a coincidence that often turf battles between gangs are fought for business reasons. One gang wants to expand its operations, such as drug dealing, and thus increase its profits. In addition, it is not odd to hear gang members talk like soldiers as they speak about honor, sacrifice, and fighting for one's brothers. Though we see on military ads the slogan of belonging to something greater than oneself, that same kind of belonging exists whenever we join a group. Often, the only difference between a gang leader and the leaders of a nation is that the injustice of a gang leader is plain for all to see; the injustice of our governmental leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, is subtle and is covered by an attractive veneer of idealism and good intentions. So even though our troops believe they are fighting an honorable fight, it is the motives of our leaders that determine whether the colors of our flag are being relegated to gang colors and their battles to gang warfare.

There is a solution to all of this. That solution is to broaden our vision. That solution includes a deemphasizing our nationalism so that our commonality as people trumps our differences by nationality. Of course, we know who propagates these anti-patriotic and hate America ideas. These notions are preached by the Jeremiah Wrights of America who can find nothing good to say about the country that has blessed them so. And though what I just wrote sounds like something Jeremiah Wright would say, he is not the one I am footnoting. Martin Luther King said:

"Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective." [8]

It is when our loyalty to principle, love, and to all who have been made in God's image, as King reminded us in his writings, supersedes our sense of patriotism and being proud Americans that we can start to stop gang wars in the world.

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120104.htm
[2] http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
[3] http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=1&TopicID=193&SubTopicID=21&DocumentID=1154
[4] http://co.quaker.org/Writings/JustAndUnjustWar.htm
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/12/a_christmas_sermon_on_peace.html

A Few Good Problems With Conservative Values

2009-07-13T07:50:00.006-04:00

Conservatives pride themselves on being the vanguard for what is great about America: its values and liberties. Problems, however, arise when one examines both conservative values and the methods they use to defend them. Perhaps a closer inspection of both their values and methods is in order to verify the Conservatives' self-proclamation.

First, what is a conservative? How do we distinguish a conservative from a liberal? A quick summary that I have seen conservatives use before can be found at http://conservative-resources.com where conservatives and liberals are defined by 6 pairs of opposing characteristics. The list can be found below:

Conservative Beliefs vs Liberal Beliefs


Natural Law                   Positive Law
Established Institutions      Progress
Liberty Over Equality         Equality Over Liberty
Suspicion of Power            Benevolent Government
Exceptionalism                Human Perfectability
Individualism                 Community.

Of course the above list can be misinterpreted and false views of both Conservatives and Liberals can be easily arrived at by the reader unless one delves more deeply into the characteristics with which conservatives love to adorn themselves.

Natural Law

Belief in Natural Law, according to the above conservative website, is belief in both the existence of good and evil and that the source of all laws and liberties are from God or are Platonic, as opposed to originating with man. Man might recognize these laws, such as in a just government, but the Conservative believes that these laws exist regardless of man's recognition.

Here conservatives distinguish themselves from liberals by describing liberals as believing in progressive law. The difference between the two can be seen in the absence/presence of the term from the Declaration of Independence: "self-evident." The liberal, according to the conservative website, believes that rights originate when they are recognized by the government. Thus, according to many conservatives, liberals believe that man is the source of rights vs a higher authority. This jeopardizes our rights because just as rights can easily come through man, they can easily be taken away by man.

However, there might be a fly in the ointment for conservatives here. That fly consists of the possible differences between the set of laws and values recognized as coming from a higher authority vs the ones that conservatives recognize. Here, size matters for the Conservative claim to fame regarding values. The smaller the difference between conservative values and rights that are self-evident, the more the conservative can say he/she is walking the talk. However, the bigger the difference between these two sets of values, then the more the conservative can be seen as accepting a self-aggrandizing delusion. One can discover the size of this difference as we continue to examine conservative values.

Established Institutions

The next comparison consists of the Conservative trust in Established Institutions vs the Liberal pursuit of progress. For conservatives, these Established Institutions already have name tags. These institutions are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Anglo-Saxon view of law and government, church and family. Here, Established Institutions are, without explanation and justification, identified. Do American conservatives wish to say that conservatives world wide hold to these institutions or just American conservatives. And if the latter, are American conservatives the only ones who cling to the correct institutions while conservatives from other parts of the world and liberals are wrong? If so, the implications are both obvious and ominous. The American conservative must not only be distinguished from all other conservatives, American conservatives must now unite for they are now engaged in a us vs the world battle for justice.

Here, liberals become an anathema to Conservatives because liberals see mankind's hope in how well they can tinker with, tweak and even replace the institutions that have been given from on high.

Here, of course, the Conservative must show how secular institutions, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, can be considered as coming from on high. The problem for the Conservative though is that the only sources for acceptable institutions are culturally and even racially defined: the American Christian religion, documents from the American founding fathers, and Anglo-Saxon tradition. What is presupposed here is a cultural and even racial superiority. Pointing out the latter will no doubt produce a defensive reaction. But when established institutions are identified with an ethnicity, what other conclusions can be drawn? The Conservative belief in Established Institutions is a self-proclamation of cultural and ethnic superiority.

Of course, American Christian conservatives will use the Bible as their defense of Established Institutions. They assume that their recognized Established secular Institutions are Biblical ones as well. It is at this point that American Christian Conservatives feel pressured to draw close ties between the Bible and the work of our nation's founding fathers. The pressure becomes so great that obvious discrepancies between the two are denied. This pressure also moves some conservatives to defend unconscionable institutions from the past such as slavery because such was seemingly endorsed by the Bible.

Liberty

The next Conservative vs Liberal value sound off comes on what to put the most precedence, liberty or equality. Conservatives believe that, with the exception of equal rights and opportunity, one must choose between liberty and equality. To choose equality is to limit freedom.

The problem here is that the forms of equality that the Conservative sees as threatening are vague. It is acknowledged that equal standing before the law, regardless of wealth and nobility, are consistent with what the Founding Fathers promoted and thus a part of the Established Institutions. So what equality do conservatives find so troublesome?

Though not stated, equality with regards to earned wealth and personal values cannot be tolerated. Thus to the Conservative, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor should be cause to celebrate the unfettered accomplishments of the rich. Any attempt to relieve the plight of the poor through mandatory sacrifice of the rich is an attack on freedom! For the conservative, it is better that the rich have the opportunity to soar higher and higher than the poor receive the slightest minutia of help. In fact, the conservative calls mandatory help for the poor enslavement for both groups. Though it is obvious but disturbing how mandating the rich to help the poor might be called "slavery" for the rich, such conservatives see it as slavery for the poor because such help makes the poor dependent rather than self-sufficient.

At this point, the American Christian Conservative's choice to wed American Conservative values with the Bible goes well beyond syncretistic to schizoid. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, both the individual (signifying voluntary help) and the corporate (signifying mandatory help) have a grave responsibility to help the poor. In the Old Testament, farmers were required to leave the corners of their field unharvested to feed the alien. Part of the tithe was used to relieve the hunger of the poor. In the New Testament, Jesus warned us in his parable of the sheep and the goats that how each person treated the least of these, is how they treated him-- a teaching that should strike fear of Hell in all of us. And both the Roman government, to which Jesus commanded people to pay taxes, and the Church helped the poor.

It is obvious and troublesome that the American Conservative believes in a Social Darwinism--what should be an apparent contradiction for the Christian Conservative. After all, what becomes of the poor who do not make it in society when the government is prohibited from using tax revenues to help? The only kind of help that the Conservative approves of is education. That is the only help the poor need is to learn how to be successful. The apologetic employed here by the Conservative is that you best feed a person by teaching them how to fish rather than giving them a fish. This is an inept analogy because the Conservative seems to deliberately close their eyes to the full application of this analogy. For what good is it to teach the poor man to fish when there is no catch limit and there are too many poles in the fishing pond. How can we feed the poor man when the only fishing pond he can get to has been fished out? We cannot. The rich won't suffer a fished out pond because they have mobility and can travel to a another pond; the poor cannot. That is what happens when there are no limits placed on the rich and when we do not realistically assess the capabilities of our fishing ponds of wealth.

What the rich can escape by their mobility but the rest of us must live with, are the consequences of not taking care of the poor. Consequences include a nonproductive society that is filled with crime. Is it any wonder that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world--even beating totalitarian countries like China. The Conservative has a ready answer for this problem. The Conservative says that our incarceration rate is due to the abandonment of traditional values. That might be partially true. But here is another possible partial explanation. We might have the highest incarceration rate because those who suffer the most see no reason for showing respect to a system that coldheartedly refrains from respecting their right to live.

The battle of liberty vs equality also hits changing values that are the natural result of freedom. Here, the suppression of treating new emerging personal values, such as same sex marriage, as being equal does not rub liberty the wrong way; rather, it rubs Established Institutions the wrong way. This is why the Conservative, though giving lip service to liberty, viciously opposes tolerating the practice of treating new values as being equal to traditional ones despite the implication that liberty can cause values to change. Therefore, as paper covers rock, so Established Institutions trump liberty.

Suspicion Of (Only Government) Power

The next battle line shows how selective the Conservative can be. Conservatives show a suspicion of power while chiding the liberal for believing that government can help. Well, part of that should be a no brainer. We all should show a suspicion of accumulated power. But here is where the Conservative is selective. The only power that the Conservative is suspicious of is government power. From the last pair of dueling values, it is clear that the accumulation of power by anyone in the private sector must be celebrated as a triumph of freedom rather than a cause for concern. Here the Conservative's ability to show selectivity knows no bounds. It is as if the Conservative Bible said we in the private sector are not sinners like those in the government.

Our country's history is replete with examples of the rich oppressing the poor starting with slavery, extending to child labor, extending to the abuse of laborers, and also including endangering the general public by abusing the environment. And yet, the Conservative principle of suspicion of power applies only to those who work in the government.

Anyone who assumes that one's government will be naturally disposed to show benevolence has been smoking too much stuff to operate a motor vehicle. Getting government to protect its people from domestic threats when those who issue the threats bankroll our elected officials is the challenge of any people who wish to establish and maintain a democracy. It takes a perpetual education and activism to get government to represent its people rather than the rich. We know it can be done because it has been done. But this is the challenge to the people of any democracy. How hard are we willing to work to keep our government honest. A problem with American society is that too many people are still in too much comfort to exert adequate energy to maintain our democracy. Formally, we think of our system as being democratic because we can vote. But when our elected officials only represent the elite because because they have been bought, voting no longer implies a democracy.

There is a contradiction for the Conservative here. One of the benchmarks of our freedom is our free elections. But what are we really saying when the elected government, which proves our freedom, must be handcuffed because we cannot trust them with any signficant power? The Conservative mistakenly thinks that size matters to the government of a free people. It doesn't. What matters is who does the government choose to represent? It is the job of the people to work to ensure that the government represents all of the people, not just the financial elite.

Exceptionalism

The next Conservative vs Liberal battle is between exceptionalism vs human perfectability. The Conservative believes in the hero for salvation. The hero could either be the mighty warrior who fights on the battlefield or the brilliant and hardworking financial wizard who creates wealth for themselves while allowing others to ride on their coattails. This belief in exceptionalism, and thus the hero, is the sun that the Conservative solar system revolves around. The hero that exceptionalism produces is also carrot that most conseratives chase. The dream of someday being that hero is very seductive. It is experienced vicariously through patriotism as we see America being that "city on the hill." Such ego messaging is very enticing.

But if an individual conservative cannot be the financial hero, what the Conservative fears most is a government that prevents others from being heroes. This is why government should be restricted and why those who could be excpetional must be totally unfettered by responsibilities to equals who are in need. For if there are not enough heroes because of government peccadilloes, then we are all doomed. This is why the Conservative wants to eliminate all obligations and responsibilities that the government would place on emerging heroes.

This conserative dependence on exceptionalism is tragically ironic and antidemocratic. What is ironic here is that such conservatives show just as much dependence on the financial heroes of our country that they say the poor show when taking handouts from the government. The only difference is the Conservative assumption that only sinners work for the government while saints work in the private sector. And such an assumption causes the Conservative to advocate preferential treatment for the hero under the law. This advocacy for preferential treatment is subtle because in most cases, this preferential treatment is accomplished by having the government write laws that favor actual and would be heroes over the general public. At this point, the last vestiges of equality, even those parts seen as necessary by conservatives, have been destroyed. Our financial heroes are to be judged by the benefits they share with society rather than their keeping the law.

In addition, the Conservative's emphasis on the hero is antidemocratic. That is because power is accumulated and centralized on those who are not responsible to the voter. And since the Conservative works to prevent the government from regulating the work of the financial hero, the hero escapes the last chance at being accountable to the public.

The conservative dependence on exceptionalism is also tragic. It is tragic because the government that protects the financial hero from their responsibilities to society becomes a government for the rich, by the rich, and of the rich. The welfare of the middle class depends on how well they can ride coattails and the poor end up with no representation at all.

The Conservative does recognize one hero in government. That person is the President but only when he is acting as the Commander and Chief of the military.

Individualism

The final battle line is between the Conservative belief in individualism vs the Liberal reliance on community. We must hasten to add that the Conservative notion of individualism must be carefully defined. The Conservative notion of individualism cannot in any way challenge the values of Established Institutions. Here, Establish Institutions trump values arrived at by the independent individual.

What the Conservative is referring to when emphasizing individualism is that each individual is solely responsible for their success and failure. It is the Conservative's use of the word "solely" that shows a major thinking error. Since the Conservative see the individual as being solely responsible despite the fact that we live in an interdependent society, Conservatives employ what Psychologists call "all or nothing thinking." What Psychologists notice about all or nothing thinking is that 1) it usually produces a distorted picture of reality; 2) it produces conclusions based on incomplete evidence because much evidence has been tossed out; 3) it results in overly concrete thinking; and 4), it is linked to mood disorders.

Despite the disturbed thinking that conservatives who reduce success and failure to individual responsibility only, the emphasis on the individual holds out a couple of carrots. One carrot is the significance one feels when one succeeds. The other carrot is being freed from any moral responsibility for helping those in need. If each person is solely responsible for one’s success or failure, the successful person is free to keep more of their wealth to themselves.

The above consists of a list of key conservative values and some of the problems that accompany those values. The American Christian Conservative is asked to suffer an additional problem. That problem is that the core conservative beliefs sometimes oppose Biblical values. Thus, the Conservative's 6 values of belief in natural law, unquestioned reliance on Established Institutions, preferring liberty over equality, being suspicious of governmental power, aspirations to exceptionalism, and giving credit to the individual only often compete with Biblical values. But at the same time, American Christian Conservatives are told that these 6 values define Conservatism. The result is that the American Christian Conservative becomes more of an American Conservative than a Christian.

At the beginning, I described Conservatives as priding themselves for being a vanguard for the values they associate with America's greatness. I used the word vanguard deliberately because it is translated into another word that does not carry pleasant associations. Jason Burke, in his book "Al-Qaeda: Casting A Shadow Of Terror," states that the concept of the word vanguard could be translated into the word "Al-Qaeda." Here, the word "Al-Qaeda" is being used to denote a function, not a group. But we might note that there are varying degrees of similarities between the group Al-Qaeda and the American Conservative. These similarities include adherence to culturally respective conservative values, radical thinking, oversimplistic view of the world, the belief that they are participating in the battle between good and evil, limited thinking, and a lack of concern for the collateral damage that adherence to their values cause.

This comparison is not to equate Al-Qaeda with the American Conservative. But where there are similarities between the two, it could not hurt the American Conservative to reflect on those similarities and ponder possible changes.

America And The Deadly Sin Of Gluttony

2009-06-14T21:53:00.004-04:00

There is no official Biblical list of deadly sins, but there is an unofficial well recognized list. Gluttony is one of those sins. It is defined as consuming more food than one needs. In a country that struggles with obesity, gluttony can be assumed to exist. The problem that we Americans have with gluttony is that we only associate gluttony with the consumption of food. We might want to consider whether we Americans are gluttons of other things too. One thing that comes to mind is whether many of us Americans are gluttons of entertainment?

Biblically speaking, consuming too much entertainment has been associated with idolatry. This was the case in Exodus 32 where the people ate, drank, and played. Those people received God's harshest judgment. But there is no reason not to see our excessive enjoyment of as a form of gluttony as well. Consider some of the signs of compulsive eating [1]:

Always thinking about food

Eat to feel better

Continuing to eat even after feeling full

Overeat

Hunger makes you feel vulnerable and uneasy.

The above is just a partial list of signs of compulsive eating. The site goes on to say that if one suffers from at least 3 of the above signs, then you most likely have eating problems. So what should we think if we apply the above signs to our consumption of entertainment. Entertainment, here, includes listening to music, watching TV, going to the movies, watching sporting events, and playing games, all of which can remove us from an unpleasant real world.

The point here is not that entertainment is bad. That is not true. The point is do we consume too much entertainment. One way to determine that is to scan the above list and see if what is said about eating also applies to our consumption of entertainment. Do we

Always think about enjoying some form of entertainment or fun

Enjoy entertainment in order to feel better

Continue to be entertained long after we have been entertained

Consume too much entertainment

Are there times when we are restless when not being entertained

And while we are indulging in entertainment, we should note what is happening in the world around us. How many people in our own towns struggle economically, suffer abuse, experience hunger, and suffer fro health problems. After that, we might want to ask how many people around the world suffer the same. What would the world be like if we spent just a little less time being entertained and more time being involved with a suffering world?

I remember how we were taught to look down on the story of Nero playing music as Rome burned. How much different are many of us from Nero? How many of us seek contentment through entertainment while the world burns.

[1] http://www.freedomyou.com/compulsive_eating/compusive eating signs.htm

Listen To The Neoprophets

2009-01-31T14:16:00.008-05:00

Many American Christians demonstrate a mindless support for Israel. Their support is mindless in that if an action is carried out by Israel, they automatically support it. Many of these same Christians show the same kind of support for actions carried out by the U.S.

The motive for much of this mindless support might be honorable. These fellow Christians practice such a support because they feel they are defending morals, principles, and values. Unfortunately, their actions fall short of their motives. The reason for their failure is that they
identify good and evil with groups rather than in actions practiced. Thus they see Israel and America groups as embodying good and those who oppose Israel and America as evil incarnate.

Much of the theology of these Christians is based on giving a literal interpretation of the Old Testament precedence over the New Testament--this explains why they believe that the land of Palestine belongs to the Jews because they are the physical descendants of Abraham. But there is an Old Testament lesson to be learned here that Jesus had mentioned. That is, in the Old Testament, the chosen people of God often rejected and killed the prophets whom God sent.

When American Christians are so easily offended by the neoprophets, they could be partially reliving the mistakes made by the Jews of the Old Testament. For though these neoprophets are speaking from a rational understanding of Old Testament values rather than from an inspired state; they are often still speaking God's Word to us.

Neoprophets include people like Albert Einstein who saw great dangers in nationalism and war, Noam Chomsky who points out the hypocrisy of America's and Israel's actions, Rev Wright who itemizes America's moral failures, and Martin Luther King who fought for economic justice, a very relevant topic for today, and against militarism. Neoprophets like these are often ignored, denounced, or selectively listened to.

Unfortunately, there is a price to pay for rejecting or ignoring these neoprophets just as there was a price to pay when God's people ignored the prophets of old. Chalmers Johnson, another neoprophet, stated that we would go bankrupt because of the military expenses of maintaining our empire. Worldwide terrorism has been increasing since the invasion of Iraq and we, because of our economy, are becoming more vulnerable. Finally, what will we do once technology fulfills its promise of giving us a war to end all wars? Will this final war occur because we have refused to learn from history? All of these current and future trials have been predicted by the neoprophets.

There is a solution. That solution is to cut the cord that we have artificially constructed between our countries and our values. That means we are to have a Biblical view of people. The Bible says that all have sinned and that all are equally subject to God's laws. Another way to describe the solution is to quote another neoprophet, Norman Finkelstein, when he said:

"I don't support states, I support principles." (watch Finkelstein's comments on Gaza).

When we join Finkelstein as he makes the distinction between states and principles, we will have broken with the pattern that many Old Testament Israelis followed; that is we will have listened and repented after hearing messengers from God. Hopefully, it is not too late.

Agatha Christie And The 10 Commandments

2008-09-29T11:40:00.008-04:00

The following poem is about taking an Agatha Christie approach to the 10 commandments. See if you can guess where each commandment is being referenced.

10 great commandments
but with a self-image so fine,
when it came time to worship
we bowed down to 9.

9 great commandments
but with activity so great,
when we could have had rest
we settled for 8.

8 great commandments
but with no knowledge of heaven,
when we did address God
we swore there were 7.

7 great commandments
but our hands worked so quick
to make glorious images
and an alter for 6.

6 great commandments
but were not feeling alive,
so we lusted for others
and loved only 5.

5 great commandments
but thinking we're poor,
we kept up with the Joneses
by covetting 4.

4 great commandments
but not not feeling free,
we neglected our parents
while honoring 3.

3 great commandments
but with nothing to do,
we helped spread a rumor
having heard there were 2.

2 great commandments
and would not be outdone,
so we stole from the needy
and left only 1.

1 great commandment
and with no need for a gun,
our words became weapons
and now there are none.

No great commandments
and isn't it odd;
now that we have what we've wanted
it is time to face God.

What my fellow Christians who want to publicly post the 10 commandments must realize is that, according to the NT, the first purpose of the 10 commandments is to show us our sin. So rather than looking at the 10 commandments with pride, the 10 commandments should cause us to look at ourselves with shame. But not only should the commandments cause us to look at ourselves with shame, they should prevent us from looking down on others because we are in as much need of mercy as anyone else. If we were to take seriously this first purpose of the 10 commandments, we would be met with much less resistance when preaching the same commandments.

Sunni vs Shia American Style

2008-09-03T22:10:00.018-04:00

While living in relative comfort, we Americans are often confused by why there is so much fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Of course, part of our confusion is because we are ignorant of important details. Because of our ignorance, we often oversimplify the problem and make inaccurate generalizations regarding both Shiites and Sunnis.

Despite that, there are problems between some Shiites and some Sunnis that should not puzzle us and about which we should not be self-righteous because we have our own religious divide right here in the US. Our divide is not between any of our religious groups such as Catholics and Protestants or between Christians and Jews. Rather, our great divide is between Republicans and Democrats and this division cannot be any more glaring than during this election year.

But how can one compare the current power struggle between Republicans and Democrats with the bloody Sunni-Shiite battles that are full of violence? We cannot. But we can compare our Republican vs Democrat contests with Sunni-Shiite battles when it comes to religion. We saw the religious fervor of both the Republicans and Democrats at their respective conventions.

What went on the Republican and Democratic conventions? The conventions included mindless cheering, singing, and emotional calls to loyalty to their candidates, parties and country and the atmosphere was far more intense than any spirit of worship I have witnessed in all of the Churches I have ever attended combined.

What is the object of their worship? It is our country of course and die hard Democrats and rabid Republicans wanted to show the nation that their expressions of patriotism were more holy and faithful than that of their counterparts.

The Democrats started first with a theme that is similar to what Bush promised during the 2000 Presidential campaign. As Bush promised to restore dignity and honor to the White House, so the Democrats promise to restore America as the hope for democracy and mankind. And as Obama described how he would reestablish America's place in the world, many Democrats cheered and waved small American flags.

The Republicans responded with their own show of worship of country. With a huge American flag shown on a giant screen behind their speakers, many convention delegates held signs that echoed the theme of both their convention and McCain's message. That theme was "Country First."

What cannot be missed was that these themes are religious statements according to the Bible. For example, the prophet Jeremiah warns us that those who trust in man are cursed while those who trust in God are blessed. Jeremiah's message is clear. one cannot trust in both (Jeremiah 17:5-7). In the Old Testament, the hope of Israel was never the nation of Israel; it was God.

We should also note, for those who held signs saying "Country First," that God does not smile on those who put anything else first before Him. The first two commandments given to Moses are very clear as to who should be first. According to Moses in Exodus 20:1-6, we are not to have any gods or make any likeness for worship--like an eagle. What is ironic here is that the party that claims to know the most about God promoted the breaking of the first two commandments by putting their country first.

Now worshiping one's country does not show that a similar divide exists between Republicans and Democrats as exists between some Sunni and Shiites. But the disdain that convention attendees showed for their counterparts does. Democrats looked down on their Republican counterparts for their moral failures of not caring for those in need and for condoning and practicing torture, their economic policies that benefit the rich and hurt the rest of the country, their rush into an unnecessary war, and their assault on the Constitution.

But despite what the Democrats said, ironically, the most mean-spirited and belittling statements were made by the religiously righteous Republicans. And the object of the Republicans' scorn was not just what could legitimately be thought of as being legitimate Democratic faults such as their moral relativity or their perceived reluctance to use the military to defend the nation; the Republicans viciously attacked community organizers by stating that their work carried no responsibilities. But that is not the only expression of hatred that some Republicans have for Democrats. I would add, from my blog experiences, that SOME of these conservatives demand that all Democrats should be arrested for treason.

Much of the self-adoration and the denunciations against counterparts made by both Republicans and Democrats could be easily dismissed if it were not for an implication that results from either hoping for America to reclaim its position as the hope for democracy and mankind or putting your country first when making decisions. The inescapable conclusion of both of these themes is that whatever leadership we vote in, our military adventurism and exercises in empire will be placed above all accountability. That is because if America is the hope of man and Democracy, our leaders must be free to do whatever they think is necessary to protect the Free World from its enemies. And if our decisions are guided by the principle "Country First," then there is no other law by which our decisions can be judged. After all, when one's nation is one's god, there are no laws limiting how one can defend it.

Faith Or Patriotism

2008-07-25T22:17:00.005-04:00

One has to wonder what has happened to American Christian Fundamentalism. In the last blog entry, it was clearly pointed out that, by words and example, Jesus calls his followers to serve rather than rule. And yet, it is the latter action that is often advocated or sought after by many American Christian Fundamentalists. Believing that America is the world's last refuge for freedom, as has been suggested by moralists like Bill Bennett, many American Fundamentalists have accepted this mantle knowing that privileges follow. The desire for a privileged position over others is not in keeping with serving others, it is part of ruling over others and thus goes against the message of Jesus.

There is another way by which American Christian Fundamentalists have lost their way. They are drifting when they allow their sense of patriotism to become as important as their faith. This especially true because pride itself, which includes patriotic pride, is a contradiction to faith. We've have recently been reminded of patriotic pride at the beginning of this month with the celebration of the 4th of July. Our sense of patriotic pride is often appealled to by presidential candidates during an election year to get our votes.

In Romans 3, Paul concludes his argument started in Romans 1 telling us that because of sin, we can only be saved by faith in God's work as opposed to being saved by our own performance. And since we have been saved by what someone else has done for us, Paul, in Romans 3:27, emphatically states that "boasting" cannot be allowed because of the "law of faith."

The above passage in Romans is not the only place where pride is addressed in the Scriptures. I John 2:16 reminds us that having the "pride of life" means that one does not have the love of God. But despite the contradiction between pride and faith or being proud and having the love of God, American Fundamentalists not only embrace patriotic pride, they often make it apart of their worship services.

Our patriotic pride not only contradicts our faith and opposes God's love, patriotic pride pushes us to support our country's immoral actions as we would root for a sports team's efforts to win a game only patriotic pride supports our country's use of violence. When under the spell of patriotism, we judge actions, especially military actions, not by values and principle but by partisanship. When our terrorist enemies commit crimes, we rightfully condemn their actions; but when our troops do the same, we justify or rationalize their actions. Why? Because pride either demands that we vicariously praise ourselves by supporting the troops or avoid guilt by refusing to look in the mirror.

Not all Fundamentalists have the same tendency to embrace patriotic pride as American Fundamentalists. But the issue is not who embraces patriotic pride but whether that pride is good for us. Certainly the whole Bible speaks against pride as much, if not more, as it speaks against sexual sins. But not only that, we see that patriotic pride leads us to support violence and other immoral actions.

Does Peace Come From Ruling Or Serving?

2008-06-18T10:23:00.007-04:00

Matthew 20:20-28 tells an all too human story in the Gospels. The mother of two of Jesus' disciples came to him asking for a particular honor for her sons; she wanted her sons to have the seats of honor in Jesus' kingdom. After Jesus answered her, the others became angry. It was then that Jesus identified key factors to spreading both peace and conflict.

Jesus said that we should not "lord it over" others as the Gentiles do but instead, we should become like him. He said that:

"the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

The contrast that Jesus draws is stark. While those who were then counted as outside of God's community of people sought honor by dominating others, the King of Kings came to give the ultimate service for all.

While we could charge people to follow Jesus' words and example here, perhaps we should first employ these verses as a barometer. That is we can tell those who are serving themselves from those who are following Jesus by checking to see if they are ruling over rather than serving others. So is the US serving Iraq or themselves when our oil companies are negotiating for no-bid contracts? And they are doing so because our gov't, having failed to move the Iraqi Parliament to privatize Iraqi oil reserves, influenced the Iraqi Oil Minister to privatize the same reserves so that they can be controlled by foreign companies.

How does this lesson relate to peace? Control and domination bring unnecessary conflict. We know this because we know how we respond to control. And yet, when it comes to our country's foreign policies, this lesson often remains unlearned. This is because since we have idealized, or idolized, our country, we interpret resistance to our nation's control as hating our freedoms, and in a sense, that is correct. People from other countries hate our assumed freedom to rule over them as we are doing in Iraq. Of course, those who insist on worshiping at the alter of American patriotism insist that others need our direction for their own good.

Such patriots show that they are either reading impaired with regards to the Bible or are following what Jesus described was the example of the godless--remember that they sought greatness by becoming tyrants. Of course, tyrant is a strong word to those seeking control; but to those who are being dominated, it is apropos.

Do we really want peace? Then we should insist that our country's foreign policies serve rather than control others. In this, we would be following Jesus. This will not eliminate all of our conflicts but it will decrease the number of our enemies because we will no longer be fighting those who resist our control. And who knows, maybe setting such an example of service would catch on which would make us leaders, by example that is.

When Taking The First Step To Peace, Follow Jesus

2008-06-10T22:37:00.006-04:00

A long, long time ago, there was an epic battle between Good and Evil. Good was more powerful and thus it had a choice. Good could have resorted to using force to annihilate evil but decided not to. Rather, Good decided to live in peace with Evil. Good didn't want to appease Evil but Good didn't want to destroy Evil either. So what did Good do?

Romans 5:6-10 tells us how Good won without appeasing evil. In particular, verse 10 tells us that while we were Good's enemies, Good reconciled us by having his Son die for us. So what we have today are followers of Good who were once evil.

The problem that is occurring is that Good's followers are not treating others as they have been treated. Rather than trying to be reconciled with those who have proclaimed themselves to be their enemies, Good's followers have decided that they must use all of their strength to destroy evil. As a result, Good's followers, and the rest of us, are now engaged in two wars and will possibly be fighting a third one. And how do they defend their behavior? These followers claim that, like a leopard's spots, evil cannot change.

But despite these actions by Good's followers, Good's example of how to win over enemies still stands. And so the question becomes why don't Good's followers follow Good's example? The answer might be that doing so would be too costly. For example, in describing Good's Son and what he would have to go through, part of Isaiah 53: 4 says:

"Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows he carried;"

Feeling the pain of others was the first installment that Good's Son had to pay so that Evil could be changed and reconciled. And perhaps in this world where we learn to crave comfort and enjoy escaping, following the example that Good's Son provided has become too costly. So instead of being bothered by the troubles of others, we prefer to believe that Evil cannot change and thus our only solution is to eliminate it by force. But in so doing, we forget how we have been both treated and changed.

It is not that we can change everyone who is evil, but we will never know who can be changed and thus saved without treating others as we have been treated. To care for others as we have been cared for, we must start with understanding what they are going through and being disturbed by what they suffer.

Revolution Today Or Death Tomorrow

2008-06-09T10:42:00.000-04:00

Calling all Mathematicians! The following problem is the most important Math problem to solve today. The train of the lessons learned from history is leaving from the East traveling West at so many miles per hour. On the same track, the train of an ever advancing and adulterous technology is leaving from the West traveling East at so many miles per hour. When will these two trains meet? The answer to this question tells us how long we have left on this earth.

From the East starts the train of the lessons learned from History. What are those lessons? Actually, there is only one lesson and that is, as others have said, we have not learned from history. What haven't we learned? Despite the horrors of war, we have not learned how to live without it.

From the West starts the train of technology. This train contains the know-how to make every tool that betters our lives. But this train also carries the WMDs that threaten our existence. It is obvious that technology is advancing because our toys, both tools and weapons, are more powerful. And though we often find comfort in our technological edge over our adversaries, we shouldn't. Why? We should be uncomfortable because our technology today can be someone else's technology tomorrow. That is the adulterous nature of technology.

The only chance we have of avoiding this cataclysmic train collision is to derail one of these trains. Which train should we derail? It cannot be the train of technology. The train of technology is transporting necessary cargo for our survival as well as destructive cargo. Also, past attempts to derail the WMD part of this train have proven to be counterproductive. For example, according to Richard Wilson, a former Chair of the Department of Physics at Harvard, Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak seemed to start Saddam's nuclear weapons program rather than halt it (http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/OSIRAK(2)). Our invasion of Iraq is another example where an attempt to selectively derail the train of technology, it was claimed that Iraq was developing WDMs, was counterproductive because terrorism increased afterwards (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html).

So our only hope for survival is to derail the train carrying the lessons learned from history. To do this, we will have to learn History's most important lesson that war does not work. We will have to do so quickly because these two trains could collide at any moment. So, what we really need is a revolution if we are to survive.

What must we change? We must eliminate those factors that start conflicts. The first thing we need to change is our addiction to groupism. Groupism is where we are more loyal to a group than to moral values. We can tell that our country is controlled by groupism when our government supports the same aggressive actions performed by our allies that it condemns when done by our adversaries. A variation of this form of groupism can be seen when Israelis are apathetic to the plight of the Palestinians and yet call for the death of Arabs after innocent Israelis are murdered. Palestinians return the favor when they vow vengeance after their own are killed while they rejoice when Israelis are killed.

Another sign that we are carrying out groupism is when our loyalty to a group limits our choices. Examples of this expression of groupism could be constantly seen in the Cold War when our nation would back all sorts of repressive regimes that were not communistic rather than find an alternative approach. Now groupism also applies to individuals. In 2004, I encountered numerous Kerry voters who agreed more with Nader than Kerry. So why didn't they vote for Nader? It was because they were Democrats. Sure they said that Nader didn't have a chance to win but Nader didn't have a chance to win because too few Democrats were going to break ranks to vote for someone else. This type of groupism shows a preference for power and control over values.

Defeating groupism will be difficult. Groups give us a sense security and significance. Not only that, many of us were raised on groupism. Groupism started for us with rooting for hometown and school sports teams and then it affects how we register to vote. A possible result of this is that we expect our government to rely on groupism too. But unless we are willing to limit our affection and allegiance to any group, our groupism will distract us from promoting equality and will push us into presuming we are superior. If we think we are superior, we will feel entitled and will try to dominate. The result of groupism is that its victims resist control and feel enraged when favoritism trumps fairness and justice.

We must also undo our addiction to materialism. At the worst, our materialism habit causes us to hoard resources and wealth. The more we accumulate for ourselves, the less there is for others. The less there is for others, the more we, or our mercenaries, must dominate so we can keep what we have because the result of our hoarding oppresses the have-nots.

At the least, our materialism becomes an escape from a disturbing world. That is our possessions provide a comfortable cocoon in which to live. When we live in that cocoon, we are shielded from the suffering of have-nots. At this point, a law of physics takes over. That law states that an object that lives in comfort, stays in comfort. People who do not live in comfort, however, are not bound by that law.

If we are to overcome this materialism, then we must prefer to accumulate connections with others to amassing riches. And the most meaningful connections we can accumulate are those that include people in need. In other words, we, as individuals and as a nation, need to put a higher priority on sharing than getting or controlling. If we do more than superficially share, we just might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

Finally, we must forsake the all or nothing thinking that says that one is either for us or against us. Though Bush made this approach popular, the origin of this all or nothing thinking goes back to the start of the Cold War. This all or nothing thinking trapped us into deciding to attack leftist regimes rather than work with them. Overthrowing Iran's Parliamentary government in 1953 because it was seen as moving towards Communism when it planned to nationalize oil resources caused a tragic chain reaction of events and failed decisions that we still are suffering through today. Instead of seeing nations or people as being polar opposites, we need to see that all of us are on different locations on the same continuum. The implication here is that we can better avoid or resolve conflicts when we recognize common concerns and values we have with adversaries.

Though we need a revolution today to prevent the two trains from colliding, we do not need a violent revolution that overthrows the government; violence is what we want to eliminate because it will be self-destructive. Rather, we need a revolution that calls on us to change as much as it demands that our government change. And though people will call this kind of revolution naive; if this revolution fails and the two trains meet, then life on earth as we know it will be called utopian.