Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Ahh...Goofy, but Brilliant

Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show, nailed the mainstream media's insatiable appetite for sensationalism, catch-twenty-two's, and double standards in this satirical-bit from last night's show. It's funny, don't be offended. :)




As the media indulges in the "mint-chocolate chip" subterfuge of the moment, can the rest of us get back to discussing real issues and not guilt by association. Yes, Wright crossed the line and squandered the opportunity to be a sane critic of Babylonian-esqu aspects of America, but must Barack Obama account for all of this? He came out and denounced the comments. Can't we hold him accountable for ISSUES. All the candidates are guilty of "association" with the "wrong" people. There are plenty of reasons voters can justifiably disagree with Obama and vote for someone else, and I respect that. But the mainstream media is doing a grave disservice to republicans, democrats, and everyone in between by continually distracting us with fake controversies and under-reporting the real issues that plague our country.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

What Would Reagan Do?

"Don't be afraid to see what you see."--Ronald Reagan


"What would Reagan do?" That seems to be the standard among conservatives these days. Reagan's apparent brand of conservatism has become the ruler by which all other aspriring conservative leaders must be measured. Yesterday, I actually defended John McCain, not because he is my pick, quite the contrary actually, but because of the way he is being criticized by "hardcore conservatives." If they whip out the Ronald Reagan card one more time, I'm going to puke.

It's as if a collective amnesia plagues conservatives, in which they can only recall the big promises, high ideals, the inspiring speeches, and then completely disregard Reagan's actual ACTIONS once he got into office. I'm not implying that Reagan was a liar or a bad guy, but like most Presidents, he learned to compromise (such a dirty word, gasp!) and worked with the "other side" because the other side is comprised of Americans, too. But Reagan's legacy is being held up as proof that real conservatives will support deporting all illegal immigrants, will NEVER raise taxes, will slash government 'entitlement' programs, will drastically reduce the size of the federal governemnt, will appoint judges that are committed to make abortion illegal (I wish that one were true), and would NEVER "cut-and-run" like those cowardly democrats.

But consider these aspects of Reagan's Presidency:

On Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is the hot-button topic among conservatives (and the most potent reason for their opposition to McCain). Ironically, Reagan not only supported a pathway for illegal aliens to earn citizenship, but signed "amnesty" into law in 1986. Does this quote sound like something current conservatives would jive with?

“We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”--Ronald Reagan, upon signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Reagan's immigration stance was not an automatic path to citizenship. The legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam, and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the bill John McCain supported to promote a secured border, take away incentives for employers to hire illegals, but also provide a pragmatic solution for long-time illegals to earn citizenship through a series of fines, going to "the back of the line" for citizenship, having to maintain employment, etc. etc.

Black's Law Dictionary even notes that "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."

On Abortion

Reagan signed California's 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act on June 14, 1967. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the implications of Roe v. Wade.

Once Reagan was President, he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. This move puzzled and dismayed conservatives (especially the Jerry Falwell crowd that campaigned for Regean in the hopes that he would do everything within his power to make abortion illegal).

Joshua Green, editor of Washington Monthly, recalls the confusion and opposition over Reagan's unexpected judicial appointment:

President Reagan, however, did not govern as radically as candidate Reagan preached. Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor infuriated conservatives, who doubted her commitment to eradicating abortion and blasted her support for the Equal Rights Amendment. Michael K. Deaver, the image-oriented deputy chief of staff, and a principal White House pragmatist, said the president liked O’Connor’s “kind of moderate approach'' because ''she had not been an activist'' regarding the ERA issue or abortion. Delighting in the man-bites-dog political twist, the Washington Post headline proclaimed: “REAGAN CHOICE FOR COURT DECRIED BY CONSERVATIVES BUT ACCLAIMED BY LIBERALS."

On Taxes

1982: Reagan signed into law two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in the National Review: "According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."

1983: Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that is still in place. It initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year. In

Bruce Barlett also admits that:

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

Joshua Green adds,

He [Reagan] did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

On "Cut-and-Running..."

How history repeats itself.
And because history repeats itself, it's imperative that people living in the present do not forget it or rewrite it to accomadate our own agendas. Instead of turning flawed human beings into untouchable, idealistic figure heads to sanctify our own ideology, we should learn from the mistakes of the past, learn the difference between principle-clad rhetoric and real-life dilemmas that are no where near as cut and dry or always require the same response. We should recognize that such labels as "conservative" and "liberal" are broad terms, subject to debate, and leave room for some diversity. Geesh, Ronald Reagan himself doesn't even live up to "Ronald Reagan Conservatism!"

So, know what you believe, know why you believe it, and be fair to those with whom you disagree.

Friday, February 8, 2008

LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

"Facts are stubborn things,"--Ronald Reagan

I am about to defend John McCain. Yes, me, the "liberal," who will not even give my vote to McCain (for a number of reasons), is about to defend him and "dethrone" the Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan. The far-right is throwing such a temper tantrum over the prospect of John McCain becoming the republican presidential nominee that they have resorted to shock antics (big surprise), slander (bigger surprise), and rewriting history.

I take no issue with people who honestly disagree with John McCain's politics. I disagree with many of John McCain's politics myself (probably for different reasons than my more conservative friends). Conservatives who disagree with McCain should ABSOLUTELY voice their opposition, but it should be done in a civil, logical, and HONEST fashion . Alas, this is a foreign concept for the far-right pundits (ann coulter, rush limbaugh, laura ingram, sean hannity, michelle malkin, etc.) that have made it their mission to discredit everything about Senator McCain anyway they can.

From claiming McCain is masquerading as a republican but is really more liberal than Hillary Clinton (they dropped the dreaded 'L-bomb' on Senator McCain), to belittling his 'honor' as a WILLING prisoner of war, to claiming Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at the thought of McCain becoming the new face of republicanism, wild claims have erupted from the furthest far-right corners of the republican party.

Just to quickly clear up the "Hillary and McCain are the same" complaint: the American Conservative Union gives John McCain a lifetime grade of 83 percent on conservatism (Since 2005 he's rated with an 80). By contrast, Hillary Clinton scores 9 percent on conservatism. So yes, he is a moderate. He is willing to work with people on the other side of the political isle (which is necessary to actually get things done. Part of the reason America can't seem to get anything done is because our political parties are SO polarized). Conservatives are completely entitled to disagree with McCain, but to claim that McCain is Hillary Clinton's political twin is just factually FALSE.

While personal attacks and slander are usually what drives me insane, it's the rewriting-of-history offense this time that is making my blood boil. For all you political junkies out there, I'm sure you've noticed how most of the republican candidates have been worshipping at the altar of "Ronald Reagan Republicanism." In every debate, they ooow and aahh, while reminiscing over his legacy and pledge to revive Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism. They are one step away from sporting a "What Would Reagan Do?" bracelet. That EXACT question has been posed several times during these debates. (gag)

In light of Ronald Reagan lifted up as the beacon of "true conservatism," the claims that John McCain just doesn't measure up become all the more bizarre. Ronald Reagan's legacy has become so legendary among conservatives, that it has now crossed over into the realm of myth. The memory of Ronald Reagan has become a puppet for far-right pundits to dangle beside their pet agendas, to justify them as marks of "true conservatism." Ronald Reagan's name gets tossed around constantly to advocate stances on massive deportation of illegal aliens, lowering taxes, massively minimizing the federal government, eliminating 'entitlement' programs, illegalizing abortion (that one, I support), and to denounce a "cut-and-run" (another loaded term) response to war.

But a quick and honest study of Ronald Reagan's legacy will reveal that John McCain is more in line with Reagan's politics than the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

(The following is not meant to denigrate Ronald Reagan, but to show the hypocrisy employed by conservative bullies and to show that a person can hold a variety of positions and still remain a conservative.) Here are some facts about Ronald Reagan that are conveniently forgotten in conservative circles that I will elaborate on in a follow-up post tomorrow.

He supported "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

He raised taxes numerous times.

He pulled a "cut-and-run" from Beirut in 1983.

He signed legislation in 1967 (BEFORE ROE V.WADE) that made abortion LEGAL in California.

Supported a bi-partisan effort to fund Social Security (another entitlement program) to save it from bankruptcy in 1983

The size of Federal Government EXPANDED during his administration.

He appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the supreme court, who made no commitment to overturn roe v. wade and who supported the Equal Rights Amendment (legislation conservatives and EVANGELICALS loathed).


More to come....

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Love Is In The Air!

I'm in love with Anderson Cooper, there I said it!

I used to love Bill O'Reilly, umm, in a more, shall we say, platonic sort of way? :) But sadly, Bill has lost his ever-loving mind with the war on christmas (that gets longer and longer every year) and sensationalizes the "culture war," becoming a polarizing force, instead of a balanced one.

So, lately I've been watching some Anderson Cooper over at CNN, and well, I loveth him. He's smart, articulate, passionate but respectful, and he let's his guests talk (a novel idea!). He consistently puts forth multiple points of view and questions positions and issues without belittling or demonizing people. Oh, and he's not just a talking head that sits behind a desk and reads from a prompter. He's brave. He's been all over the world, voluntarily going into war zones and unstable regions to shed light on pressing current events.

And seriously, look at those eyes! :)

So, he might be going into my top five. (Friends fans, you know what that means, wink).

Anyway, that's my plug for A-Coop. He's breath of fresh air among the increasingly sensational, slanted, and cowardly mainstream media.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Ann Coulter Endorses Hillary Clinton?

It's no secret that I find Ann Coulter's political views and public demeanor to be an inflammatory polarizing force, as well as an utter embarrassment to all fair minded people (dems and repubs alike). She shamelessly demonizes democrats and gives the good-hearted, reasonable republicans a bad name by pretending to speak for all them. But I have to concede this...she's freaking unpredicatable. I did not see this one coming...



You know you can't go any further down the right wing, when even John McCain is too "liberal" to get your vote. I respect John McCain and share some commonground with him, but the precise reasons I most likely will not be voting for him are for some of his more "conservative" stances, not because he's too liberal! (I hate to have to brand some of these issues as liberal/conservative because many of the issues trandscend partisanship and find support/opposition on both sides, but when it comes to talking about Ann Coulter, she doesn't leave much room for any other labels, eh?)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Politics Has It's Limits!

I am a political person. The role of politics is an important one. However, it has severe limitations, as does government (I'm sure that made my conservative friends happy). Regardless of who becomes President in 2008, real long-term change comes from the bottom up. There's good news and bad news to this reality. The bad news is that placing all of our hopes in a single leader to implement long lasting change in our country and around the world is unrealistic. The good news is that the people at the bottom (you and me), everyday ordinary people can be freed from banking all our national visions on the lesser of two evils. We can make the difference. We can make change--even in the muck and mire of partisan politics. Jim Wallis pinpoints this exciting opportunity in the following article.



And buy his new book, "The Great Awakening." :) (It's the follow-up to God's Politics).

Friday, January 4, 2008

Obama and Huckabee: Do These Winners Reflect You?

The following videos are of Barack Obama's and Mike Huckabee's victory speeches last night after winning the IOWA primaries. Obama was a semi-surprise, since many were expecting Mrs. Clinton to sweep the state and Huckabee was near miraculous, since the front runners were deemed to be Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what you all think of all the presidential candidates, who you're leaning towards, and what issues matter most to you. I think it would be a good learning experience for me (and maybe some readers) to gain some insight to who and what issues matter to people of faith. So, please, weigh in with your thoughts on these two first victors, their speeches, and any other thoughts you may have on the 2008 elections! Peace!












Here are the records, quotes, and ratings for both winners from On The Issues:
Huckabee
Obama

Here's an article from Sojourner's Jim Wallis on both candidates' victories and what our calling as a people of faith entails, no matter who ends up in the White House. Change Won In Iowa

Saturday, December 29, 2007

One Preacher, Eleven Presidents

"Those who believe that religion and politics are not connected do not understand either"--Mahatma Ghandi

Billy Graham became a larger-than-life icon for millions of evangelicals during the last seven decades. He is believed to have physically addressed more people in more places than anyone else in history, preaching the gospel to more than 210 million people, in 185 countries in 417 crusades! But becoming the first global ambassador for Christ is not the only unique role in Graham's life; he has also personally known, befriended, and counseled 11 U.S. Presidents in a row, from Harry S. Truman all the way down to George W. Bush. Think of all the history that has unfolded in the last fifty years: the Korean war, the cold war, the cuban missle crisis, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, the women's movement, the student movement, the Iranian hostage crisis, roe v. wade, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and Robert Kennedy, the emerging drug culture, counterculture, 9/11, etc. etc. Through it all, Billy Graham has been in the unique position to appeal to each sitting President from a spiritual foundation, offer counsel, prayer, and strict confidentiality. The story is a fascinating and sobering tale.

The Preacher and The Presidents: Billy Graham's White House Crusade, by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, journalists for TIME magazine, who conducted multiple interviews over the course of a year with Billy Graham, chronicles the political aspect of Graham's ministry during the past fifty-odd years. Gibbs and Duffy, who remain surprisingly fair and objective, skillfully relate Graham's remarkable tale of spiritual counsel and influence on the world's most powerful leaders. Alas, influence comes at a price. Graham's sincere faith in both God and our nation's leaders led to occasions of political manipulation, over estimating certain presidents' character (hi, Nixon), and blind spots to the corruption that all too often accompanies power. However, Graham's humble demeanor, willingness to admit failure, and relentless pursuit of God's grace for all people set a higher example that far outweighs any shortcomings of his half-century ministry.

Gibbs and Duffy describe Graham as displaying a rare and unique quality:

"Sincerity, like a paint stripper, removing any pretense and pride. He volunteered regrets before we probed for them...He was perfectly transparent about his own failures, but slow to pass judgment on anyone else. 'We are all sinners,' he said, 'in search of grace.'"

In addition to depicting Graham's relationship with our nation's leaders, the book also reveals new dimensions to our Presidents' spiritual side, or lack there of, in some cases. Presidents, like all people, wrestle with matters of faith, and it is intriguing to see how that personal battle intersects with public leadership, policy, and the political machine that seeks to exploit it.

From influencing Eisenhower to push for "under God" to be added to the pledge of allegience to helping sow peace between race relations under John F. Kennedy and Linden B. Johnson, to counseling the Clintons after Bill's very public affair to witnessing to George W. Bush, Billy Graham, like no one else, has faithfully ministered (for better or for worse) to the most powerful men in the world. His story is well worth the read.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

A Skeptic's Crash Course on Global Poverty

"Poor people die not only because of the world's indifference to the poor, but also because of the ineffective efforts of those who do care."--William Easterly

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"--Helder Camara


The Skeptic's Guide To Global Poverty, compiled by Dale Hanson Bourke, is a must read introductory analysis of Global Poverty, articulately summing up all its many facets, taking on the toughest frequently asked questions by everyday people about this crisis--how bad it is, why so many people are poor, who's responsible to help, the misconceptions, how poverty happens, how it grows, what the contributing factors are, and how best to help. This pithy 100 page book provides a vast amount of overwhelming statistics and information on everything from third world poverty to American poverty, AIDS to Malaria/Tuberculousis, hunger to gluttony, debt relief to trade reform, governmental responsibility to private responsibility, capitalism at its best to capitalism at its worst, economic factors to environmental factors, and social factors to political factors.

Dale Hanson Bourke remarks:

Being poor, it turns out, is much more complicated than lack of money. Poverty runs deep into the family and community, robbing individuals and whole societies of life-saving information, health-care, food, and water. Poverty robs individuals not only of security and health, but also dignity. A poor person is often too busy surviving the present to spend much time thinking about the future. Yet, the poor have dreams--especially for their children--much like ours... But just as knowledge is power to the poor, it is also power to those of us who are relatively rich. We can make a difference, but we have to understand more. We need to be smarter about poverty.

This book provides an excellent beginning to the understanding of this dire complex issue, the kind of understanding that breeds focus, direction, and action.

The following are some of the statistics from the book that I found most revealing/shocking:

  • Poverty and hunger claim 25,000 lives EVERY day
  • Nearly HALF of the world's population live on LESS than $2 a day

  • The combined economies of ALL 48 sub-Saharan African countries are about the same as the CITY of Chicago

  • Over 80 percent of Americans believe the government gives 20% of the federal budget to foreign aid, when the US gives LESS than 1 percent and only a small part of that 1 percent goes to alleviate poverty

  • The GDP of the poorest 48 NATIONS is less than the combined wealth of the world's three richest people!

  • 20 percent of the population in the developed world consumes 86 percent of the world's goods. America makes up 6 percent of the world's population and consumes 43 percent of the world's resources!

  • 6 million children under the age of five die every year of malnutrition
There are more than 2,000 verses in scripture that deal with caring for the poor. As imitators of Christ, it is imperative to educate ourselves on global poverty, so we can commit ourselves to the most effective methods to alleviate needless suffering and death among our fellow human beings. I recommend this book because it is a small starting line to the long marathon ahead of us as a people of faith, as the living body of Christ.

"'He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?' declares the LORD."--Jeremiah 22:16

Monday, December 10, 2007

Which Story Shapes Your Worldview?

The following article, "The Story We Tell Ourselves," written by Brian Mclaren appeared in last month's issue of Sojourners/Call To Renewal Magazine. It struck a chord with me by reminding that the lives we live, the choices we make, the realities we accept, the action we take, or the indifference we cultivate, are all framed by our perspective of the world, the story in which we find ourselves. As Christians, what are our perspectives shaped by? Do we rely on God's story of the kind of kingdom He yearns to be established here on earth? Are our perspectives tainted by the world's stories of political ideologies, nationalism, power, fear, violence, greed, practicality, despair, distrust, etc.?

The Stories We Tell Ourselves
By Brian McLaren

Any society or civilization at any given time lives by a dominant framing story, a story that gives its common life a coherent shape and direction. That story will no doubt evolve and adapt over time, for better or for worse, borrowing from or reacting to the stories of its neighbors. To understand a society, then, and certainly to change it, we must make its covert framing story more overt and realize its power—sometimes awe-inspiring, sometimes awful.

For example, if our framing story tells us that we humans are godlike beings with godlike privileges—intelligent and virtuous creatures outside a limited environment of time and space, without potentially fatal flaws—we will have no reason to acknowledge or live within limits, whether moral or ecological. Similarly, if our framing story tells us that the purpose of life is for individuals or nations to accumulate an abundance of possessions and to experience the maximum amount of pleasure during the maximum number of minutes of our short lives, then we will have little reason to manage our consumption.

But if our framing story tells us that we are free and responsible creatures in a creation made by a good, wise, and loving God, and that our Creator wants us to pursue virtue, collaboration, peace, and mutual care for one another and all living creatures, and that our lives can have profound meaning if we align ourselves with God’s wisdom, character, and dreams for us, then our society will take a radically different direction, and our world will become a very different place.

In this light, our growing list of global crises, together with our inability to address them effectively, gives us strong evidence that our world’s dominant framing stories are failing. We might say that they are too weak. They don’t provide strong enough inspiration and motivation to transcend the greed, class conflict, sexual irresponsibility, ethnic hatred, religious bigotry, or nationalistic militarism that threatens us. We could also say that our framing stories are too strong—but strong in a misguided way, in that they actually catalyze and energize those same self-destructive forces. Either way, we can safely conclude that our societal systems, driven by their framing stories, are perfectly designed to yield the results we are now getting. If we attempt to change the results without changing the system, starting with its framing story, we will fail. Consider how our current dominant story is failing us:

The Prosperity Dysfunction. Our story does not guide us to respect environmental limits, but instead inspires our pursuit of as much resource use and waste production (also known as economic growth) as possible, as fast as possible. As a result, we burn through nonrenewable resources without concern for their eventual disappearance, draw down renewable resources faster than they can be replenished, and produce more waste products than our environment can absorb, manifesting a host of negative symptoms, some realized, others largely invisible to us as yet. Rapid and extravagant resource use (with corresponding waste production) is so profitable for some people that they can avoid or remain in denial about most of these negative symptoms for a very long time. In fact, their “success” makes it highly improbable that they will ever be willing to acknowledge the unsustainability of their way of life.

The Equity Dysfunction. Our framing story does not lead us to work for the common good. Instead, it legitimizes the growing gap between rich and poor in a variety of ways. For example, the story may imply that God has blessed and favored the rich and powerful, or that the poor and vulnerable are lazy and irresponsible and therefore are getting what they deserve. All the while the bellies of the poor and vulnerable ache from hunger, and their children die of treatable diseases. Every social grouping—national, religious, ethnic, tribal, political, social, or educational—is drawn into a vortex of rich/poor conflict. Each group becomes a competing us/them faction that seeks advantage for “us,” not a common good for all.

The Security Dysfunction. Our framing story does not lead these competing factions to reconcile peacefully. Instead we find, nested in the larger framing story shared by both rich and poor, a huge bank of patriotic and religious stories that celebrate how “redemptive violence” has helped good people (“us”) to defeat evil people (“them”) throughout history. Thus when push comes to shove, good people and evil people alike trust violence as the way to peace, and our framing story squelches the search for creative, peaceful alternatives. When more and more nations (or religious or ethnic militias) arm themselves with more and more lethal weapons—not to mention when some groups acquire biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons—everyone feels less secure, and every regional conflict contains the seeds of terrifying escalation, resulting in an increasingly anxious global society. Gradually, the world becomes locked in a vicious cycle of tension between an anxious global empire of the rich and an angry global terrorist revolution of the poor.

ALL ATTEMPTS TO resolve these systemic crises—the prosperity crisis of the planet, the equity crisis of poverty, and the security crisis of peacemaking—fail because they fail to address the fourth crisis, the spirituality crisis of purpose. Tragically, the framing stories that program and drive our societal machinery toward suicide are too frequently aided and abetted by our world’s religions and the various stories they tell. Instead of inspiring us with a framing story of hope (true good news), our religions more often camouflage existing destructive narratives in various religious disguises. They preach a far-reaching covert curriculum of fear and violence; they teach a coherent and comprehensive global “orthodoxy” of greed, self-interest, religious/ethnic/ cultural supremacy, and struggle for domination and conquest.

It is at this profound and pivotal level where Jesus confronts our suicidal system. His essential message, which he called the good news of the kingdom of God, confronts this suicidal societal machinery and seeks to transform it from a suicidal system into a sacred global community. It does so by providing a radical alternative to the dominant framing story that currently drives human society.

To the prosperity system, Jesus says we are fellow creatures in one global ecosystem, created and sustained by God. Jesus calls us to seek the common good, not simply the selfish interests of our own ego, family, religion, race, nation, or species.

To the equity system, Jesus’ good news says we are neighbors in one global community, related to each other as fellow citizens in God’s kingdom. He calls us to seek justice for all so that God’s compassionate will is done on earth as in heaven.

To the security system, Jesus’ message says we are siblings in God’s family, called to reconciliation, not competition or domination. He calls us to be active peacemakers who respond to our enemies through love and service, not victors who eliminate them through revenge or preemptive violence.

Jesus communicates this alternative framing story of the kingdom of God in a variety of ways. First, it comes through parables, artistic works of short fiction that seek to abduct the human imagination from the dominant, destructive, and confining framing story currently at work in human society, and to free human beings to imagine and pursue new possibilities. Second, it comes through dramatic enactments called signs and wonders that convey God’s desire to bring peace and health to humanity through healing rather than war. Third, it comes through his ethical teachings, which should be seen not as laws through which one earns hell or heaven, but rather as practices through which people can seek and participate in God’s kingdom.

Perhaps most powerfully of all, Jesus’ liberating message is embodied in his own life and example, in his interactions with people, and most decisively in his crucifixion and resurrection. As he is misunderstood, arrested, falsely accused, tortured, and crucified, he manifests an unflinching attitude of forgiveness, enacting the essential drama of his story: The evil of human beings may break boundary after boundary, but the grace of God is always wider, deeper, bigger, and more powerful than human wickedness. God’s grace will surely triumph over human evil, and the story of the resurrection celebrates the power of faith to triumph over the machinery of societal suicide.

JESUS CHALLENGED people in his day to stop believing the empire’s empty promises and stop fearing its threats through a brilliant strategy. First he lured its dark machinery into the light, so to speak, so it could be seen for what it was, exposed, named, rejected, and defected from. After praying “your will be done” in the garden of Gethsemane, after choosing self-sacrifice over self-protection, he walked like a lamb into the middle of the forest, so the wolves would come out of the shadows and circle around him. Then he stretched out his neck, as it were, inviting them to pounce, and they did. Ironically, though, as he exposed his own neck, he also exposed their vicious wolfishness and in that way he sabotaged them, defeated them, rendering them ugly and incredible. After all, they could no longer claim to be agents of peace and promise after torturing and killing a good and peaceful man so violently and shamefully.

Just as the wolfish powers breathed a sigh of satisfaction at nailing yet another challenger to a cross, Jesus’ quiet but real resurrection validated to his disciples that the liberating king was not defeated, but rather was on the move, quietly, at the margins, where all revolutions begin. His resurrection told them that Caesar’s muscle couldn’t conquer God’s vulnerability, that Caesar’s spears couldn’t conquer God’s forgiving heart, and that Caesar’s whips and nails and crosses couldn’t overcome God’s way of love and reconciliation.

So in the shadow of Caesar’s ruthless kingdom, witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection could never live by Caesar’s framing story again. It had become disgusting to them, despicable, pathetic, exposed. Liberated from Caesar’s false promises and fear, they chose to live in the framing story of a new Lord, in his “in-but-not-of-this-world” kingdom, as citizens in his “kingdom from another place,” with headquarters not in Rome but in the heart of God. They withdrew their trust from the domesticating and domesticated narratives and counternarratives that energized the empire, and they chose instead to believe Jesus’ wild, untamed good-news story about the kingdom of God—as a story of hope that could frame and transform a better future.

Perhaps now, with them, we can begin to envision what it would mean for us to confront the suicide machine of our world in the way of Jesus, to expose it and deconstruct it, to intercept its trajectory and turn it to a better way, to reclaim its potential for ends more in line with their original creation. Perhaps we can see ourselves in a new light too, not armed with an ideology but infused with a new imagination, part of a peaceful insurgency seeking to expel a suicidal occupying regime, gardeners working with God to tend the holy ecosystem so it continues to unfold anew day after new day. We can be agents of a secret revolution of hope, a global movement unleashing coordinated, well-planned acts of unterror and healing, producers in a new economy of love—an economy so radical that old terms like capitalism and communism seem like two sides of a confederate coin left over from a fading and discredited regime. Doing so will require one radical, irreplaceable thing in us: faith—faith that the old narrative of domination is suicidal, and that a new story (good news, an invitation to reconciliation) is available if we will only rethink everything and believe it.

Brian McLaren, board chair of Sojourners/ Call to Renewal, is the author of The Secret Message of Jesus and A Generous Orthodoxy, among other books.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Which Candidate Do You Most Align With?



The link below is to a quiz that surveys where and how strongly you stand on most poltical issues and how that corresponds with the candidates running for President. Very interesting quiz....


Which candidate most aligned with your stances?

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Be Part of The Solution

Today is World AIDS Day. AIDS is truly the leprosy of our age. The stigma attached to AIDS has made many victims of this merciless disease stereotyped, outcasted, and belittled, even to the point of being deemed "deserving" of AIDS. The uncontrolled spread of AIDS is devastating much of Africa, Asia, and even parts of America. Here are some statistics from DATA (Debt AIDS, and TRADE for AFRICA) about AIDS and POVERTY in Africa and some practical ways we can help prevent the further spread of AIDS and treat, minister, and bless the ones who have already contracted it. Whatever we do unto the least of these, we do unto Jesus...If we bless, uplift, extend compassion, and sacrifice, we have done so for our brethren and our Lord. If we scoff, rationalize, blame, condemn, or ignore, we forsake our brethren and betray our Lord.




Africa has been hit harder by HIV/AIDS than any other region in the world. Over two-thirds of people living with HIV and over three-quarters of HIV-associated deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2007, some 1.7 million Africans were newly infected with HIV, bringing the region’s total to 22.5 million.

11.4 million African children have already lost one or both parents to AIDS. The disease is not limited to adults- 2.2 million children in sub- Saharan Africa are living with HIV, accounting for 90% of global HIV pediatric cases. Most of these children are infected by their mothers during childbirth because few HIV-infected pregnant women have access to antiretroviral medication that can drastically reduce mother-to-child transmission. Once born with the disease, only 13% of these children have access to HIV treatment. Beyond the risk to themselves and their families, millions of children are losing their teachers, nurses and friends too. Businesses are losing their workers, governments are losing their civil servants, families are losing their breadwinners. As a result, entire communities are devastated and economies that are already crippled by poverty, debts and unfair trade policies are further compromised.

Africa is the region most in need of life-saving anti-AIDS drugs, accounting for 4.8 million of the 7.1 million people worldwide in need of ARVs.


"Don't Give Up" by Alicia Keys and Bono


The "Lazarus Effect"

Here are some organizations you could consider supporting to combat AIDS and extreme poverty:

The One Campaign: To Make Poverty History. Visit the link below for more information and to sign the One Campaign Petition.
http://www.one.org/

The One Hit Wonder Campaign (an experiment in collecting just $1 from participants to see how everyday people sacrificing next to nothing can change countless lives if we would just band together).
http://www.onehitwonder.org/

The Red Campaign (businesses have partnered up with the Global Fund, selling an array of (RED) products, the profits from which are donated to the Global Fund. $50 million dollars thus far!
http://joinred.com/

To educate yourself on the AIDS pandemic visit: http://www.data.org/ for up to date statistics and news events.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Good Morals Only Matter for the Opposing Side

"Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo."
--Ambrose Bierce

There's been a lot of buzz this week about Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club, deciding to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President. Now, I like Giuliani and thought he was a superb mayor of NYC and efficiently cleaned up the city. But their is an entire slue of reasons of why I will not be voting for him for President, but alas, that will have to be the topic of another post.

Pat Robertson, whose extreme Zionism, war-mongering, and fire and brimstone antics both scare and embarrass me, is proving my point that Republicanism is TOO intertwined with evangelical Christianity. Even though Giuliani does not line up with any of Robertson's moral agendas (some legit and some bizarre), except possibly bombing some Muslim countries, Robertson is supporting him. This bugs me for a few reasons. Mostly because if Giuliani was a democrat, Robertson would most certainly be publicly praying for lightening to strike him down lest judgment be poured out on us all...you know how that spiel goes. Just imagine one of the democratic candidates had Giuliani's background and political stances: married three times, committed adultery, cross-dressed (which I thought was funny by the way), was pro-choice, believed in gay equality, and gun control. I guarantee Robertson would not only refuse support, but would regularly denounce him.. But fortunately for Robertson's warped sense logic, Giuliani is a Republican, and politically-tarnished evangelical leaders only hold the opposing team (democrats) accountable for their moral faux pas. As Christians, we should extend grace, forgiveness and discretion for both republicans and democrats. But if one is going to take the route moral blasting, then don't be a hypocrite about it, and hold EVERYONE to the SAME standard.

Now, I don't want to see Giuliani's personal affairs dragged out into public and scrutinized, because I don't think it is anyone's business. But political evangelicals are SO willing do it with democrats and yet gloss over members of their own political party. That's why it bugs me. Once again, Christian ideals and principles have been exchanged for the tenets of republicanism by one of the most famous evangelical leaders in the U.S. When will we find a third way?

Article from Fox News on why Robertson chose Giuliani

Sunday, November 4, 2007

When Justice is SO Sweet


"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another."

--Jonathon Swift.


This week, the wacko-fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, pastored by Fred Phelps, lost in court and was ordered to pay up $11 Million dollars to the father of a fallen soldier, who was killed in Iraq. Members of the Topeka Kansas based congregation have traveled around the country for decades protesting concerts, political gatherings, parades, and even other churches. In the last few years they began to get quite a bit of media attention because they started protesting at military funerals. That's right, while parents and loved ones grieved over and buried their dead children, The Westboro church bombarded them with signs and shouts of:

"Thank God For Dead Soldiers"
"God Hates You"
"God Hates Fags"
"God Hates Fag Enablers"
"Thank God for 9/11"
"Don't Worship The Dead"
"God Hates America"
"God Killed Your Children,"
"Thank God for IEDs"

Members of Westboro Baptist identify themselves as 5-point Calvinists (extreme belief in predestination), who "preach," not so people will repent and convert, but to rub in the unstoppable coming judgments of God upon all those who God hates and has destined for hell...

The reasoning, and I use that word loosely, behind these cruel protests is that America is too tolerant of gay people (because we don't stone them) and therefore, if you serve in America's military, God hates you and will judge you by killing you. According to these fanatics, all the victims of 9/11, Katrina, school shootings, and the war all deserve it, and we should be rejoicing in their deaths. So, much for the good news of the gospel, eh? This is without a doubt the most reprehensible and disgusting perversion of the gospel I have ever seen.

And then justice comes in....

One of the fathers who had to endure Westboro's vile protests while burying his son who was killed in Iraq sued them and was awarded 11 million dollars! Obviously, he'll never see all the money, but it will cripple Westboro Baptist and strip them of their resources to conduct their hate-demonstrations around the country. 42 states have passed laws setting a certain number of feet away protests must be held from funeral services as a result of such insensitive, cruel protests. I'm all for free speech, even ugly free speech, but infringing on other people's rights (such as interrupting funeral services) while exercising free speech is unconstitutional and should be restricted.

But alas, overwhelming outcry against the methods and teachings of Westboro Baptist Church do not phase its congregation whatsoever. They use the old "The world hated Jesus, so they will hate us, too" line. So, in their minds, THEY are the victims and the persecuted ones! Not to be crass, but that whole thing about the world hating Christians because they hated Jesus doesn't count if you are being an inhumane douchebag. :) People don't like douchebags either, and that has nothing to do with Jesus.

Below is a segment from 20/20 about the Westboro Baptist Church. The sickest part is the children that are being indoctrinated with this filth.


The video below is Shirley Phelps, daughter of Fred Phelps and avid protester, on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes. For those of you who know me, you are aware that I have HUGE issues with Sean Hannity, but in this case I wanted to give him (and Colmes) a big kiss for denouncing and exposing this FRINGE movement for what it really is....

Shirley Phelps on Hannity and Colmes

Friday, November 2, 2007

Martin Luther King Jr. On War

Most people associate Martin Luther King Jr. with the peaceful civil rights movement, but do not realize that he was an avid protester against the war in Vietnam. So, in one sense, he was a hippie. :) I came across this speech by MLK on the invalidity of war for the christian worldview and it challenged me. It's 22 minutes, but it is a fascinating window into another time and a relevant message in our own time. Enjoy.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

What's the Best Way To Combat Abortion?

The following is an interesting column from Sojourner's Magazine, written by J. Christopher LaTondresse, who works in the inner-city streets of D.C., about the underlying factors that contribute to the out of control abortion rate in our country.

Tackling Abortion: The Cruel Connection (by J. Christopher LaTondresse)

There is a cruel link between poverty, race, and abortion in America. Unfortunately, many pro-life advocates fail to meaningfully address this connection.Aside from age (the abortion rate is highest among girls under the age of 15) the most predictable indicator of whether or not a woman will have an abortion is her income level and ethnic background.Before Roe vs. Wade decriminalized the procedure, many American women still had abortions, though the procedure was radically unequal in its accessibility and application. Those with available resources traveled abroad for safe procedures while low-income women relied on dangerous illegal clinics operating in the poorest neighborhoods in America.As someone who lives and works in such neighborhoods in Washington D.C., I can tell you that simply making something illegal does not keep it from happening if there is a serious demand for it – as evidenced by the rampant drug, weapons, and prostitution trades still plaguing these communities.I strongly believe in the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death; that all human beings are created in the image of God and are therefore of immeasurable worth. However, I also believe that we should spend more energy advocating policies that might actually reduce the abortion rate and spend less time challenging a judicial precedent unlikely to be overturned.

This is especially true if criminalizing the procedure does little to reduce the abortion rate and actually puts more lives at risk, as a recent study and the personal experiences of those who have lived and worked in these district neighborhoods much longer than I have would suggest.Tackling poverty, providing healthcare for all low-income women and children (especially for prenatal and postnatal care), reducing teen pregnancy by promoting abstinence and making contraceptives widely available, and increasing the child tax credit for low-income mothers and families—all represent solutions that, as part of an integrated approach, would curb unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.

Americans on both sides of the argument have been trapped in an endless debate. Continuing liberal and conservative politicking has failed to meaningfully address the issue. Meanwhile, the abortion rate essentially stays the same.

This tired exercise continued as the entire lineup of Republican presidential hopefuls addressed the Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C., an event co-sponsored by the Family Research Council Action, Focus on the Family Action, and other conservative Christian organizations.

In a room filled with the would-be kingmakers of evangelical politics, the candidates touched on issues ranging from gay marriage to the future of federalism, but the single issue gaining the most traction with the crowd was clear. Candidates hoping to do well with this audience had to address abortion—specifically, offering their best plan to eliminate it once and for all. I was disappointed to hear the same old polarizing terms that have gotten us nowhere in the past 30 years.

Many people agree that the estimated 3,500 abortions taking place in America every day are unfitting for any caring society. Significantly reducing the number of abortions in this country—ideally to zero—should be an urgent moral priority for those of us who take the sanctity of life seriously.As we move into the 2008 presidential election cycle, let's quit demonizing each other and get to work meaningfully addressing the cruel connections underlying America's heartbreaking abortion statistics. The most important debate is not between "pro-life" and "pro-choice," but between those who will continue to be demagogues on this issue and those who will choose to pragmatically work together to save unborn lives.

J. Christopher LaTondresse is the special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners. For the most recent U.S. abortion statistics, visit: U.S. Center for Disease Control.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Sometimes It's Good To Compromise

This is an article from Sojourners, written by Editor and Chief Jim Wallis, about the values Christians hold dear and fight for in the political and social realms. Wallis puts forth a wonderfully constructive vision for how the Body of Christ needs to operate TOGETHER to live out God's Kingdom here on earth...even amidst the messy business of politics.



I'm grateful to Tony Perkins and FRC Action for hosting the October 19 dialogue focused on the "values" for values voters. I also thank Richard Land, my frequent dialogue partner and friend. I believe we found areas of real agreement and also healthy disagreement, and that is good.
We both agreed that the issue is not whether faith should help to shape our public life, but how.
I believe that Christians across the political spectrum might have more common concerns than people think—and potential common ground—on critical issues.

First, there are Biblical principles of the kingdom of God on which we can agree.
Second, there are prudential judgments on policies—where there is room for disagreement and deeper dialogue

Third, we must make sure our faith trumps ideology. For me, that often means making sure that my faith challenges the Left. And as I said to you on Friday, most of you probably don't have that problem! But how can you make sure that your faith challenges the Right?
And together, as Richard and I both try to do, we should challenge those who wish to banish religion from the public square.

On what do we agree?

We all agree that faith plays an important role in public life; faith is personal but never private. But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:


"The church should not be the master or the servant of the state, but the conscience of the state."


King also never endorsed a candidate but made them endorse his agenda. There's a lesson for us in that.

Red and blue, Left and Right, are not biblical categories. They are political ones, and religious people don't easily fit the labels—nor should we. God's politics resists ideology and often calls us to transcend our narrow political categories and place our commonality as Christians above any political allegiance or identification with a political party.

God is not a Republican or a Democrat. The people of God must not be in the pocket of any political party. There is a great danger in being too close to either side and not maintaining our critical prophetic distance. We should be the ultimate swing vote, judging all the candidates by our moral compass.

Presidential candidates were at your conference, seeking your vote; and you took a straw poll which became the center of media attention in their coverage of your gathering. But let me suggest that if your favorite candidate wins (whoever that turns out to be), they will not be able to really change the biggest moral issues of our time unless there is a movement from outside to continue pushing them. Remember, Lyndon Johnson did not become a civil rights leader until a faith-based civil rights movement made him one.

When politics fails to resolve the great moral issues, social movements often rise up to change politics, and the best social movements have spiritual foundations. We have been divided, but perhaps we can find ways we might work together in the future on the greatest moral issues of our time.

In the spirit of the great social movements that Christians have helped to lead—abolition of slavery, child labor laws, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement—we might do it again.
The more we look like our evangelical fore-parents, the more we see our faith as the spark for social justice, the more faithful and united we could be.

And this is the key: The Biblical prophets tell us that God judges societies—not by their gross national product, their military strength, or their cultural dominance—but by their justice and righteousness, especially how they treat the weak and vulnerable.

We know there are multiple threats to human life and dignity that suggest a new moral agenda that could bring us together:


  • Strengthening marriage and families

  • Renewing the moral fabric of our culture

  • Overcoming extreme global poverty and disease; and unnecessary poverty at home

  • Advancing a consistent ethic of the sanctity of life

  • Ending human trafficking

  • Healing the wounds of racism

  • Protecting God's creation

  • Finding a better path to national and global security

If those we could agree on these basic principles, we could re-shape American politics—and, with God's help, we might change some of the big things that politics has been unable to.
As for politics in an election year, the Catholic Bishops have some good advice for us. They counsel Christians to be:



  • political but not partisan

  • principled but not ideological

  • clear but also civil

  • engaged but not use

Because, above all, (back to where we started) we are called to be faithful to the principles of the kingdom of God.


Let the dialogue continue

Monday, October 15, 2007

Environmentalism: Dirty Word? (Deja Vu)

I published the following post a few months ago, but am now reposting it (with some additions) in honor of Blog Action Day. The blogging community has been asked to post something about their feelings on the environment-how it relates to faith or what you think should be done about the environment, so I am republishing this post because it thoroughly sums up my view. RE-ENJOY! :)

The devil has two horns: the horn of pride that says there is nothing we ought to do, and the horn of despair that says there is nothing we can do."

Environmentalism. It's a term used to describe a broad and DIVERSE range of concerns, beliefs, and initiatives pertaining to the atmosphere, the earth, the earth's resources and creatures who inhabit it. As opposing views in America become more and more polarized (and thus more cliched and shallow), an increasing tension has emerged between evangelicalism and environmentalism. There are many factors that contribute to this tension, and being that I identify myself with Christianity, I will address the mindset and/or objections coming from SOME Christian camps.


1. Association. SOME Christians deem environmentalism as a cause of democrats, liberals, New Agers, feminists, abortionists, gays (bit of a stretch), and atheists who refuse to worship God, so they worship nature instead. These stereotypes (yes, stereotypes) taint environmentalism for many believers. But I believe that we have unfairly over-lapped environmentalism with separate issues, perhaps neglecting a divine call to godly environmentalism and stewardship. I am unsure why non-christians who are involved in environmentalism are met with such hostility or bewilderment from believers. Whether non-christians know it or not, their desire to maintain God's creation is an act of obedience to the innate order God has set up: to be in awe of His glorious creation and treat it responsibly. It can also the manifestation of a person's deeper desire for God. Instead of branding them as tree-hugging hippies, we should recognize their appreciation for creation (even if it's misguided) and use it to reach out to them.


2. The Global Warming Debate. A good portion of American Evangelicals dismiss the concern over global warming for a myriad of reasons. Some honestly believe there is not enough conclusive evidence to prove that mankind is causing global warming or that global warming is even an imminent threat. A valid position. Some speculate that the earth is just going through its natural cycle. Other believers reject global warming on the grounds that Revelation lays out the demise of the world, and global warming ain't it (although one might argue that just because global warming might not cause our demise, it could still do some horrendous damage). And yet, I fear that SOME others have confused their politics with the tenets of Christianity. Some leaders discourage belief in global warming under the guise of religion when it has more to do with the effects on big business regulations. I am no scientist, so I don't pretend to have the answers about global warming, but I can see how some Christians view the hype as alarmism, but I also see how godly people are concerned about global warming, and that in no way should diminish the validity of their faith. Rejection or acceptance of global warming should in no way serve as a barometer to measure whether or not someone is "Christian" enough. The evidence is viewed and interpreted differently, and neither side (if dealing with the facts honestly) should be scrutinized for their stance. And here is an interesting tidbit of information I learned recently. It seems that there is a HUGE miscommunication about what exactly Global Warming entails. Most people who dismiss global warming are under the impression that Global Warming means the whole world is getting hotter and will eventually combust into flames or something. But actually Global Warming as more to do with weather instability, then it does with rising temperatures. So basically, there will be disproportionate weather patterns in different areas. Some areas will get too hot, others too cold. Some areas will get mass amounts of rain, hurricanes and floods, while other areas will experience drought and famine. Whether you buy that or not is another is up to you and your own research, but you should at least know WHAT you are dismissing. Anyway, global warming (just one aspect of environmentalism) has pushed the Christian community further away from environmental movements.


3. End-Times Mentality. SOME believers are so certain that Jesus' return will be SO VERY VERY SOON and the destruction of the earth is inevitable that environmentalism is deemed a useless waste of time and a deceiving distraction from "real moral issues." This mentality puts forth that the earth and our pilgrim-like earthly existence are temporary, so those who would put energy into a dying earth are "worldly" and in SOME VERY SMALL EXTREME circles, even the enemies of God.This End-Times mentality is disturbing for a few reasons. One, because every generation of Christians since the time of Jesus have believed that Jesus would surely return in their time. Could Jesus come back today? Absolutely. If He will or not, is another story. And since NO ONE knows the when (no matter how badly people want to pretend to know the when and how), it is bad theology to use the return of Christ as an excuse to dismiss environmentalism. Two, our temporal earthly existence does not negate our responsibility to be good stewards of the earth while we are here.


Environmentalism, like anything, can be distorted and abused. It can be turned into a form of idolatry by placing the earth and its fullness OVER the well being of human beings and "worshipping" creation, instead of the Creator. But I would contend that the other extreme of raping the earth and opposing (sometimes demonizing) movements of environmental preservation is not only poor stewardship, but a violation of loving your neighbor AS YOURSELF. As long as God has placed precious life on this earth, we must do what we can to preserve and maintain the earth, which in turns preserves human life. Many preservation efforts are about keeping waters from being contaminated, keeping animals from extinction (which affects the balance in nature), keeping lands healthy and fertile, so they can harvest food, etc. etc. Those are all preservation efforts that, for a Christian, are just as much about loving our neighbor, as it is caring for creation. Without maintaining clean water, fertile lands, and animal life, many humans would needlessly suffer and die, as they already do. A "Jesus is coming back, so we don't worry about the state of the earth" kind of attitude, is not only lazy, but harmful. When millions of people (mainly children) die every year because they do not have access to clean water, or their land cannot produce food, or pollution corrupts the air (which spurs on all kinds of diseases), then environmentalism IS a MORAL issue. By neglecting the earth or abusing it, we harm our neighbors. It's easy to dismiss the efforts of those trying to preserve clean water as "worldly" when we have an abundant supply of it, but I bet environmentalism would be viewed as a Godsend, if we couldn't get clean water, or food from our lands. That is a reality for millions of people.


Currently, there are environmental movements within the evangelical community (The National Association of Evangelicals, Evangelical Environmental Network, Restoring Eden, etc.) that are coming under fierce criticism from many conservative evangelicals. It saddens me to see their efforts belittled as a "lesser cause" or "a waste of time." If these faithful servants of God are caring for the environment because they desire to honor God's creation and better the quality of life for our neighbors, families, and future generations, then it's not a lesser distraction, but an act of obedience, a manifestation of loving God with all their heart, soul, mind, and STRENGTH, and loving their neighbors as themselves. And it should not be so easily dismissed. Here is the website for the terms of Creation Care signed by hundreds of evangelicals:


http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Just How Foolish Are We?

The foolishness of the cross (1 Corithians 1:18) is a concept my flesh constantly wrestles with. It's an ironic statement really, revealing more about humanity's foolishness than God's. His wisdom so supersedes ours that the best way it can be explained to us is as "foolishness." It's a concept that calls for radical sacrifice, radical grace, radical vulnerability, and the radical theology of the Sermon on the Mount. The foolishness of the cross consumes all the micro and macro issues of our time: family, marriage, community, poverty, charity, justice, abortion, war, environment, capital punishment, economic ethics, nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, politics, government, church, prayer, personal faith and relationship with God and each other....oh how the list goes on. And all of this, for the believer, must fall at the foot of the cross and at the mercy of its foolishness. The following article that appeared in Sojourners Magazine is about how the foolishness of the cross takes shape in the body of Christ that is on a pilgrimage through this world singing "Thy Kingdom, Thy Will be Done, ON EARTH as it is in Heaven."

The Foolishness of the Cross
A reflection on the cost of discipleship.

By Joe Roos


In the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of the cross and ties it to the meaning of discipleship: "If any want to be my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34).

Think for a moment what the cross meant for those who were listening to Jesus and for those who were reading Mark's gospel some 30 years later. Ched Myers puts it this way: "The cross in Mark's day was neither religious icon nor metaphor for personal anguish or humility. It had only one meaning: that terrible form of capital punishment reserved by imperial Rome for political dissenters." Myers goes on: "The cross was a common sight in the revolutionary Palestine of Mark's time; in this recruiting call, the disciple is invited to reckon with the consequences facing those who dare to challenge the hegemony of imperial Rome."

With this ominous invitation, the cost of discipleship got much, much bigger. Embracing Jesus means embracing that cross. Mark doesn't say it, but I suspect that after these words, the crowds around Jesus got smaller.

Paul takes up the theme of the cross in his first letter to the church at Corinth: "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18). Taking up the cross and following Jesus not only entails great cost, it is also viewed by the world as an utterly foolish thing to do.

I attended some of the first meetings held at Sojourners out of which the organization Witness for Peace was formed in 1983. Witness' first office was in the same building as Sojourners. Today, Witness for Peace is a grassroots organization of people who work for changes in U.S. policy and corporate practices in order to support peace, justice, and sustainable economies throughout the Americas. But at its birth more than 20 years ago, its singular founding purpose was to literally stand between the guns of the U.S.-supported contras and the Nicaraguan peasants at whom the guns were pointed. Two people from Sojourners were part of the first Witness for Peace team that went to Jalapa, Nicaragua, along the border with Honduras, where the contras were encamped.

Initial U.S. press coverage of Witness was not very positive. To most journalists, what Witness was doing made no sense. After the first team went to Jalapa, I remember a political cartoon that ran in the Los Angeles Times. The cartoon caricatured people standing along the border in front of contra guns, holding a sign that said, "Witness for Peace." The caption read, "Witless for Peace." When I first saw it, I laughed out loud. I loved it. The cartoonist, without knowing it, had hit upon a fundamental truth of the gospel, exactly as 1 Corinthians says: "The message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." To stand in the way of bullets like that, to risk getting killed over something not directly affecting you, seems like one of the craziest, most foolish things anyone could do. Witless indeed!

RIGHT-WING TALK SHOW host Rush Limbaugh doesn't get it either. In November 2005, four members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq were abducted. Like Witness for Peace, Christian Peacemaker Teams are committed to reducing violence by "getting in the way."

Limbaugh's response to news of the abduction was more crude and cruel than the LA Times cartoonist's response to Witness' presence in Nicaragua. He first called it a publicity stunt, but then said if the kidnapping was real, "I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality." Unreal, crazy, witless, foolish. Standing up to this system of violence may have made the hostages fools and outcasts to some people in the world, but for those who believe in the power of the gospel of peace, it makes sense. The foolishness of the cross is far more real than Rush Limbaugh's version of reality.

There is something inherently paradoxical about the cross. William Stringfellow, in A Simplicity of Faith, stresses that at the heart of the gospel is a "sense of absurdity—an instinct for paradox—a conviction that truth is never bland but lurks in contradiction." To lose your life is to save it. Unless a grain of wheat dies, it can not bring life. To take up the cross is to embrace the power of God. It doesn't make sense; it's foolish—unless you see it from the eyes of faith, from the converted heart. For believers, it is the very power that transforms lives.
Shortly after describing the foolishness of the cross in verse 18 of 1 Corinthians, Paul goes on to quote from the end of Isaiah 29:14. Verses 13 and 14 in Isaiah are more compelling together, and in their entirety:

The Lord God said: Because these people draw near to me with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote; so I will again do amazing things with this people, shocking and amazing. The wisdom of their wise shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning shall be hidden.

When following God becomes reduced to following commandments by rote, be ready for God to shock.

Søren Kierkegaard, the great Danish theologian, addresses this point beautifully. "Christianity," he writes, "has taken a giant stride into the absurd. Remove from Christianity its ability to shock and it is altogether destroyed. It then becomes a tiny superficial thing, capable neither of inflicting deep wounds nor of healing them. It's when the absurd starts to sound reasonable that we should begin to worry." He goes on to name a few of Christianity's shocking, absurd assertions: "Blessed are the meek; thou shalt not kill; love your enemies; go, sell all you have and give to the poor."

Even embedded in the Ten Commandments is the absurd, the foolish, the paradoxical. The Ten Commandments don't begin with "Here are ten commandments, learn them by rote," or "Here are ten commandments, obey them." Instead, they begin with a sweeping announcement of freedom: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (Exodus 20:2). We will probably always think of the declarations that follow as the Ten Commandments. But we could, and probably should, think of them as invitations to God's liberation. Because the Lord is your God, you are free to not need any other gods. You are free from the tyranny of lifeless idols. You are free to rest on the Sabbath. You are free to enjoy your parents as long as they live. You are set free from murder, stealing, and covetousness as ways to establish yourself in the land.

But that's not how we think of the Ten Commandments. When the late Kurt Vonnegut was interviewed on National Public Radio about debate on placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses and the like, he responded by saying: "Why the Ten Commandments? I haven't heard any of these people talk about putting the beatitudes up [on the walls of government buildings]." He continued, "'Blessed are the merciful' in a courtroom? 'Blessed are the peacemakers' in the Pentagon? Give me a break! Not exactly the stuff of Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney."

IF I'M HONEST with myself—perhaps if we are all honest with ourselves—there are ways in which we, each in our own way, resist the foolishness of the cross. The cross, Paul says, seems like foolishness to the part of us that is attached to the world, the part of us that is perishing. The cross is God's foolishness and is wiser than our wisdom. The cross is God's weakness and is stronger than our strength. Yet to the part of us that is inculcated with the assumptions and values of our culture, the cross doesn't make sense. Rarely do we choose to be foolish or weak.

Will Willimon has asked some good questions about this foolishness of the cross. What kind of sense does it make to worship a God who, instead of rescuing us out of trouble, rescues us by entering into the trouble with us? A God who, instead of helping us to avoid pain, heals us from our pain by entering the depths of our pain with us? A God who, instead of fixing things for us, addresses them by becoming weak with us in our weakness?

But this is the foolishness of the cross. All of us know pain and grief and disappointment in our lives. Our human wisdom wants a God who will heal us and make us feel better. The foolishness of the cross is a God who enters into our pain and bears our pain with us. To the part of us that is human and perishing, this is incomprehensible and we want something more. But to the part of us that is being saved, it is the very power of God.

And even more foolishly, this very same God expects us to do the same with each other: to enter into each other's pain, to bear each other's burdens and those of the world around us. To the world, that is an utterly foolish way to live, but to those who embrace the cross, who take up their cross and follow Jesus, and who are ready to lose their lives to save their lives, it is the only way to live. It is the power of God within us.

Each of us bears the responsibility, daily, of taking the cross more and more upon our selves, losing ourselves and finding ourselves in the process.

If we want to take Jesus seriously, if we want to go deeper in our discipleship, we must follow in the way of God's foolishness. That's where God calls us to be.

As Frederick Buechner writes: "In terms of human wisdom, Jesus was a perfect fool. And if you think you can follow him without making something like the same kind of fool of yourself, you are laboring not under the cross, but a delusion."