Fear

On a very cold March day in 1933, something that had been sorely needed happened that changed this country for the better. Having won the Presidency because of the abject failure of Herbert Hoover to deal with the collapse of the nation, Franklin Roosevelt - bis legs braced so he could stand at the podium to give his first inaugural address standings - said a few things that can be most wonderfully summed up with that memorable phrase concerning fear. In doing so, Roosevelt did something that endeared him to the hearts of the American people. He told them the truth they knew in their hearts, showing that he understood what lay at the heart of the American malaise.

Not too long after, in the midst of the near-collapse of the banking industry, he did something else that was unprecedented. He got on the radio to tell them what his Administration, with authority granted by Congress, was doing to keep the banks alive. He did so not in the funereal tones of approaching apocalypse or the haughty tones of a professor. Rather, he explained the complicated nature of the bank holiday, why it was necessary, and most important what the American people needed to do to help in a way that did not insult the intelligence of the American people. In this, and many other speeches and "fire-side chats", Roosevelt showed an appreciation for a basic virtue of democracy. While economics had become quite baroque, only to become nearly unintelligible to most people by our time, Roosevelt talked about the banking crisis, and many other issues, as if he understood them; and more important, he talked about them as if it were possible the American people could understand them.

If there is a most important difference between that time and ours, between that man and our current President, it lies right there. During the campaign, Barack Obama seemed to demonstrate a visceral faith in the American people, their intelligence and insight, and to bank on the voter's trust in his willingness to work with them to make this country run again. Since assuming the Presidency, and most especially since having his first bruising battles with Congressional Republicans (and one or two recalcitrant Democrats), he has retreated behind a wall of silence, and worse, compromise. As the country continues to stagnate, he speaks of "recovery". As social and cultural issues flay nerves frayed by economic distress, he has attempted to appease those who will never be appeased, and to give pat answers on topics that need more explanation.

The American people are afraid right now. We are, many if not most of us, afraid that despite our best efforts and the President's best intentions, headed toward further dislocations and decline. Rather than rallying the American people to work together, the President has operated as if the American people, their feelings and thoughts, are secondary. "Trust me," it seems, despite all the evidence that trust no longer exists, continues to be the theme the President offers the American people.

The screeching of so much of the country on the Manhattan Islamic center project, on illegal immigration, on gay rights are symptomatic not so much of the intrinsic importance of these questions for our nation's future as they are of the knife's edge upon which the nation's emotions are balanced. We are a people terrified of pretty much everything, and this fear is being played upon by political opportunists and demagogues to undermine the possibility of making this country better, of healing our economy and social and civil and physical infrastructure.

If the President would acknowledge this fear; if he would simply tell people what they know inside is true but have yet to hear from a person in authority, things might change for him. It seems, however, that he has lost touch with that electoral base that is most important - the emotional connection with those who saw in him the promise of something new. Not "the Messiah" the loons on the right talk about; just a President who made an emotional connection concerning possibility and promise that resonated with so many Americans. This emotional connection is now gone, and with it much of the good will and forbearance the American people had for the President.

Yet, really, all he needs to do is something that hasn't happened in a generation or more. All he needs to do is, in a few speeches, let the American people know that he knows their fear. Tell them what they are afraid of, and explain, as best he can without patronizing or insulting them, what he has done and will do to address the real issues at the heart of the American fear.

I just wonder if he either can or will do it.

More On The Power Of Prayer

I've been in a serious funk/borderline depressed the past couple weeks. Not to belabor the point, a combination of factors had led to the point where I felt helpless, trapped, and alone.

The past few days, however, has seen a sea-change. I've reached clarity, separating out those things that I can control from those I cannot, and reaching a healthier, if not exactly pacific, place in my mind. While talking about it with my wife has been a huge factor, I am convinced that even more has been . . . that she told me she has been aware of my changed mood and attitude and has been praying for me. After I awoke this afternoon, and she came home, we sat and talked. It is impossible to relate how much more relaxed, more clear, I am in my mind than I have been.

Because someone was praying for me.

While immediate change is not possible, I do think that both clarity and possibility exist, at least in the near term. Being in the midst of a busy, eleven-straight-day work mini-marathon (and for those who do not work overnights, eleven days in a row will take a toll on your life and mental health, trust me) has not helped, but I am now not quite a week through it, which does help. Also, getting my old, Sunday-Thursday night schedule back helps, too (for some reason, management decided to change everyone's schedule without consulting anyone; from growls to howls, the reaction hasn't exactly been positive, so, at least for the next couple weeks I will be back on my old schedule).

While I believe that prayer is more than simply a way to "fix" our moods, to "cure" those with illness, to make our minds at ease in our bourgeois discomfort, I am nevertheless convinced that personal intervention does occur because of the prayerful please of others. I am grateful for it, and wanted to acknowledge it publicly.

Proof!

It's been hot and muggy for the past two weeks. Therefore, global warming is real.

France Does The Gypsy Switch

The Roma, more commonly referred to as "Gypsies", are among the more despised ethnic groups of Europe, for a variety of reasons. The Nazis targeted them for extermination. The communist governments of Hungary and Romania tried to eradicate them.

Now, France is shipping their Roma population back to central Europe. You gotta love those open-minded Europeans.

Sacred Ground

If I hear those two words used in reference to the World Trade Center site one more time, I'm going to scream.

Just for reference, when the US signed and ratified a treaty with the Lakota after they kicked the US Cavalry's collective butts, part of it left the Black Hills as Sacred Ground for the Lakota, which the US would honor in perpetuity. Then, gold was discovered there, and all of a sudden there were all sorts of reasons to abrogate the treaty. Today, with Mt. Rushmore there, what was sacred ground for one people is now a tourist trap for another.

So, spare me all the crocodile tears about sacred ground. It's a hole in the ground. The best way to honor the dead is to live fully and honorably not cowardly and hate-filled.

In Which I Copy And Paste An Entire Post From Another Blogger

Here it was. Now, here it is:

For me, the most depressing thing about contemporary politics is how despite everything that has transpired in reality, in Villager Years, which are like Dog Years only more gristly, it is always and forever October 2001 and George Doubleyew Shithead Reigns Eternal.

A-fucking-men.

Adding, if you detect a tad bit of anger, frustration, what-have-you, you are one hundred percent correct.

Just Asking

Has the right lost its mind on the Cordoba House? Seriously. These same Tea Party conservatives who insist they sleep with the Constitution under their pillows at night seem to forget that freedom of religion includes Muslims (of course, they also want to get rid of the constitutional clause that allows for birthright citizenship and simply repeal the 14th Amendment outright).

In the midst of all sorts of troubles needing serious attention, we're getting this kind of crap. I truly wonder about this country some days.

One Step Up, Two Back

Since the initial engagement with China in 1979, the argument that our engagement will benefit them socially and culturally has been trumpeted as part of the intangible benefits that will accrue from mutual engagement. A generation later, and most folks are still waiting for real social and cultural change.

This article offers part of the same, tired nonsense. This is not to suggest that we shouldn't have formal relations with communist China. On the contrary, ignoring them for thirty years was insanity. All the same, we shouldn't kid ourselves that a society as old and deeply averse to change, in particular change coming from outside the cultural boundaries of China, will be open to non-Chinese social and cultural norms.

Furthermore, I have always been of the opinion that we should formally recognize Taiwan as an independent nation-state, supporting their presence in the UN. Also, we should open formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, lifting the generations old embargo (the sugar lobby isn't a big fan of the open market competition from Cuban sugar). If engagement can lead to change in China, why not Cuba? After all, it isn't like the embargo has succeeded in Cuba, right?

Holding up a change in one particular practice of domestic justice in China as indicative of a sea-change is the kind of thing that people who want to see change grasp without any real thought.

The Power Of Prayer

I was truly moved and honored today when one of the older gentlemen at Cornerstone UMC came up to me and invited me to join him with a small group for prayer before the 10:30 worship service. I walked in to the prayer room, just off their worship space, not quite knowing what to expect, and was even more moved and honored after I sat down and joined with them. I came away from this short experience more moved, and even changed a little, than by any spiritual experience in recent memory.

These men sat and prayed. They prayed for this person and that person. They prayed for individuals and the church and the Church. They asked for God's presence and peace for those suffering. Most of all, what I felt in that little room, with those four other men, was a sense of the presence and the power - the real power and might and majesty - of God. The clarity of the voices lifted in prayer, the real yearning for the Spirit to descend, for the presence of God in the worship and lives of the people of Cornerstone UMC was really moving.

I don't know if this is a formal or informal thing, but I think it is the kind of thing more churches need to do. I know it meant a lot to me.

But . . But . . . I APPROVE Of Him

Shorter David Broder:
"Tom Vilsack can't be a dumb putz because I have said and continue to say wonderful things about him."

On The Messy Death Of Proposition 8

As California's Proposition 8 moves more and more noisily and messily toward that fabled and oft-mentioned dustbin of history, I wanted to discuss a sound-bite I heard on an NPR story last week. After the verdict, at a rally in support of the law, a speaker said that the courts has taken away the "civil right to vote" by invalidating it. This kind of thing, I am quite sure, resonates not only with supporters of Prop 8, but supporters of legal segregation and all sorts of other current and former discriminatory legal social structures. That's part of the problem with our system of government. We are, in the end, a Republic of laws not of human beings; a Republic, not a democracy. Direct democracy, as practiced in California is part of that state's many problems.

One of the many lessons that should have emerged from the many court battles over racial equality (but apparently need to be learned again and again) is that there is a legal limit to the lengths to which states me express their social preferences. Respect for the legal rights of others is a bar to discrimination, even those kinds of discrimination that are enacted with the full consent of the people.

As for discounting the supporter's "findings of fact", the judge was explicit that it concerned the whole question of standing, important in any legal case. Not just anyone can sue; an individual or group must show that direct harm will ensue either by a law's enactment or repeal; since there was no factual basis for the claims of harm, the judge dismissed the claims of harm and therefore standing. This bodes well moving forward. Also, it seems that an appeal can only be made by the State of California, officials of which refuse to do so, which clouds the future of any appeals process.

Official Political Prediction Post - Please Bookmark For November

I have this recurring fantasy in which, after the fall mid-term elections, I end up on this or that chat show because, unlike the professional pundits, I managed to call the election results correctly months before the elections actually occurred (a boy can dream, right?). In order to do that, though, I need to actually post those predictions, right? Well, here goes.

Both Houses of Congress will remain Democratic, with the party gaining slightly in each. Governorships are harder to call, dependent upon a different set of concerns (for example, in Illinois, corruption at the state level and state legislative inaction are as big as the moribund state of our economy), but I have a suspicion that the Democratic trend will continue (I still think that here in Illinois Gov. Quinn, as well-meaning but ineffectual governor, should have stepped aside; he didn't so, oh well).

Now, here's why I'm swimming against the general tide of opinion on this one. It's really simple and it involves a couple assumptions and a view of the electorate that, for the most part, has held pretty steady. It also comes with the caveat that political campaigns are important as well as the usual warning about unforeseen events causing massive voter shift.

First, while the voters are unhappy at the moment with the institution of Congress, they are even more unhappy with Republican Party than the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership keeps offering up legislation that is generally popular, and the Republicans keep voting against it. While it might seem like the party has gained a certain amount of legislative leverage this way, they really haven't. They also have no plan, substantive or legislative, moving forward. They are offering nothing as an alternative except the same thing we've been hearing for decades - tax cuts and killing people in far away lands.

This leads to another assumption, before stating which, however, I need to make clear my view of the electorate. Right now, most voters aren't paying attention except to the realities that (a) the economy sucks; and (b) the parties are fighting over things that have little to do with (a). When they start paying attention, for the most part, for all that anti-incumbency seemed to dominate in primaries, the incumbency effect will certainly play in to the hands of the Democrats. Coupled with the utter lack of any agenda whatsoever on the part of the Republicans except for those Tea Party candidates who want to party like it's Berlin in 1933, the Democrats, providing they are intelligent enough to nationalize the campaign (not always a safe bet, to be sure, but still possible) should skate to comfortable margins of victory nationally.

We are at the beginning of one of those basic sea-changes in political opinion that those poli-sci types call "realignment". The 1994 Republican Congressional victory was not the beginning of a Republican trend, but the culmination of the weak but steady preference for that party that had been on-going since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968; it was, in other words, toward the end of one party's cycle of power rather than the beginning of it. Twelve years of Republican control of Congress, with the addition of eight years of George W. Bush as President, and the past two years of the Republicans in Congress opposing any- and everything the President and the Democratic leadership offered is not so much a strategy as it is a sign of desperation. They hope to keep the country screwed up so the voters will blame the party in power and turn around and vote them back in to office. Since it is clear enough which party wants to help and which party does not, combined with the general national Democratic trend, the utter vacuousness of the Republican Party ideologically (save Social Security? didn't George Bush get spanked on that back in 2005?), I think that as long as the Democrats don't do anything truly stupid (OK, again, not always a safe bet), the election results, while certainly stunning to DC insiders, will go this way.

How Not To Talk About Niebuhr

I have been thinking for quite a while about the appropriation of the name, if not the actual thought, of Reinhold Niebuhr, in our public discourse (he emerged back in the early 1990's when Hillary Clinton, then just the wife of the then Governor of Arkansas, revealed that he and his Union Theological Seminary colleague Paul Tillich had been on her reading list in high school and college) when I ran across an interview with E. J. Dionne and David Brooks (two towering theologians) by Krista Tippett on the NPR program "Speaking of Faith".

All things considered, attempting to discuss the relevance of a theologian as nuanced and complicated as Niebuhr with any journalist is a difficult proposition. In this case, considering the intellects involved, the discussion spans the gamut from A to C. It is also disappointing to consider how many serious commentators on Niebuhr there are that Ms. Tippett could have interviewed, even on a subject as relatively fluffy as whether or not Obama "gets" Niebuhr, or whether or not Niebuhr is still relevant.

Just an example of how truly stupid the discussion really is, Brooks chimes in very early by insisting that Niebuhr would opposed the then-still-a-bill stimulus package before Congress, due to his skepticism concerning the beneficial effects of social engineering. The problems with Brooks' statement are manifold, not the least of them being mischaracterizing the stimulus' goal - fiscal economic stimulus rather than social engineering - but I would prefer to focus on the way Brooks turns Niebuhr's skepticism toward social improvement on its head. For some reason, conservatives love to trot out that old bugaboo "the law of unintended consequences", which in some respects exists in germ in many of Niebuhr's statements concerning the limited benefit that comes from any attempt at social engineering via institutions. While his criticism of the then-regnant liberal belief that social tinkering might just eliminate various ills, whether they are poverty or war or ignorance, certainly seems like the kind of nonsense one reads in modern conservative writings, in fact, his position was far more nuanced.

He viewed with skepticism the seeming utopian claims of liberals concerning the efficacy of reform via social institutions (thus his first major work, a criticism from the left of social engineering and the optimism of a previous generation of liberals is entitled Moral Man and Immoral Society). Yet, he never doubted that social tinkering was not only necessary, but indeed enjoined by what he called, in An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, the "love ethic", or variously the "love commandment". In other words, as Christians, we are never to succumb to the false prophecy that this or that social program, or even social organization (capitalism, communism, what-have-you) will bring in the reign of peace and justice. Yet, we are not, precisely because we are enjoined to love our neighbors unconditionally, supposed to oppose any action whatsoever. Indeed, we must strive after justice always with the understanding the results will fail to live up to the Divine justice we encounter in the resurrected Christ.

This far more nuanced approach to the question, it seems to me, shows that if Brooks has actually read Niebuhr, he has only read one book. Even then, I get the sense he really didn't understand what he was reading.

Opposing Nothing (Oopsie Fixed)

According to TPM, 68% of Americans oppose the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. So, it's probably a good thing that New York Muslims aren't going to be doing that.

Every once in a while, the American people fall for crap, but since they are opposing something that isn't going to happen, I fell a little better.

An included sidebar, as it were - AFA's insistence that no more mosques be built in the US is a bit much. Kind of like the Saudi's outlawing Christian churches, the Bible, and all that. But, then again, these are people who are immune to irony. Hatred is so much easier.

Back!

We finally got internet service at the house. Regular blogging to resume tomorrow.

I really missed the internet.

Reading Reinhold

As I mentioned a couple weeks back, I have been reading through my little collection of writings by Reinhold Niebuhr. I will admit I came to them with the intent of finding his almost total irrelevance to our current social and ethical predicaments. On the contrary, for all his faults and limitations, he is, it seems to me, a voice not heard as clearly as he should be. Nearing the end (only 20 pages left!) of The Nature and Destiny of Man: Vol. 1, Human Nature I am amazed at the depth and nuance he brings to his Christian anthropology, his assertion both of the promise of humanity and the limitations under which we all, singly and as members of social groups suffer. Indeed, I was surprised, as I read his An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, to find that he manages to turn the table on those whom he calls "moralists" (leading lights of American liberal theology in the 1920's; he singles out Shirley Jackson Case, it would seem, as an object lesson) and show how the impossibility of ever truly fulfilling what he Niebuhr calls "the love ethic" of Christianity makes it that much more relevant, not as an ideal toward which we should strive, but as an ever present source of both possibility and judgment. The final chapter of that short book alone is worth all the weeks of reading him.

After I finish the second volume, I hope to read through two longish commentaries upon Niebuhr, one by Christopher Lasch in The True and Only Heaven, the other an overview by Gary Dorrien in the second of his his three volume history of American liberal theology (it is interesting indeed, yet also quite correct, that Dorrien would lump Niebuhr in with the liberals, those of an earlier generation he treated with such disdain) in order to clarify some of my own thoughts on Niebuhr's limitations. I have benefited greatly from my reading and would commend him to any and all who are interested in a marvelously deep, nuanced approach to understanding both the promise and pitfalls of coming to terms with both sin and grace, ethics and politics, in our individual and collective life.

Christian Freedom

I have been giving a whole lot of thought in my absence from the internet to the whole concept of Christian freedom, in particular the freedom from fear. St. Paul's formula - "we are freed for freedom's sake" - applies, it seems to me, most clearly in that aspect of our collective life as the church in which we are confronted by those things that cause dread. Fear of loss of prestige, fear of loss of life, fear, indeed of fear.

Yet, of what are we to be afraid? Of death? The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has, as that same St. Paul noted, removed the sting of death. Since social prestige shouldn't even be on the list of our social wants or desires, any loss of that particular benefit is really a gain.

Yet, ours is a terrified community. We do not speak out for fear of offending some. We do not address the realities of hatred and rage for fear it will be directed upon us. We hide our many wondrous gifts under various bushels in order to keep them from being attacked by those who won't or can't understand them.

While it may sound silly, I have been giving thought to this whole thing because I have come to discover yet another television series - Supernatural - that deals with the confrontation with evil in a way that is surprising. A pair of brothers, raised as "hunters" after instances of supernatural evil, face these spirits and demons and demigods with a confidence and even bravado that is not at all forced. While they recognize that others are indeed fearful in the face of demon possession or the presence of an angry, vengeful spirit, they themselves treat these creatures as nothing more or less than opponents to be defeated. They face them without fear because they know that they can be defeated.

The Church, and the churches, far too often, do not really know that evil does not have the last word. We cower and cringe, afraid even to proclaim the Good News because someone, somewhere, might be offended, or angered, or question its validity. Yesterday, Rev. Matt Johnson gave a speech on his recent work over the past two years connecting with the tiny Methodist Church in Lithuania. Comprising six congregations with only six hundred members, the church does not yet have official status, yet is known throughout the tiny Baltic Republic as "the little church that helps people." Matt told the story of one person, named Vitas, a border guard (and national hero who fought off the attempt of the old Soviet Union in 1991 to reimpose occupation after Lithuania declared independence), who spied a small building with the cross and flame on the door. deciding, for no particular reason he could name, to visit that church, he took his young son with him the next day. Now, he is one of the six Methodist clergy in Lithuania, reaching out to those who exist outside the confines of social acceptability.

When American Christians whine about a government being anti-religious or anti-Christian, they really have no idea what they are talking about. The decades of communist oppression rendered Christianity a weak reed indeed, Jesus no more than a tortured soul promising deliverance from our troubles only in death. The hope and grace embodied in the risen Christ (in many ways part of our unique Wesleyan heritage as a people called Methodist) is something new, life-affirming, vital and constructive in a land that has suffered far too long under the brutal yoke of tyranny. From this one example alone (which could be multiplied in a variety of forms in a variety of lands) the lie to the anti-Christian, and fearful Christian ideology is given clearly enough.

We American Christians have had it so soft for so long, we really have no idea how to act in a situation in which we must preach the Word to a world whose ears have been stripped away. We flail like fish on a streambank trying to reset ourselves to a time when what we had to say resonated with those around us, failing again and again. We have forgotten that the message of faith and love and hope given flesh in the crucified and risen Christ challenges even our most self-satisfied sense of comfort, let alone the anxieties of a nation and society and culture in crisis and decline. Rather than refuse to hear of that decline, the Church has an opportunity to speak a word of peace in the midst of the turmoil that surrounds us.

Yet, we shiver and quake with dread.

Stories like Matt's give me hope that the message of the Gospel can still resound with an otherwise bourgeois, cultured people. It gives me faith to believe the Church can speak a word of peace in the midst of the turmoil of our present chaos. It assures me that the love of God for all creation is still there, even for an American Empire on the fast slide downhill, a reed to which we can cling without the illusions of national exceptionalism or the sin of our unique blessedness by the Divine.

In freedom, we can preach release to those captive by our now two-generation old lie that we Americans will be, forever, the Great Power of the world, a lie we can no longer sustain.

Yet Another Fun Week Still With No Internet

A Federal District Court tossed California's Proposition 8 out this week and with no internet access all I have are news reports on NPR. It seems that the judge not only tossed it, he didn't even acknowledge as judicial fact the facts presented by supporters of Prop 8, something that is usually unheard of. Some folks are saying this is a serious, reversible error, and that may be true.

Bully for him, though.

I swear I live on the only spot on the map where the guy in that commercial who wanders around saying, "Can you hear me now?" would get dead air.

See What Happens When I'm Away

The whole flap early this week concerning Andrew Breitbart (how did "bright" get inserted in to the name of someone so obviously dim?) and Ms Sharrod from the Agriculture Department is a marvelous example of why the Democratic Part needs to get its collective head out of its rectum, and as it is standing erect realize it has a pair of testicles, and tell Republicans, in a loud, clear voice to STFU. Obama looked bad, Vilsack needs to be canned, Breitbart should never, ever, ever be listened to by anyone other than Sean Hannity ever again, and Ms. Sharrod should tell the President, the VP, the Secretary of Agriculture, and anyone else, to kiss her beautiful black ass.

I've been reading through my moderately sized Reinhold Niebuhr section of my personal library on my enforced hiatus from the internet - Moral Man and Immoral Society, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Beyond Tragedy, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness and just started the first volume, "Human Nature", of The Nature and Destiny of Man. Who knows what will come of it.

Finally, I have a question and I am almost afraid to ask it - why is the Church so afraid? Why is it afraid to proclaim release to the captives? Why is it afraid to call out those who drag its good name through the mud? Why is it afraid of offending the ignorant and worldly powerful? Why is it afraid to answer this question? Why is it afraid to hear the voices crying in the wildernesses of Haiti and the Congo, of Myanmar and China, on the streets of the southside of Chicago and Detroit whose lives and suffering are an ongoing protest against any Christian pretensions of an easy faith and clear conscience?

Jesus was crucified, not castrated, folks. We are the body of Christ and it is time someone was the Savior's balls.

House Keeping

Well, no internet service at the new place until July 26. I'm sitting at Panera on Randall Road in Elgin at the moment.

I discovered last week, or perhaps the week before (it's been hectic so forgive my imprecision) that someone singled this blog out as violating Blogger's terms of service. Since I can still publish, etc., I don't think there's a problem, but I am curious as to whom, and why.

Anyway, I am still alive, just waiting for central Kane County, Illinois to come up to date is all. Hope your summer is going well, because my enforced vacation from the internet and all things bloggy has been more than fun. Be well, and God Bless.