Questions Concerning Revelation

Enough of politics for the nonce.

The idea of revelation is inherent in the Christian faith. It is addressed with amazing specificity in both the Old and New Testaments, but the terms with which it has been discussed have changed over the course of the millenia. For me, the problem of discussing revelation comes down to the mistakes made during the Enlightenment. The first mistake was to make the assumption that the question of God was independent of the specifics of the Christian Church, available to any person whose faculty of reason was intact. This was not necessarily an error at the time; much of Europe could take Christianity as a given, arguing that Judaism and Islam were merely errors on the way to the Truth revealed in Christianity.

The second mistake was to reduce revelation to the category of knowledge, an assent to certain intellectual propositions, rather than a historically and existentially mediated reality within the Church, discussed on its own terms rather than being a general article of understanding available to human beings as a part of human nature.

In both cases, abstracting the question of Divine Revelation from the specificity of its history and its vocabulary as a Christian enterprise took from any understanding of revelation its rootedness as a human enterprise within the context of the Church, and not subject to the same rules of discourse as, say, physics or rhetoric. This is not to isolate the question of revelation from physics; it is only to say the way the Church talks about revelation is different from the way physicists talks about fields of force and such. The role of intelligibility applies; the question is the "how", or the method of reaching an understanding, rather than any attempt to get behind and question the "what".

In this regard, I do believe that the neo-orthodox movement is superior to a certain strain of theological liberalism which divorces theological concerns from their setting in Christian communities of faith. On the other hand, for all their moaning and gnashing of teeth over the failures of the Enlightenment, the neo-orthodox accepted the notion that revelation is essentially something that happens to our intellectual faculties. We grasp revelation through our understanding, rather than confront revelation in our lives. There is a role for the intellect in sorting it all out, but the first movement is a living encounter, often within the the historically contiguous body of the Church, that shapes not so much the way we think, but the way we live. Theological reflection on revelation, it seems to me, must recognize its own limitation and its dependence upon lived experiences rather than submit that revelation is a mental or an intellectual activity that happens when we assent to the Truth claims of certain accounts of the actions of God. The latter are primary, and only so as interpreted through a framework in which those words are actually meaningful - the Church.

Having said all that, the question is still begged - what is revelation, what is its referent, and what is its goal. To the extent that an event or series of events becomes revelatory for an individual, or a group, it seems to me that by adopting the vocabulary of the Christian Church, we are not locked in to meanings set in stone thousands of years ago, but given the opportunity to see the new life offered to these words through our own experience of faith. These are issues to be fleshed out more fully at another time, but I just wanted to set forth, here, what I believe is central as a starting point for understanding the question of revelation.

More Mushroom Clouds?

Someone had to say it, you know. It was inevitable. Remember in the run-up to the war in Iraq when then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice insisted that we debate the question of Iraqi WMDs to our detriment, because the answer to any such questions may just be a mushroom cloud over one our cities? Well, the lack of any WMDs in Iraq hasn't deterred these people from trying to same old shtick; they've just moved the goalposts a bit to the east. Now it's Iran.

The problem with the claim that Iran is "months away" from nuclear weapons technology is that Woolsey seems to be talking out of a bodily orifice not normally used for speech. To quote from the Think Progress piece:

Woolsey is doing nothing more than fear-mongering when he says Iran could have a nuclear bomb in “a few months.” In fact, his assertion of an impending nuclear weapon in Iran is contradicted by experts on nuclear weapons, including the CIA.

“Iran is still probably five to 10 years away from gaining the ability to make nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs,” according to Joseph Cirincione, the director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. In May, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN’s the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “even if Iran wanted to go for a nuclear weapon, it would not be before the end of this decade or sometime in the middle of the next decade,” an estimate that echoed the view of the CIA.

Additionally, Woolsey is a suspect source for claims of urgency when it comes to nuclear weapons, having repeatedly hyped Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capability during the build up to war with Iraq.

So, the CIA and the IAEA, whose job it is to actually monitor the situation and interpret the data, say a decade or more. Woolsey says a few months. Granted, the CIA's track record on these kinds of things isn't always very good (they really saw the collapse of communism in Central Europe coming, didn't they). Mohammed ElBaradei, however, has an excellent track record, and since his call tallies with the CIA, it seems to me pretty trustworthy.

Were the stakes not so high - the Bush Administration seems hell-bent on military confrontation with Iran - this whole exercise would be funny. Instead, it is quite sad, and a bit frightening. Pretty soon, we will have Dick Cheney out ther talking about Iranian intelligence officials meeting with al Qaeda operative in Prague. . .

All of this begs certain questions, not the least of which are these:
- Why does the Bush Administration not pursue a tougher line with countries that actually sponsor the kind of terrorism we have experienced? Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Yemen? Actually, I think that question answers itself . . .
- When is Bush going to pursue Osama bin Laden?
- Will Bush take us to war with Iran absent a Congressional mandate, even a new AUMF? If so, it seems to me we are heading down a much more dangerous road, because the Administration is trying the same tricks that seemed to work with Iraq. The public, however, isn't buying this time; that doesn't mean they won't go ahead and do something anyway. After all, why put a couple Carrier Battle groups in the Persian Gulf if they can't have a little fun, right?

Lets' Do Some Good!

The title is from the film The Untouchables when Kevin Constner leads a raid on an alleged speakeasy/gin distribution plant.

In comments to this post Marshall Art writes the following:

In any case, I believe our country is a force for good in the world. I believe also, that there has been no other country that has shown any real stones to be a force for good in the world. It's not a matter of being a policeman of the world, yet with our great power comes great responsibility. It's all well and good for people, particularly on the left, to want us to cough up every dime for every impoverished or devastated country around the world. Indeed, we continually show our generous nature, both nationally as well as a collective of individual donations, and it makes me proud. But should our might be needed? Good gosh no, where do we get the right to interfere? Both our wealth and our might can be used for good and as long as there are assholes running other countries, they need to know that there are good guys ready to go toe to toe for the sake of the planet. It also inspires lesser nations to join in (more often than not). This is a good thing. I'd rather it not change. I don't think the world could stand it.

I used to think of these things only in terms of national interest. But just as our financial largesse has positive implications that aren't easily realized, so too can our willingness to assert ourselves when deemed necessary. I also don't believe that we need to always have world consensus when we see wrongs being committed that we feel are better put down. If you were a big, muscle bound fighter with vast self-defense training, you might not know the reason why that smaller guy or woman is gettin' a beatin'. Are you just going to let it happen when you have the might to at least interrupt for an explanation? It might be risky for you. But that little guy is bleeding profusely and could be seriously harmed or killed. It's the same in the world. It's our call when we use our might or money based on OUR notions of need. I see nothing wrong with the principle and I do think the world benefits if our help influences the world. I'd love to see the world become more like us in many ways. Wouldn't you?

If one considers this particular bit of reflection in light of two recent posts by Glenn Greenwald, here and here, it shows clearly the moral and political bankruptcy of conservative approaches to foreign policy, and the unquestioned worship of American power by far too many people, not just in the Foreign Policy Community, but in the conservative camp as well.

The first Greenwald post above concerns a debate between a blogger and an alleged expert on international relations who claims there was a defensible argument for an invasion of Iraq, and that there are defensible arguments for invading Iran and North Korea as well. The only issue is the prudence or lack thereof in doing so, not whether such an act would be justifiable. Greenwald notes that behind such a statement is the unquestioned belief in the goodness and necessity of American power. As long as we are "the world's lone superpower" (although I no longer believe that to be the case, thanks to George W. Bush), international relations devolves, in the end, to a question of when we send in our troops, not whether. While those Greenwald discusses may have all sorts of fancy titles, their arguments sound pretty much like Marhsall's, which is a wonderful summation of this particular view (I am not insulting Marshall or his presentation of his position, by the way; I believe he sums up this particular way of viewing the world far better than any supposed "expert" could do).

The latter Greenwald article, which should be considered in tandem with the former, concerns the right-wing belief - almost a doctrine necessary to their entire way of viewing the world - that the United States is in a fight for its life against Muslim hordes who wish to invade us and to paraphrase Ann Coulter, "kill our leaders and convert us all to Islam". Greenwald points out this is not some distant fear, but for far too many on the right an immediate threat to our very existence.

On the one hand, we have an inordinate worship and trust in both our own goodness and military power. On the other hand, we have an inordinate fear of the desire on the part of "Islamists" (whoever they may be) to make of us a Muslim nation. These twin extreme desires drive an almost fanatical desire to strike out at any even alleged threat that may exist.

Combined with the view that the United States can arrogate to itself the use of force (something all other countries in the world are denied, except perhaps Israel) including nuclear weapons, we have a recipe for disaster of epic proportions. When the views of the so-called foreign policy experts and the most fringe elements of our national political spectrum can combine to work for such ill as they have in Iraq, and as they may still do in Iran, we should all be very afraid of those convinced we can still go out there and do some good.

Music Monday

With a name like Mac Rebennack, is it any wonder he changed it to Dr. John? I first bought Going Back to New Orleans eight or nine years ago, and instantly fell in love. I had, of course, heard of him before that. It was this CD, however, that convinced me that the New Orleans sound - Professor Longhair, The Neville Brothers, and Dr. John - was pure American music, because it was so many things at once, and all its own at the same time. Here's the title track from the aforementioned CD:

He's been around since the 1950's, according to allmusic.com. Here he is in the Martin Scorcese-produced and directed The Last Waltz, The Band's final concert and celebration:

Finally, more on New Orleans. This time it's all about "Missing New Orleans".

Politics, Religion, & Christian Pluralism - Why Fundamentalism Confuses Me So Much

Over at Faith in Public Life, there is a link to a People for the American Way article highlighting a fundraising campaign by Family Research Council.

The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.” Invoking the Religious Right’s recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency – as well as the “Swift Boat” campaign of 2004 – the so-called “Values Voters for Truth” campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals – and, obviously, Democratic candidates – as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to “deceive and split values voters.”

From a recent fundraising letter from FRC Action:

Our relentless effort to reveal the facts about the Left’s true agenda is already under way. It will not stop until the last vote of the 2008 election has been cast. The Values Voters for Truth campaign will partner with organizations in all 50 states—and at the national level. We will mobilize values voters, engage them in the war of ideas, and keep them informed and involved.

We will rally churches to the cause. And by God’s grace, we will neutralize our opponents’ deceptive tactics.

As an example of this supposed “fraud,” the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his “belief in Christ” and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a “biblical call to feed the hungry” also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the “hypocrisy” of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely “lip service,” part of a “campaign of deception” that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

I was recently invited by neil to visit his blog, an example of which is this charming piece in which the Rev. Chuck Currie is made fun of and called a heretic. In the course of the piece, neil says something about the UCC not being in favor of "sound doctrine", a phrase that means absolutely nothing to me.

Both of these pieces, one on the political front, the other on the religious front, highlight why I much prefer a liberal, pluralist approach to my faith. Indeed, I honestly don't understand fundamentalism. Even though ER and others have tried to tell me it was their reality at one time, a reality from which they are trying to escape, it is just foreign to my own experience. Intellectually I understand such things as biblical inerrancy, the necessity of asserting certain truths as absolute, and the strict moral code that usually applies to others. As a matter of existential grasping, however, it is just beyond me. My experience of the faith has always been one of opening up to more experiences, more people, more ways of living life, more ways of helping others, more ways of judging oneself and withholding judgment from others.

The exclusivity of both the socio-political branch and theological branch of fundamentalism is also something that I can consider intellectually without understanding its appeal or its relevance. The idea that only certain groups have access to Christian truth, that there is only one way to live a Christian life, that non-Christian ways obviously are excluded from being correct - again, I just don't get it. Apparently billions of people around the world are not only damned, but not fully human because they do not participate in the truth of the Christian faith.

I understand the whole in-group/out-group thing; I understand the dimension of fear and the necessity for metaphysical grounding that so many people seem to think is necessary in life. I just don't think any or all these answers add up to the reasons for fundamentalism. There is a piece missing, and I need help understanding it. Reducing this movement to psychology and sociology just doesn't fill out what is going on here. I need help understanding how and why certain people can actually believe they have access to Truth that is denied to all others.

Here's Some Thoughts For Marshall to Ponder

What worries me more than anything is the Bush Administration has nothing to lose. They are term limited (assuming they yield the White House to whomever may win it next year). They have the next best thing to a zero approval rating except with Democrats in Congress who seem to shake in their boots whenever the word "terrorism" is mentioned. They have some kind of weird, almost occult power over the Executive Branch, contorting in to shapes one barely recognizes. With all the rhetoric concerning the alleged threat of Iran, I thought it might be prudent to present an alternative view of things, at least an alternative to the nonsense constantly streaming from mouthpieces in Washington.

Iran and Iraq, despite a long war two decades ago, now have much more in common socially and religiously than previously. They have multiple shared interests, not the least of which is removing the American monkey from around their necks. They have similar security concerns (Kurds seeking autonomy, the ideological and religious struggle with their Sunni neighbors). Had we a rational, prudent Administration in office, peopled with those schooled in real politique, we might be courting Iran, rather than doing everything we could to antagonize them. For a decade, the Iranians have been trying to develop better relations with the US. A reform-minded President, a modernizing population chafing at the strictures of the ayatollahs, and a thriving democracy that does not like its will overruled by ideological hard-liners (the last sounds awfully familiar . . .), Iran is ripe for some serious coddling by the US. With Iraq as an opening line, courting Iran would be relatively easy. Of course, there will always be differences with any country with whom we have relations. The way to deal with that, if we had diplomats who understood diplomacy, is to ignore points of friction, and concentrate on those areas where co-operation is possible. We still hold millions or perhaps even billions in Iranian national assets frozen from the days of the Islamic revolution as a carrot to use, after all.

Iran has done nothing to threaten the United States. Indeed, since the attacks on September 11, they have been attempting to thaw the cold shoulder we keep turning upon them. They gave us operational intelligence against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They offered us condolences and prayers in the wake of the attacks themselves (the same can not be said for the Saudis). The "foreign nationals" who are aiding and abetting the insurgents are from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and Algeria, the same places the hijackers on September 11 cam from. Of course, the Bush Administration has never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good dose of propaganda.

As far as the Iranian nuclear program is concerned, I fail to see where that is any business of ours. There is little evidence the program is concerned with anything other than civilian energy. Even if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, (a) we have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, so silence might be prudent; (b) we have good relations with Israel, India, and Pakistan, nuclear nations that have thwarted international treaties on proliferation, and whose stability (or, at least, the stability of their leaders) is always in question; (c) should we court them diplomatically, it might actually work better in slowing any attempt at building a bomb, rather than the threats we keep shouting at them. The only slightly possible target of any Iranian nuclear threat would be Israel, who has a healthy nuclear arsenal of its own and has always shown a willingness to strike first those who threaten its security.

Just to really tick off Marshall, I would like to state categorically that I do not believe the popular view of Iranian President Ahmedinajad as an unstable autocrat. Those descriptions are the stock in trade of the slander machine. Qadafi, Hussein, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, Jean Bertrand Aristide - all of them have been painted as mentally deficient, sexually perverse, mentally unstable or demented, and posing a direct threat to the United States in some manner fashion or form. All of them have led countries far from the United States, with few resources (except, of course, for oil). In the case of Aristide, he was President of the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. The father/son pair of Kims in the two Koreas lead a nation teetering on the brink of collapse for over a decade now. One wonders how any sane individual, considering the evidence rationally, could possibly consider any of them a threat. Confronted by an Iran that has much to offer the world, and the US specifically, we seem to be working against our interests in dealing with them diplomatically. Of course, that seems to be the modus operandi of the Bush team - do the opposite of what makes sense. Counter intuitive actions only work if they produce results, something we are still waiting on from Bush and the rest of them.

Having said all that, I still believe it is more than likely that, despite the bloody quicksand of Iraq, it is more than likely the United States will drum up some excuse to attack Iran. Should we do that - provided the generals either don't mutiny or resign en masse - it might be the end of American power, not just in the Middle East, but in the world. Of course, that might not be a bad thing . . .

Do They Really Care?

Nothing shows the moral and political nihilism of the right wing more than they're oft-stated desire for another terrorist attack to vindicate they're lack of leadership over the past six years. This is the latest example. It's disgusting, anti-American, and hateful. There isn't even the presence of logic to make it understandable. It is just the wish for greater deaths in order to clamp down even further on control of the country - it is the pursuit of power, pure and simple.

The idea that it "may take another terrorist attack to wake the people up" is ludicrous. The idea that somehow the people of this country aren't aware of the threat of potential terror attacks ignores the reality that the Bush Administration refuses to pursue the terrorists, occupying Iraq and threatening Iran instead. Osama bin Laden is still out there, and we do nothing. al Qaeda is as strong as it was before the original attacks, and we do nothing. The idea that the anti-war and anti-Bush folks will be to blame in the face of an attack ignores simple reality. In fact, it will vindicate everything we have been saying for years. Sadly, the deaths, destruction, etc. will be laid at the feet of people who obviously do not care about human life, even American lives. That there might be a further crackdown on our Constitutional rights in the wake of such an attack (not that there are many left for them to tear to shreds . . .) is scary. That they all seem to want one makes one wonder how hard they will work to prevent it. I might once have dismissed such talk as conspiracy and fear-mongering. Now, who knows?

This is the party of responsibility. This is the party of morality. This is the party of national defense. This is the party of patriotism. They fail at all three, even as they shout ever more loudly that it is we bloggers and anti-war and anti-Bush folks who are to blame. They are a bunch of clowns, and should we survive the next few years, it will be despite, not because, of the Bush Administration.

Post Concert and Saturday Rock Show

The Dream Theater show last night was awesome - the best of the three I've seen. After a harrowing trip in which I drove through O'Hare Airport on a Friday afternoon (I missed my exits, darn it), I got to Rosemont and throughly enjoyed the show from beginning to the end.

They had two bands open for them. The first, a hardcore band from Canada called Into Eternity was, to be blunt, awful. Here's there one video, "Extreme Emotional Distress". The band was not EQ'd, overamplified, and it was thirty minutes wasted.

The second band was another new band. Called Redemption, they showed much promise, although they, too, hadn't been sound checked well enough - the keyboards especially could have benefited from a bit of tweaking from the soundboard. On the other hand, their music was much more melodic, the singer actually sang, and they showed promise as they seemed to sound a bit like Symphony X, Enchant, and other prog metal bands, but carving their own little niche. That was a great thirty minutes, and makes me want to go get their CD. This is a video for their song "Bleed Me Dry".

Here's an older clip, with Kevin Moore on keyboards, of Dream Theater doing a song they played last night, "Surrounded" from Images and Words.

The Limits of Reform

The past week or so has left me distraught. Once again, I have felt that all the months of writing, linking, networking, occasionally getting noticed in the national press - all this has come to nothing because it hasn't changed the fundamental discourse of Washington, or forced through to those who actually hold power and set the agenda that things have changed. I am reminded of reading about the run-up to the election of 1932. While it was clear that Hoover had bungled efforts to deal with the Depression, there was a consensus that Roosevelt would lose. For one thing, his management of affairs in New York as governor was too controversial. He angered the political bosses in New York City, riled up Al Smith at a Jefferson-Jackson Dinner a month before the election, when Smith came out and endorsed Hoover. He was disabled by polio, and a whispering campaign had begun about his relationship, or lack thereof, with his wife. On the campaign trail he was vague, speaking of balancing the budget and revoking Prohibition.

Back then, Maine voted in September. A rock-ribbed Republican state, Maine elected Democrats. Hoover took to the campaign trail and got even nastier toward his opponent, while Roosevelt continued to glide along. The results were the decimation of the Republican Party across the board. The national press acted as if it had occurred out of the blue. It hadn't. It was the result of years of Republican mismanagement, corruption, deference to big money, and a refusal to accept the reality that millions of Americans were suffering.

Flash forward, and we have a corrupt Republican Party in denial concerning the anger of the American people, not just toward an illegal war ill-planned, an occupation with no end in sight that is killing American men and women for no reason. We are angry because our government is destroying the Constitution. With every word from the Bush Administration, it is obvious these people are insisting that we believe them, not our lying eyes and lives.

The situation is made worse by a Democratic Party that seems bent on losing the good will of the voters who put them in office. Rather than demand a showdown with an unpopular President, they keep moving the goal posts, refuse to stand up and call a lie and a liar a lie and a liar. They have removed impeachment from the table - an utterly irresponsible act of political cowardice.

The problem we face is that Democrats are in the awkward position of attempting to work with true revolutionaries. The Republicans are committed to the notion that the rules of politics and public ethics and morality don't apply to them because they have been in the business, for the past quarter century, of overthrowing the political status quo. The Democrats seem to believe it is possible to work with these people, to compromise with them, to have comity and reach consensus with them. Our pundit class refuse to call the Republicans, and their governing philosophy what it is - revolutionary. They continue to treat Republican politicians as if they were not different from Everett Dirksen, Dwight Eisenhower, or even Ronald Reagan. Our chattering classes and the Democrats who listen to them assume the Republicans are open to dialogue and compromise.

They aren't. You cannot treat the contemporary Republican Party as if it was a continuation of the age of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, or Bush 41. The men and women who currently occupy seats of authority and power as Republicans are committed to principles that do not allow for compromise. They are committed to a vision of the Executive that does not allow for compromise. As long as the Democrats believe they can work behind the scenes to forge consensus, the results will always look more like the horrendous immigration reform bill that died a swift death - it was not so much a compromise as a patchwork of incompatible carrots and sticks, the carrots being not enough and the stick being much too big. As long as the Democrats refuse to force a showdown in the name of Washington comity (I still can't get over Patrick Leahy refusing to put Gonzalez on the spot; this is the guy whom the Vice President of the United States told to "go fuck himself"; he has to know what these people are really like).

The Democrats, and to a certain extent we bloggers who have been their biggest boosters, have been committed to a practice of reform. The problem is reform can't work in an atmosphere in which the whip hand is still held by reactionary revolutionaries. It is a small, weakened hand, but as long as the Democrats continue to believe and quake in fear before the Republicans, it will fail. The first sign of real progress will be when there is no more talk between the White House and Congress over various people testifying. When warrants are issued, then I think I will take them seriously.

Why Rush Things?

To be fair, Dream Theater isn't the only concert on my schedule this summer. In September, I'm heading down to the old Tweeter Center between Joliet and Chicago to see Rush. Here's a video from their new CD.

I know this makes me an old fart but I can't help it because these guys are so good. All these young bands are great - I would have dearly loved to see Tool in June - but the concerts are pretty rowdy, and I don't want to get beat up when I go to a show, all that moshing and crowd-surfing makes no sense to me at all.

Outrage Exhaustion, Part II

Digby has two posts, here on the Democrats' cowardly capitulation on the FISA legislation, and here on a Jane Meyer piece in The New Yorker detailing our non-torture of detainees. Both should be read and digested in full, although be prepared to step outside and breathe deeply due to raised blood-pressure levels.

As to the whole FISA betrayal, my only comments center of the destructive role of Dianne Feinstein, fake Democratic Senator from California. I must admit I have never quite trusted her; there was always something about the way she seemed to fake left then run right that reminded me of mediocre running backs. Except, of course, mediocre running backs get tackled, and Feinstein keeps running, first her mouth, then for the Senate. Bill Nelson of Florida is Joe Lieberman Lite; a fairly conservative guy from a fairly conservative state who doesn't appear on television showing the world what a doofus he is. Feinstein, however, likes to have her mug on the networks. That she has failed to do her duty to uphold the Constitution, and for no reason I can fathom by any stretch of reason or unreason is clear.

As an aside, I think digby takes Arthur's comments on her role as a useful idiot too hard. Arthur has long denied any merit to the American political system; like quite a lot of us, digby assumed that the Democrats understood that victory in last November's election, along with the massive shift in public opinion over the previous nine months to a year, actually meant something. Cowardly, craven, self-destructive to a fault, the Democrats have shown themselves singularly inept at governance. With a tin ear for the public mood, their radar kept within the boundaries of I-495, they have failed to do what they were elected to do. At the moment, I am not sure what recourse we have to fix the unholy mess we currently have, so don't look for constructive answers here, folks.

As to the piece on the Jane Meyer article, all I can say is - God Damn Them All. From the President and Vice-President on down to those who bind, strip, gag, give suppositories, and sleep deprive those whom we have illegally detained and held incommunicado. All of them. Anyone who tries to tell me there is some justification for this is aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. Anyone who tells me that this is necessary even if evil is aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. Again, there seems to be no way to stop it, and ranting about it just gets me even more upset, but I don't know what else to do.

Outrage Exhaustion, Part I

Remember the Hamdinyah murder case from a couple years ago? Some Marines entered a village, raped a young girl, then killed her family. First, we were told the murders were actually combat deaths of insurgents. Then we were told the Marines were acting out of rage because a member of their squad had just been killed by a sniper/IED/small arms fire. Then we were told they were revenge killings for the same death, only they occurred a few days later. Finally, we discover the Marines simply did what they did because they could, and a court martial found them guilty. Justice for at least a few Iraqi deaths, while delayed, was not denied, right?

Apparently, not.

I realize that, like Pres. Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence for perjury, the Commanding Officer of the 1st Marines was perfectly within his rights to free the two Marines in question. What was achieved by doing so, however? Like Lt. Calley's release soon after his conviction for the My Lai massacre, it has done nothing to clear the sullied reputation of these men. Beyond that, we have sent a very clear signal to the Iraqis that we have no concern for the rule of our own laws, at least when the victims of our criminal activities are Iraqis. Of course, they didn't need further proof of that . . .

I am glad that I have turned from ranting about politics to ranting about religion and getting hyped for the Dream Theater concert in Rosemont on Friday (I think I might have mentioned it once or twice . . .) because I am tired of being enraged by the arrogance of those in power. At least when I rant about my own religious beliefs, I get other people ranting at me for being apostate.

Three Days Til Dream Theater!

The last post tired me out. So, in honor of my excursion Friday to Rosemont to see Dream Theater, here is a video clip from their new album. Enjoy.

No Truth

In comments on this thread, neil and I began a discussion of truth. I asserted that the concept of truth plays no role in the way I think and live, and neil countered that I was refuting myself because I was making truth claims in asserting that truth was not a metaphysical property of objects, concepts, or signs. I just want to clarify my position here, which is nothing more than a restatement of the position of philosopher Richard Rorty.

In the late 18th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant dismissed scholastic metaphysics by asking the question, "What is added to a thing if we claim that it exists?" This simple question threw out hundreds of years of western philosophy by denying the substantive content of the metaphysical examination of the question of being. "Being" adds nothing to a thing; it is not a property that objects or concepts possess in addition to all other properties. Something either exists or not; nothing more nothing less.

In the late 20th century, Richard Rorty asked the question, "What is added to a sentence if we claim it is true?" I suppose, for the sake of clarity here, I should be clarifying the difference between "true" as in factually representative (this is scientific "truth; that which can be plotted on a graph) and "True" as in transcendentally reflective of a hidden order, a property which adheres to a concept giving it universal status across all languages, cultures, and which is in need of no translation. The first way of using the word "true" is common, even necessary. I would be insane if I asserted that there were no such thing as factual reporting of data. The second way of using the word "True" is a meaningless plus ultra that people insist is a metaphysical property of their sentences, granting them a certain privileged status of assertion and repetition. Whether it's the centrality of being, or the coninherence of the Persons of the Trinity or "L'etat, c'est moi", or the importance of race, nationality, the eventual triumph of the proletariat, claims have been made for the Truth of these sentences, a claim that demands they be accepted as transcendent.

The problem is that two hundred years of philosophy has taught us that all language is nothing more than, in Rorty's words, sounds we make or scratches on paper. After Darwin, Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida, it is silly to assert that such sounds we make or such scratchings on paper as we do contain some "stuff" called Truth that would privilege them above all other sentences we or others utter. Language doesn't work that way. There is not stuff out there that language reflects, or to which language is transparent, giving us privileged access to some transcendental realm.

As Democracy Lover uses the example of science, I will use our current paradigmatic way of thinking as an example. He claims that science makes assertions concerning certain "truths" that have to be revised due to "evidence". I would claim that science gives descriptions, derived from a statistical analysis of what it considers the most important evidence; the problem, however, is that scientists are constantly arguing about what constitutes "evidence", what constitutes proper statistical modeling, and which description is closest to the factual representation of dots on a piece of graph paper. Science is nothing more than a description of some people's interpretation of dots on graph paper, said dots being pre-determined by a general, always contingent, acceptance of what constitutes evidence. It is certainly not normative; it has a procedure, a "method", that is useful and productive, but the success of the application of what has been called "the scientific method" is not that it gets at what is "True". The success of science is that it works well as a short-hand description of the world that is useful and productive.

The claim that religious beliefs are "True" is on even less sure ground than the claims of scientific "Truth" because, at least with regards to science, we are dealing with intersubjective phenomenon for which there is at any given time a common vocabulary to which most people have access. Religious communities, on the other hand, have no such general vocabulary. Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Shinto - they all have distinctive ways of describing not just the world, but the place of their communities of belief within the world that are incompatible, contradictory, and incommensurable. That they all still exist and function quite well as descriptions not so much of some Divine Reality to which they alone are privileged to access, but of the history of different communities and their struggle to define themselves and the world in which they live even as they are incompatible shows that the question of truth adds nothing to a conversation about religion.

When I entered seminary in 1990, I was thrust in to a two-millenia old discussion on who God is, and I realized fairly quickly that, even within the Christian faith, there are incompatible definitions of who God is. To insist there is only one answer is to deny functionality to all others, and to deny the humanity of those who hold such beliefs. That is to say, if we assert that our understanding of "God" is "True", and all others are false, not only are those who adhere to false beliefs being either deliberately obtuse or are too stupid or ignorant to accept their error, they are also not living fully human lives because they hold beliefs that are not transcendentally normative, in tune with the Nature of Ultimate Reality. Yet, history and common decency belies such an assertion. People can be fully human and assert that Brahma dreams the world for a few billion years, then awakens. Or that there is only Allah and Mohamed is his prophet. Or that the ancestors guide our steps in the Tao of life. Or that any and all such attempts to explain Ultimate Reality are doomed to fail because there is no such thing. These latter assertions provide equally successful ways of living fully human lives, and have done so remarkably well across the life-span of the human race. To invalidate them arbitrarily because they do not have some property called "Truth" is to deny those who assert these beliefs their humanity.

We cannot "get behind" the what Rorty calls the "sentential structure" of reality. All we have to communicate with each other are sentences, all of which are contingent by their very nature. There is nothing to be gained by asserting that certain sentences can or must or should or are bracketed off because they are "True", contingent, yet still having some quality called "Truth" that overcomes their very contingency. Rather than go down that road, it would be much more fruitful if we examined the way beliefs function as contributing to human life and human fulfillment, rather than play a word game designed to eliminate certain players from the human race because they refuse to use them the same way we do.

It is not self-refuting, by the way, to say that I am making a truth claim when I say there is no "Truth", because I am not engaged in that particular language game (to use a wonderful Wittgensteinian phrase). Part of the game called "Truth" is the assertion that certain sentences are not just descriptively accurate, but normative for human conduct. All I am doing is describing the way I believe language functions, including language about Ultimate Reality. William James said that most of our beliefs are true, most of the time. He could say that because he refused to play the game called "Truth", and sought to understand the way beliefs work in human life, and the way different communities negotiate their different understandings of the world. This is a position I agree with whole-heartedly. I make no normative assertions here, no transcendent claims concerning the way the world is, because to do so is inherently impossible.

This is what I mean when I say there is "no truth".

Music Monday

Parklife asked for it, so here it is. Stax Records was the southern, rural counterpart to the northern, urban Motown Records. Their sound was grittier. Their production values high while not putting a premium on the kind of slickness one associates with Motown. Some prefer one, while some prefer the other. I have always liked both because it is like looking at life from two different angles.

Booker T and the MGs were kind of the house band at Stax. They also had a great career that went far beyond "Green Onions". Here they are live in 1970, with a brief glimpse of members of CCR looking on appreciatively from the wings.

In 1967, Otis Redding was invited to attend the Monterrey Pop Festival. His performance blew the crowd away. He was destined to be the next big thing, already having a huge following in black audiences across the south with his powerful, emotional, performances. Alas, it was not to be, as he was killed later that year in a plane crash. He lives on, though, in his music, teaching all of us what it means to put everything you have in a performance.

Isaac Hayes was another Stax studio musician, as well as writer and arranger who had a great career as a performer as well. He won an Academy Award for the music for Shaft. I think that says it all.

Christian Pluralism

I have described myself as a Christian pluralist. I think it's important to say what I mean by that. I do not mean what neil, writing in comments on a thread below said:

But religious pluralism that says "all religions are valid paths to God" is intellectually bankrupt.

Now that is one of the truly stupid things that many people say.

For one thing, to make such a claim is to Christianize other religions. It makes an assumption about other religious beliefs that can be demonstrated as false. Some religions have one God, some have many, some have non at all. To claim that all religions are "path to God" is to reduce the beliefs of others to Christian categories, rather than taking them seriously for and as they are.

For another thing, such a claim assumes that is what religion, specifically Christianity, is about - a "path to God". I'll be honest and say I have no idea what such a phrase means, but it certainly doesn't describe my own faith, or the stated faith of my denomination (the United Methodist Church), so we'll just leave that to one side.

As a Christian pluralist, I believe that all religions are equally valid human expressions of a sense of the depth of reality. There are those, however, probably a majority, who do not adhere to any religious beliefs whatsoever. I believe that, too, is an equally valid way of living one's life. I am not "evangelical" in the sense that I feel it necessary to convince others to live and think as I do. Much of what I write is not so much polemical as it is just me trying to figure things out as I go. I write to make sense for me, not to try and convince other people that I'm right and they're wrong. That's not only highly presumptuous, it implies that I have some key to understanding reality that others are missing. Sorry, but I don't play like that.

I accept and profess the tenets of the Christian faith partly because that was how I was raised, partly because I find it useful for interpreting my own experiences in life, and partly because it reflects my commitment to life outside myself. I can imagine being a Buddhist, say, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or even agnostic and still being fully me with the same political, social, and other commitments I have. It just so happens that my life has unfolded in a way in which Christianity has been an aid for understanding my life in a fuller, richer sense. I refuse to make any universal claims for the teachings of Christianity; at the same time, I will defend those claims against those who deride and belittle them precisely because most of the reasons I am a Christian are so personal.

Because I have staked my claim to this little patch of spiritual dirt, I refuse to belittle the religious and faith commitments of those who adhere to other faiths. Why should I? For one thing, I know little about them beyond vague generalities. For another, to say that adherents to other faiths are not just aberrant but actively evading the demands of God ignores the possibility that they're faith commitments may just be true and mine false. I have no assurance that I am right, or that the 2000 year history of Christianity is somehow more true than, say, the five thousand-plus year history of Chinese animism, the 2500 hundred year history of Buddhism, or the 1400 year history of Islam. I am a pluralist out of faithful, intellectual humility.

I refuse to exclude whole sectors of humanity from humanity simply because they live differently from me. How silly is that? I am a pluralist in the broadest sense - while I am committed to a certain way of living, and will defend that way of living against critics who charge me with error, I will also refuse to claim any exclusivity or universality to my own position. That goes for politics, social commitments, and religious belief as well. This isn't "relativism" (to anticipate one possible criticism). It is pluralism. There are multiple, sometimes incongruous, mutually contradictory ways to live a fully human life, and all are equally valid as expressions of a fully human life. Difference is not error. It is always and only just what it says - difference.

The Democrats Cave, And I Am Speechless (Well, OK, Not Really)

It's like the election never happened last November. It's as if President Bush had approval ratings in the fifties, or even sixties. It's as if Tom DeLay was still in charge, Denny Hastert was still Speaker, Bill Frist was still Majority Leader. President Bush actually "demanded" greater domestic spying authority - and the Democrats gave it to him!

I can imagine all kinds of excuses and justifications for it. What I can't imagine are reasons. I can't imagine listening to a Democratic Senator or Congress member explain to me why they decided to support the expansion of power of the Executive at a time when Congress was actually supposed to be reigning in an out-of-control Executive. I am just gobsmacked by it all.

I have been trying to digest this very weird, very out-of-synch event and I just can't. Were the Democrats afraid the Republicans would call them wimpy, terrorist-loving surrender monkeys who want them fighting over here because they're too scared to fight them over there? Were they afraid Dick Cheney would come on television and tell them he has intelligence information that a member of al Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague before September 11, 2001, and if only the Executive had the powers granted in this bill that event might never have happened? The only saving grace in all of this is I fear very little the abuse of power by the Bush Administration because they have shown themselves singularly inept at just about everything they do, from No Child Left Behind to fiscal policy to the war and occupation in Iraq. Let them tap my phone; all they'll hear are my wife talking to members of the congregation and me asking when she is coming home and what would she like for supper. I'm sure they'll spin that in to code for the next dirty bomb plot - it's like Monty Python took over national security with these people.

To be honest, I think I reflect a lot of what I've been reading and hearing over the past couple days when I say I feel betrayed. Let down. I don't want to have to wait until next year's election to fix this mess, but I'm not sure what to do about it right now.

Aspects of Evil

The great question that faces all explicit and implicit discussions about God is the reality of evil. Philosopher of religion William R. Jones, writing a critique of black theologies of liberation back in the 1970's, insisted that implicit in all protest theologies are answers to the question of the presence of evil. His own critique, title Is God a White Racist?, gave the answer that they are deficient because they make the traditional mistake of classical theology since Augustine, viz., giving short shrift to the presence of evil in human individual and social life, essentially claiming that evil is a non-existent, indeed is non-existence as a negating force.

Intellectual historian Jeffrey Burton Russell has written a four-volume history of the idea of the personification of evil, the second and fourth volumes of which I have read. He begins each volume with a preface in which he makes his own position clear with a newspaper account of of the potential for radical evil in the world - the account of a serial killer, or a pathological person who destroys the life of a child or children. I like that because it keeps one aware of the reality we all face. Evil is not just one among many intellectual problems facing human beings, to be solved through clever reasoning. It is, rather, the existential problem that refuses reduction and idealization. We are confronted by evil, not just in other individuals and in institutions, but in our own lives. We are most honest with ourselves when we view incidents of evil-doing as a very real, very dangerous possibility for ourselves. This is the first movement towards a healthy, honest humility in all things human.

It is important to make something clear at this point. I have been struggling to make clear in the past weeks my own intuition of what for lack of a better word can be called the Divine. I employ the language of the Christian Church and tradition because it is the tradition in which I was raised, and it is the vocabulary I find most adequate for understanding. At the same time, I must confess that behind the words stands an intuition, a very personal experience of the depth of life and experience that transcends my own ability to communicate. Explicit within that intuition is not just an intuition of the greatness and loving-kindness of God, but of the very real presence of evil. I refuse to personalize this presence by giving it the name Satan, or less personal but still allegedly metaphysically real Devil. Employing these traditional Christian ideas brings along too much baggage from popular thought - all that Exorcist nonsense of horned creatures, puking children looking like lepers, and the rest - to be constructive or helpful. I prefer to de-personalize the reality of evil, but that does not make it any less real. Evil is an active force in the world, at both the interpersonal and social level. One denies this only at the expense of being naive or blind, or both.

When I say that evil is a force, I am suggesting that it exists independently of any and all instances of evil we encounter. I am further suggesting that it has power, although it is always a power of negation. To this extent, I think the traditional formulation was correct; only when they raised this existential, intuitive understanding to a metaphysical principle did they make the error that ended up making evil non-existent and non-existence.

In my own life, I have experienced the power of radical evil in any number of ways and occasions. There have been times in my life when I felt overwhelmed by it. The worst part of these times in my life was the simple fact that much of what happened was the result of my own actions; I succumbed to the temptation to make choices based not upon what was right or even prudent, but what I knew to be wrong. I have known the reality of the demonic in my own life, and have had to live with the consequences. I am not confessing to murdering, or even stealing; I am simply confessing that actions I have taken in the past have been destructive of my own and the lives of others, and there seemed at times no way out from under the weight of guilt and responsibility. That is a further aspect of evil - it leads to inaction due to the acceptance of responsibility.

This is where the mystery of grace comes in. Standing before one's life, viewing the wreckage one has caused, when one realizes there is no way one can get from where one is to where one wants to be on one's own, there can be an opportunity to open oneself to the possibility of living without guilt, but with a sense of responsibility. Grace is not some metaphysical factum that enters our lives, but the mysterious presence of the Divine that presents the opportunity to accept oneself as one is - precisely because one is accepted as one is.

These general comments are only the beginning of some thinking about evil.

Saturday Rock Show

If Jim Bush-Resko comes a-calling, he may remember that in the fall of 1986, we had tickets to see Steve Winwood in concert in Buffalo. Alas and alack, the concert was canceled, for reasons I cannot remember. Arc of a Diver was probably his best post-Traffic recording, but Roll With It sold a lot of copies. I always liked the song "Valerie"; it reminds me of the last dregs of the summer of 1982, right before I started my senior year of high school. I didn't have a "Valerie" at the time, but I identified with it anyway.

PS: You may have noticed I haven't blogged much (actually at all) today. Been busy with other things, and not really motivated to say much. Poor Mom2. I feel bad for her. Ah, well.

Thinking And Talking About God

A couple days ago, I wrote a short bit on Dick Cheney's Larry King interview. The comment section has metastasized in to a thoroughgoing theological discussion on the nature of God. I thought it would be better to provide a relevant forum for such a discussion. While I admire the way discussions can take on a life of their own, I much prefer comments to be on topic.

One of the interesting aspects of the discussion there are the assumptions on the part of Mom2 (welcome, by the way; come early and often, but bring your own coffee) that seem to come through. First, she seems to assume that the content of her claims about God - friend, savior, that his blood saves - are unknown here. At the same time, she seems to assume that repeating them to an audience that she seems to think is unaware of them will somehow make sense. In comments, Parklife makes the point that there seems to be a disconnect between Mom2 and the other commenters. I would have to agree and it is an obvious disconnect that can be missed if one is not looking for it. Mom2's claims concerning God are meaningless to others. Her words carry no emotional or intellectual weight for us. This is not to say they are inherently meaningless, or that she doesn't understand what she is saying, or that we are either so corrupt or obtuse here that we refuse what should be so obvious. On the contrary, as Parklife noted, and as Democracy Lover noted quite a while ago, we three are all acquainted with the religious vocabulary Mom2 is employing. We understand it, can give dictionary-like definitions of the way she is using the words. That does not indicate they have any meaning, however. They have no impact upon us at all.

I do not fault Mom2 here. This is the language with which she is familiar, these are the images of God that are useful for her, that guide her in her life, that comfort her when she is conflicted, and that serve as an anchor when doubts may assail (if they do). The problem, however, is that Mom2 seems to believe this is the only legitimate way of speaking and thinking about God in a way that is authentically Christian. All others are wrong.

I have tried to make a point, and usually have failed, but it is important to realize and recognize that there is no one normative Christian doctrine on anything. Different faith traditions may use the same words - the Trinity, salvation, the sacraments, whatever - but Coptic Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia, Marionite Christian in Lebanon, Syriac Christians in Damascus and Baghdad, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Evangelical all believe very different things, and understand their faiths very differently. None of them are wrong; one of the blessings of the diversity of expressions of Christianity is its demonstration of the limited nature of humanity in the face of the ultimate mystery of faith.

When I said that Mom2's God was too small, I was not trying to be deliberately offensive or insulting. I was attempting to convey to her that, for me, such a description didn't capture the fullness of my own experience of and thinking through concerning the Divine. Her God is someone she can approach, to whom she can speak of her troubles. For me, God is an awesome presence, both loved and feared - the two parts of the feeling of "awe". For Mom2, Scripture provides all the information she requires to understand the God in whom she believes. For me there is scripture, but there is also two thousand years of Christian tradition (hardly a tiny bit of which, beyond certain generalities, I really understand fully), my own experience as well as the experiences of those who have gone before me in the faith (and some who have not been Christian at all), and understanding and the faculty of reason. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a wonderful way of checking oneself against a too one-sided approach to thinking and talking about God. Scripture is contradictory and fallible. The tradition is both too large and too diverse to be used definitively. Reason is limited and, being fully human, fallible as well. Experience is too myopic, which can lead to solipsism. Taken together, however, they all serve to check an individual, to remind him or her of the limitations we all face, and open one to the possibility that, no matter how many words we use, or how we use them, we are probably wrong anyway.

More on Prayer

I have been struggling recently to come to an understanding of the relationship between prayer and a critical reflection on faith. How does one square the pre-critical language of much of prayer with the critical language often involved in serious theological reflection? It occurred to me that they are different aspects of a larger, complex movement of faith in a person's life. Shorthand for understanding these different aspects is to say that prayer is the first movement, a subjective, emotive response to events. It is pre-critical because it is more reactive than active, a response rather than an initiative. The language of prayer is the language of poetry, as it were, not necessarily "rational" in the conventional sense. Rather, it is symbolic, full of grand images that deal in traditional ways of addressing the Divine.

Part of this emotive, reactive way of being in relationship with something outside oneself is the recognition of the conditionedness and contingency of human thought, language, life, and faith. We are always limited in what we say, think and do. Prayer is the response that comes from the confrontation between this contingency and the unconditioned that we encounter in religious life and experience. Resorting to traditional language in prayer is not a resort to pre-critical understandings of who and/or what God is; rather it is a response that emanates from the very core of our subjectivity. Prayer, in this understanding, is a form of religious art that uses the mytho-poetic language of Scripture and tradition as a starting point for engaging with the Divine Other who encounters us in all our transience.

To call the language of prayer "mytho-poetic" is not to deny its fruitfulness or truthfulness. I would as soon discard the latter notion all together anyway. Poetry is a way of understanding that is non-critical, symbolic (not necessarily metaphorical, however), and laden with subjectivity. It invites the reader or listener in to the mind of an individual, to see with his or her eyes, to hear with his or her ears. It is, in this sense, not so much objective (another word I would just as soon do without) as it is intersubjective. In essence, it gives us permission to be creative, to use our imaginative faculties in understanding the world around us, as long as we do not assume that it is either the end of reflection or constitutive of anything "real" (for lack of a better term).

These are just some initial thoughts, obviously, and have yet to be fleshed out more fully. For now, though, I think I am far more comfortable with what it is we are doing when we pray than I was even a week ago.

Refocusing On the Problem

Barack Obama gave a speech today in which he says that, if he is elected President, our national focus will return to the real al Q'aeda threat in Pakistan, rather than the made-up al Q'aeda threat in Iraq. He says he will cut off the free money to Musharaf. Further, if Pakistan's dictator doesn't put the kibosh on the Taliban and al Q'aeda, the United States will. In a quick review of Obama's speech at Swampland, under the title "Obama: The Toughness Primary, Continued", Karen Tumulty writes:

That's tougher than anything we have seen from the Bush Administration--which is not necessarily a good thing, as far as the liberal blogo[s]phere is concerned.(emphasis added)

First of all, this is just stupid. It assumes that (a) the "liberal blogo[s]phere" is some monolithic creature taking its orders from on high, shrieking with one voice; (b) all liberals are reflexively anti-war; (c) Obama is being "tough" to the wrong constituency.

The first is just ludicrous on its face.

On the second point, I think that Tumulty misses something that digby wrote about yesterday. This is not just a problem for Democrats, but for the nation as a whole - there needs to be a renewed focus on the reality of Islamic extremism and the real threats (and the way those threats have been made worse over the past six years) rather than the phony War on Terror rhetoric and the accompanying "Iraq Forever" mentality of the Bush Administration. I think Obama's assertions have the merit of drawing attention back to the source of the problem; there may be reasons to discuss and debate certain points, such as the role of the UN, the whole issue of Pakistan (unlike Iraq) possessing nuclear weapons, the possibility of an unstable Pakistan should the US take any military action there unilaterally, etc. However, this is one liberal blogger who welcomes both the speech and the possibility of returning our national discussion to the real world, rather than the fantasies of war-bloggers and our Commander-in-Chief.

This leads directly to the third point, which shows that Tumulty frames the entire speech incorrectly. This is not an issue of "being tough" (as if running for President wasn't proof of a certain amount of personal toughness). This is about the substantive issue of how we deal with very real threats that exist, and how we move from where we are to where we should be. I assume there are Democrats and liberals who will criticize Obama's speech. I have certain reservations myself. On the whole, however, I believe this is not just a good first step, but a nice stroll down a path to reality that we need to have as a country if we are going to face up to the fact that Osama bin Laden is still out there, and thanks to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, there are a whole lot more people willing to kill Americans (and a whole lot less of the rest of the world who will sympathize if it happens) than was true on September 10, 2001. For that, he should be thanked.

Why Do Christians Say Stupid Things?

Over at Newsweek's on-line site is this short piece by the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Religious Leadership Council, under the title, "America's Genome of Spiritual Pluralism". Among the things Rev. Rodriguez says are the following:

[O]ur nation thrives by presenting to the world this great idea, not just of American Democracy but of religious pluralism and tolerance.

At the end of the day, our greatest export may not be technology, popular culture or our brand of democracy but rather a commitment to religious pluralism, diversity and tolerance. A Hindu priest on the floor of the U.S. Senate may one day lead to a Christian pastor opening in prayer on the floor of Parliment in Iran and a Muslim cleric opening a session of the Knesset.

Apparently Rev. Rodriguez wasn't paying close attention to what happened when Chaplain Zed appeared in the well of the United States Senate to deliver his invocation. A group of Christians protested, interrupting the prayer, and had to be removed from the chamber. It was a moment of national disgrace and embarrassment (regardless of how one feels about the whole prayer-in-the-Senate thing). This demonstration of small-binded, ignorant bigotry is, sadly, a demonstration of the way most Christians view those of other faiths, and sometimes of different Christian denominations.

I also think it is important to let Rev. Rodriguez know that there are Christians, and one Jewish, members of the Iranian Parliament. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which is an authoritarian monarchy that the Unites States just can't seem to love enough, despite the willingness of its citizens to kill ours (including on September 11th), Iran has a democracy that, while imperfect, functions rather well. The "Islamic" in the official title of the country of Iran refers to the ultimate basis of Iranian identity as a Muslim nation, and the role of the Ayatollahs as final arbiter of certain aspects of Iranian law (they are a Pope-by-committee as it were). Whenever Conservatives carry on about Pres. Ahmedinajad, they seem to think he was appointed rather than elected by a majority of the citizens of his country. Of course, the US has a history of not liking the democratic processes in other countries so this may not be as unusual as it appears . . .

As for a Christian prayer before the Knesset, all I can say is the dispensationalists would be shrieking in triumph, looking to the sky for the descent of Jesus on a cloud should that day ever come.

In truth, we are a "tolerant", "pluralist" nation in name only. In fact, most of our religious citizens are narrow, bigoted, and exceptionalist. This is sad, but it is also true. On the other hand, most Americans are not seriously committed to any particular religious belief other than a bland affirmation that God exists. They are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to pretty much anyone who seems like a good enough Joe or Jane, as long as they don't claim too much for their religious beliefs. It is the very secular pluralists Rev. Rodriguez dismisses early in his piece who will be the saving grace of this country, retrieving us from the jaws of those who believe they have a channel to the will of God (kind of like the Iranian Ayatollahs).

Why oh why do Christians say stupid things?

Memory Problems of the Powerful

Along with Alberto Gonzalez, it seems that earl-stage Alzheimer's Disease has struck the Vice President. The nice thing about the "I don't recall" line is it keeps the person who uses it from having to take responsibility once it is revealed that perhaps recollection might have been warranted. It's a curiously legalistic dodge, the kind of thing politicians and mobsters have in common. For the party of personal responsibility, it always seems to be for other people.

Even Though I Ignore It It Won't Go Away

For the past couple weeks I have been rather, um, self-absorbed (in case you haven't noticed it) in matters religious. Wrestling with certain angels has left me too preoccupied to deal with much else that is going on in the outside world. This is not to say that I haven't been keeping an eye and an ear open. It just means the bulk of my own mental energy, when not engaged in the very important task of struggling with working third shift, is dealing with my own stuff. I have been, as my wife calls it, processing in public. I think I have reached the point, however, where certain items of the day are starting to intrude upon my consciousness, disturbing the pleasant fiction that I can hide behind the covers of books and my own (not very) deep thoughts.

A couple pro-war hacks have been parading around as critics of the war even as they give all sorts of love to Bush and Petraeus (I link to Glenn Greenwald because he is the most thorough; I could have gone anywhere, though). The lefty blogs have shrieked with one voice as the Washington Post printed an op-ed the other day claiming the surge is working, we need to continue doing what we're doing, and that Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack are war critics whose minds have changed due to a whole week spent in the Green Zone in Baghdad. OK, the last part of that sentence isn't made up. The rest of it is pretty much craptacular nonsense. As Greenwald says in one of his numerous updates to one of the posts linked to above:

Pretending to be a war opponent notwithstanding one's support for the war seems to be a trend today (though not only today). And it is amazing, though it should not be, how easily manipulated the media is by this tactic.

Attention: journalists and news producers: they have these new things now called "computers" that record what people say and write and keep all of that stored. So if someone claims to be a "war critic" or "war opponent," you can actually look and find out whether that is true.

SOP, some may say. Indeed, I believe this to be true. With all the horror stories coming out of Iraq, and most of America wanting to end our occupation as soon as possible, if not sooner, it would seem necessary for the Administration to get people to shill for their line. Advertising them as long-time critics would appear to give them legitimacy. Before the advent of the Internet, it would be much more difficult to research and discover that those posing as critics were in fact supporters of the war. Now, it takes the ability to type the word "O'Hanlon" in to Google, and presto, we have a Glenn Greenwald column.

Of course, there are many in the mainstream who are rending their garments, waling and gnashing their teeth over the "vicious attacks" upon the poor, beleaguered war critics-turned-war-boosters. How dare a bunch of bloggers sit around and do the leg work for journalists, discovering that serious, thoughtful war critics have a long history of supporting the very occupation they now claim to have been critical of. According to Joe Klein, they aren't journalists because . . . I'm not really sure how the bloggers' work of unmasking these hacks as hacks doesn't count as journalism, except to say that it really looks like the kind of elementary research most news organizations should have done before pimping these guys as critics. Oh, that's right, Greenwald didn't talk to anyone. He just used Google to find out if these guys were who they advertised themselves as being. Research, journalism, tomato, tomahto. . .

I'm not at all surprised by any of this. The reaction among the lefty blogs shows the power we wield to shape our public discourse. The fact that these men have to push back against attacks on their alleged credibility is a demonstration of something that should have been obvious to the Bush Administration for over a year now - they can no longer shape the public dialogue through the mindless repetition of nonsense, because there are hundreds of people out here who know how to put the kibosh on nonsense very quickly. And I know it irritates the bejesus out of people like David Broder, Joe Klein, Tom Friedman, and other nonsensical pundits, but the left-wing blogs really do represent the opinions of a majority of Americans. Washington may be the last place to get it, but it will eventually sink in that we are witnessing real democracy in action. The people have found their voice, and the elites are scared out of their collective pin head. Hurray for us.

I have been silent on these topics due mostly to my own pre-occupation. I have also felt a bit tired day after day pointing out how ridiculous our political discourse is, at least at an official level. I must also admit that I am frustrated by the preening of public officials on the various Sunday shows - why does no one call out Arlen Specter on his obeisance to Bush, talking tough but doing nothing? - because the "journalists" who run the Sunday propaganda shows refuse to ask questions, but provide opportunities for these men and women to look good for their constituents. The whole dog-and-pony show of our mainstream media is as phony as the anti-war credentials of O'Hanlon and Pollack. Having discovered something to occupy my mind, I have preferred to pay attention to that.

I just wanted folks to know I haven't divorced myself from what is going on around us. Whether it's another Senate hearing where Alberto Gonzalez lies or another military commander telling us we have to stay in Iraq forever, I do know about it. I prefer to leave the debunking to others, that's all.

Music Monday

I mentioned Inside Out Records the other day. They are a German-based record company that specialize in, but is not limited to, a revival and sustaining of progressive rock, progressive metal, heavy metal, and other real alternative musics (unlike the phony, industry controlled "alt rock" from the 1990's). I thought that, along with a link so people can check them out on their own, I would showcase the diversity of their catalog.

They do have a lot of prog and prog-metal. Mostly European, like Sweden's Evergrey, Germany's Van Den Plas, they also have a few American performers, like California's Enchant, and Derek Sherinian (former keyboardist for Dream Theater). The following is from Austria's Dead Soul Tribe, called "Flight on an Angel's Wing".

They also do more traditional prog, such as Spock's Beard. The Tangent was originally a "supergroup" - members of other bands getting together in a side project, in this case to pay tribute to the Canterbury sound of mid-1970's British rock. Not quite prog, the Canterbury sound included elements of jazz and a lighter approach to writing and arranging. The Tangent evolved, even though most of the original members split off. Here they are doing a rare live performance.

They also include on their roster the California Guitar Trio. Here they are with Tony Levin and Pat Mastoletto from King Crimson, with "Train of Lamy".

What Is Jesus to Me?

In comments on an earlier thread, Democracy Lover offers his view that there seems to be no reason to construct a huge, mostly false, religious framework around the teachings of Jesus. The teachings in and of themselves are worthy of study and remembrance without the trappings of religion to give them authenticity. What follows is my own, still-tentative response, and I hope that you recognize it as still in process, rather than final.

First, I believe that the views he expresses are legitimate. The Jesus-phenomenon does present the modern consciousness, and the post-modern consciousness for that matter, with the begged question of, "Why all the fuss?" Any return to metaphysics, or an appeal to tradition as tradition misses the depth of the question. Why should contemporary people assent to the claim that a human being was also Divine, came back to life after being dead (and his followers claim he will never die again!), and flew up to the sky promising to do the same for those who believed in him? Not only are such claims ludicrous on their face, they reduce the moral and ethical component of his teachings to second-tier status, reducing the power of Jesus as teacher.

A partial answer, I think, is a recognition that such a literal interpretation of the New Testament writings is belied not only by two centuries of historical-critical research, but by a common-sense discussion of reading. While having many reservations about certain aspects of his method, N. T. Wright is correct when he states that such a facile, literal approach to the texts in question belies the layers of metaphor and symbolism behind such claims. When Jesus used apocalyptic imagery, he was no more talking about actual historical events than when he told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus he was describing the after-life. He was using imagery that was current to describe the mystery of God's actions for the Jews then either in exile or in the captivity of Roman occupation, in and through the life and work of himself and those who followed his example. Unpacking that imagery takes volumes and volumes, but suffice it to say that we consider such views literally to our peril.

More to the point, I believe it is disingenuous to insist that we take the Gospel accounts literally on these issues, or the Bible as a whole literally. Do we ever take anything we read literally? I have asked this question before, and I think it is important to address it again. One can not accept the ideology of the Biblical authors, yet still consider what they have to say important.

I also think that to describe certain aspects of the Biblical narrative, or the narrative as a whole as "myth" is confusing and misleading. What, after all, is myth? Whose definition of myth do we use? Do we use Rudolf Bultmann's? Paul Tillich's? Reinhold Niebuhr's? Joseph Campbell's? Mericea Eliade's? Does "myth" equal "falsehood" or does it equal "story conveying meaning through a fanciful narrative construct"? I believe that the word myth, like the word supernatural, should be discarded because it is no longer useful as an analytical tool. One can say with all seriousness that there is truth behind the creation stories in Genesis, for example, but refuse to accept them as a description of events that actually occurred. There is no reason why anyone should consider this intellectually dishonest, unless one believes it necessary to have a prior commitment to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

All of this is by way of a point specifically about Jesus and the Gospel narratives. I think it important to consider the following point: there are few Scripture scholars of whom I am aware who would take most of the Bible's stories, whether in the Old Testament stories of the history of the two kingdoms, or of the narrative accounts of Jesus' life, as accurate descriptions. The general recognition that most of the Old Testament accounts (except for a couple of the prophetic books and bits and pieces of what was once known as the Priestly account, including the second creation narrative in Genesis 2) were written after the exile as reflections upon these events and what they meant for the life of the people makes them not so much about God and God' relationship with this Kingdom or Kingdoms, but about the people and their sense of themselves. That they included cultic references in their discussions should surprise no one; what is surprising is the communal decision not to abandon their national cult once the nation disappeared. Greater kingdoms and empires than they have come and gone, and we know only fragments of their religious beliefs and stories. From this little kingdom we still have a very real line of descent, not just religiously and literary, but as a people as well.

All of this is to say that I do not believe it is necessary to make of Jesus more than he was. One can reverence his words and acts without assigning divine status to his person. One can be a good Christian and make of the resurrection narratives either poetic descriptions of a cultic renaissance in the wake of his death, without making the claim of bodily resurrection. As far as I am concerned the issue of the resurrection as historical event has been bracketed far too much both by theologians and by Scripture scholars out of fear that an honest discussion would present them as professing what is contrary to Church teaching, viz., that Jesus was in no way bodily raised from the dead. Some would say the Church stands or falls on this issue; others say it is of no consequence. Personally, I think the Church is both less and more than any particular claim concerning the acts of Jesus, including the resurrection.

Finally, I think that the traditional formula describing Jesus as God Incarnate, and all the accompanying metaphysical fine-tuning - the two-natures theology, discussions of the hypostatic union - is so much junk that can be discarded. Indeed, relying upon meaningless philosophy, and insisting that it is a description of something real, makes Christian claims even less credible than if we are to ask the serious, even threatening questions that the contemporary secular critics of Christian belief continue to press upon us. I believe that it is a sign of what German theologian Jurgen Moltmann calls a "pusillanimous faith" to dodge the very real concerns, questions, and disbelief of the contemporary world because deep down inside, I believe that those possessed of such a weak-kneed "faith" actually accept the truth of the critics.

All of these ramblings - and I just now realize that I never really answered the question in the title! - put me somewhere on a road the end of which I really can't see. I do know, however, or believe that despite all my misgivings and feelings of inadequacy there is something real behind the masquerade of much of our religious life and language. Finding a way to talk about it, to make sense of it is where I am right now.

Religion and Politics

I just want to make some general comments on the relationship between religious belief and political ideology. Take them for what they're worth. . .

First, I do not believe it is possible to draw any connections between one's religious beliefs and political preferences. I know pretty liberal Christians who are quite conservative in their politics. I know people who can only be described as fundamentalist who lean quite far to the left. I know people who think religion is bunk who are die-hard conservatives. The list goes on and on. I honestly believe that each individual makes his or her peace with his or her religious beliefs and political ideology as time goes on. To base political persuasion and policy preferences necessarily upon religious beliefs is a fool's game. While generalizations can be made, I honestly believe that the two are, for the most part, separate bits of an individual's way of living in the world. We draw lines between them only when pushed to do so.

Second, I am still not convinced it is good strategy for the Democrats to be busy courting "religious voters". Based partly upon my first belief, I think that identifying a certain block of voters as "religious", and open to appeals to religious rhetoric creates the impression that religion is the only thing in these voters' lives. In fact, I believe that most voters, even rabid right-wingers, make decisions based more upon an appeal to political utility and ideology, with religion being a prop to political ideology, rather than solely upon religious belief. The fact that most conservatives consider the Democratic Presidential candidates' appeal to religious voters disingenuous would seem to prove that point.

Third, I believe it is possible to make a coherent political ideology out of an appeal to religious belief. Simply because it is possible, however, I am starting to lean back toward the position of Richard Rorty that, in public debate and discourse, such appeals, resting as they do upon a sense of ultimacy, tend to stifle debate rather than encourage it. It is fine for someone to say, "I think such-and-such a policy position is correct because of my prior religious commitments"; unless there are other reasons for holding this position (social utility, prior ideological commitments based in secular philosophy, an appeal to history or the Constitution) there is no answer to such a position, quieting debate rather than encouraging it.

Finally, I believe that efforts by religious progressives, including myself, to enter the political fray as self-identifying religious progressives is fine, as long as we are clear that by doing so, we open our religious beliefs to scrutiny and ridicule. It is incoherent to say, "I hold this-and-such a political position because of my religious beliefs", and then turn around and say, "You cannot question my religious beliefs, or insult them, or dismiss them". For one thing, such criticism is the only way to keep the conversation going. For another, religious beliefs are not above criticism, and if we refuse to address such criticism, or fear it because we fear there is more truth in the criticism than in our beliefs, then we are being disingenuous at best.

. . . And Then There Is A Mountain

I don't know if it is an actual Buddhist legend or not, but someone once told me this: One of the Buddha's disciples asked him to explain the path to Enlightenment. The Buddha said, "First there is a mountain. Then, there is no mountain. And then, there is a mountain." I have always liked that because it shows the path to wisdom usually lands one back where one begins, only moreso, or perhaps less-so. I have felt that way recently in my own struggles over making sense of my own Christian faith.

In 1991, as part of a class, I was asked to write a creed and set out a defense of that creed. At the time, I was only just beginning to digest a plethora of sources, both philosophical and theological, and trying to "fit" them in to my own understanding of this whole mystery we call faith. The result embarrassed me for years, not for the least reason that the professor gave me an "A" on it, which I believe it did not deserve. I have been wanting to return to it off and on over the years, toss out this part, toss out that part. Now, however, I think I wouldn't change much of it at all, except perhaps tighten the prose a bit, and make certain points more clear that I left murky due to ignorance or my own inability to present the ideas clearly.

Having said that, this begs the question, "why". To that there is no good answer other than to say that I have always tried to make sense out of the nonsense of life. We human beings much prefer to order our experiences after the fact, pretending that such ordering makes them intelligible. There is much truth in that; there is no way any account of the events of each nanosecond of existence could possibly be coherent if we scribbled them down. what we do is we assign particular importance to certain events, downplay others, give meaning to some, insist that others offer no meaning whatsoever. Providing some kind of rational framework for understanding is a deeply human enterprise. Religious belief is no different.

I have come full circle in many ways, rediscovering the mountain for the first time, recognizing that it is, in fact, just a mountain, but benefiting from my time doubting that it was ever a mountain, or even that such a thing as "mountainness" existed at all. Perhaps I will share one day with others what, exactly, I am talking about, but for now, I must say that it is good to stand before a mountain and allow it to be . . . a mountain. Nothing more. Nothing less. What it is.

Sunday Morning Music

I'm feeling like sharing something peaceful this A.M. Here's someone I first saw on C&L's "Late Nite Music Club". This is the kind of song that reminds me of early mornings, sitting and reading the paper with a cup of coffee with my wife. This is Andy McKee, "Into the Ocean" played on a harp guitar.

I have been given a whole lot of food for thought, to which I shall turn in due course. For now, I think it is enough to say that my crie de couer last night was the result of my own sense of frustration due to my own inability to move beyond my own sense of the limits of relating what is highly personal. I thank both ER and Goat for understanding what I was trying to convey - and for allowing me to be vulnerable without taking advantage of that vulnerability.

Happy Sunday, and God Bless.