Getting Ready to be Radical in 2009

If you like chaos, if you thrive on wild emotional swings, if you love mind-boggling complexity, then you probably thought 2008 was some kind of fabulous year.

As I look back on the year past and the challenges ahead, I’m left to mumble Paul’s famous question, “What then can we say about these things?”

In a recent online message, the progressive evangelical magazine Sojourners asked its readers what they hope for in 2009, suggesting the following possibilities:

> Peace on earth?
> Spiritual renewal?
> A responsive new government?
> Unity in the church?
> The end of extreme global poverty?

The tone of their message was optimistic, and despite everything that has happened since early November, Sojourners clearly pins its hopes on changes they see coming from the last election:

“A post-election poll we (Sojourners) co-sponsored revealed that a clear majority of evangelicals and Catholics believe a broad political agenda best represents their values. This poll echoes what we hear from Christians across the nation - that we are exhausted by the limitations of having only one or two issues dominate the focus of our politics.”

Sojourners’ “Vote All Your Values” campaign did indeed resonate with many faith voters in the 2008 election and helped shift the balance in Washington, but as jazz singer Esther Phillips observed, “What a Difference a Day Makes.” Since November 4th we have realized the great issues debated in the campaign were not so great compared to those waiting just over the horizon. We've reached one of those moments seen infrequently in human history, a time of turmoil that could produce dramatic positive change, or throw us into a worldwide chaos of economic collapse and wars among people fighting for scarce resources. Just two months after the election, the promises that informed the winning campaign are being exposed as insufficient. Reactionary conservatives are seizing on the new president’s promise of a less virulent form of politics to suggest the failed ideas of the past eight years still have merit. They can’t be allowed to get away with it, and that means seeing the voters’ “call to change” as a sweeping agenda, not just a shift in atmospherics.

Yes, many Christians and Americans in general are exhausted by the political fights of the last several administrations. But under the emerging circumstances, believing we can bring change with a policy of polite mutual acceptance is like believing we can stop a forest fire with a garden hose. Of course, times like these lead many individuals to hunker down and try to protect their personal interests. That’s the garden hose approach. It won’t work and it’s unacceptable for people of faith. Here’s my prescription for how we must change our thinking:

Let the truth run free. Journalism as we once knew it, or think we did, is dead. That may not be bad, but it means we need to work harder to find the truth. The mainstream television media from which most people get their news is not only corporate owned and controlled, it is afraid to ruffle the feathers of powerful political groups. That’s not surprising, since corporate accountability is a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, not to the facts. Take the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Don’t expect to hear TV interviewers ask Israel’s representatives how a year of closed borders and denying daily necessities to the Gaza Strip may have led the people to finally lash out in frustration. The information is out there on the internet, but you’ll have to look for it. The networks don’t want you to ask that question. The same is true of how Washington and New York insiders are lining up to make personal fortunes on the financial bailout. The New York Times, to its credit, did run a story on the subject, but treated it as nothing to be ashamed of -- just business as usual.

Stop following and start leading. Let’s be honest, our leadership has been a dismal failure. Many people who voted for Barack Obama want to trust him to make changes for the better. I agree he’s a good man, but our mistake is in thinking change should come from the top down. Significant change can come only when government and the culture is pushed to the tipping point by the populace. The civil rights and labor movements are prime examples. Don’t expect success to come easily, but we can start by changing the way we think and live. We may never be more than a small minority, but if we avoid being elitists or isolationists the nation may learn there’s an attractive, more spiritual, alternative to our materialistic me-first culture. And who knows, if people with resources reject the lure of ostentatious living, it may even impact Sojourners’ goal of ending extreme poverty.

Get ready to be radical. Most of us have stood in church or at a praise meeting and sung, “I have decided to follow Jesus,” but few of us have dared to be as radical as Jesus was. I’m not saying we should court martyrdom, and I’m certainly not suggesting the kind of violent revolutions that have often ushered in radical change. But change is coming and we can either steer it or be run over by it. In the discussions of our financial meltdown, some have reluctantly begun to note that we may be witnessing the collapse of economic principles we’ve trusted. This presents a time of both opportunity and of danger. As Christians we should be ready to push for an improved system more in line with God’s values. If we fail to do so, the void may be filled by people of ill intent as it was in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. As the status quo falls away, we must make sure that the arc of history continues to bend toward justice, compassion and equality.

Hope Comes Riding a Pale Horse Called Truth

I intended to write something hopeful for Christmas, whether or not the times warrant it. Then I received the news story reprinted below and realized that if our hopes ever do arrive, they'll come riding on the back of truth. Without truth our hopes for a just world will remain a fairy tale.

I first told of this terrible incident in a blog published December 6. Here's the full story as told by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

Twilight Zone / Non-Jews need not apply
By Gideon Levy

The Israeli national flag flies high, defiant and arrogant over the Palestinian home in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem. This flag has never looked as repulsive as it does in the heart of this Palestinian neighborhood, above the home of a Palestinian family that suddenly lost everything. The head of the house, Mohammed al-Kurd, died 11 days after the eviction. Now his widow lives in a tent. The house is reached via a narrow alley: Here Moshe and Avital Shoham and Emanuel and Yiska Dagan live happily. They are the settlers who managed to expel the Palestinian tenants and take over another outpost, in the heart of East Jerusalem. House after house, the transfer here is especially quiet: The media barely report on these houses of contention.

Israeli greed knows no bounds: It sends its tentacles into the homes of refugees who already experienced, in 1948, the taste of expulsion and evacuation and being left with nothing. Now they are refugees for a second time. Another 27 families here can expect a similar fate, and all under the aegis of the Israeli court system, the lighthouse of justice and the beacon of law, which approves, whitewashes and purifies deceptive and distorted ways of evicting these children of refugees from their homes for the second time. The family keeps, as an eternal souvenir, the keys to the house in Talbieh that was stolen from them and the banana warehouse in Musrara that was taken from them. Now they have another key that opens nothing: the key to the home in Sheikh Jarrah, which they received decades ago from the Jordanian government and the United Nations as compensation for their lost home.

The right of return: The original owners of those houses, the Sephardic Community Committee, has this right forever. There is no judge in Jerusalem who can explain this double standard, this racist right of return for Jews only. Why is the Sephardic Community Committee allowed, and the committee of Palestinians not? What are the tycoons and the politicians who stand behind this hostile takeover thinking to themselves? What is going through the minds of the judges who permitted it? And what about the policemen who violently evicted a sickly man in a wheelchair in the middle of the night, without even letting him remove the contents of his house? And what are the Jews now living in these stolen houses feeling?

White smoke rises from several corners of the empty lot a few steps from the American Colony Hotel. The lot was cleaned this week before Christmas. These are the twig bonfires on which they are baking pita with za'atar, heating coffee and preparing tea for the many guests who have come to visit the new refugee encampment. On Sunday several delegations of Israeli Arabs from the Galilee came to express identification with Fawziya and the 27 families who will probably soon join her in this tent. Israel does not like this encampment, the municipality has already tried to evacuate it. Photographs of refugee tents in the heart of the unified capital are not good for Israeli public relations. Such pictures, which have already been splashed across several international newspapers in recent weeks - of course not in the Israeli press, which turns a blind eye - remind their readers of similar tent camps, those of 1948.

The Arabic poster at the edge of the lot leaves no room for compromise: "Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is Arab, Muslim and Christian." The refreshment tables are full of the best Palestinian cuisine from the Galilee: labaneh, majadera of rice, lentils and onions, baked goods and more, including olive oil from the recent harvest. Guests mill around. Prof. Jamal Amro, former head of the architecture department at Birzeit University, attracts a crowd. The last time we met was in 1999, inside the American Colony. Amro told me then about his torture by Shin Bet security service interrogators, when "Captain Dvir" came to his home in the middle of the night and told him: "Say goodbye to your wife and children."

Amro underwent a terrifying, 25-day interrogation, including 15 consecutive days without sleep and a sack reeking of urine over his head. The Shin Bet tried to recruit him as a collaborator, and as usual all means were fair: "Suck, dog, suck," one of the interrogators told him, "many men are now doing the same thing to your wife." Captain "Martin" placed his foot on Amro's neck and told this professor and architect: "You're like a dog on the floor."

Amro, an impressive, refined man whose son died of cancer just a few days ago, compares Shin Bet scars on his arms with another visitor, a refugee from Lifta who was also tortured.

Print worker Nasser Ghawi, a native of Sheikh Jarrah, relates the story in literary Hebrew: He is 46 and was born in the house now scheduled for eviction. I was born in the house, he emphasizes, not in the hospital.

"The claim of the other side is that they came here 120 years ago, although our houses were built 52 years ago." Ghawi's family fled to Jerusalem from Sarafand (Tzrifin). In 1956 the Jordanian government and the UN Relief and Works Agency built these 28 homes of refuge in Sheikh Jarrah for the families of the new refugees, in exchange for waiving their refugee cards. Nobody can compare with Ghawi when it comes to telling their story in English, especially the events since 1972, five years after the capture of East Jerusalem, when the Israeli court declared them "protected tenants" in the houses that according to the court belong to the Sephardic Community Committee.

Because these families refused to pay rent to the Sephardic Community Committee and to the Committee of the Knesset of Israel - both religious bodies - which transferred the property to the Nahalat Shimon settler association, they were doomed to eviction. Just as with the more famous "House of Contention" in Hebron, there are suspicions of forged documents and biased judgments, Jewish tycoons and MKs who encourage disagreement, a nearby religious site (the grave of the Jewish saint Shimon Hatzadik, which Palestinians say is in fact the grave of a member of the Hijazi family) and nationalist motives - to "create a barrier" between Sheikh Jarrah and the northern Palestinian neighborhoods. But above all, the inequality in the discussion of the right of return conducted in the Israeli justice system cries out from afar.

Whatever the case, Ghawi's family was forced to leave its home in 2002 by court order. In 2006 they won the right to return to it, after drawn-out and expensive legal deliberations. Now they are once again facing eviction. Ghawi's father, Abd al-Fatah, 87, could be sent to prison, like the father of the neighboring Hanun family, who has already spent three months in jail for contempt of court.

The weather is deceptive, one moment sunny, the next moment the skies darken above the row of tents and a cold wind whips against your face. On November 9, the Kurds were evacuated from their home of 52 years, since it was built. Fawziya will never forget that night. "I wish nobody had seen it and nobody had ever experienced it, what I went through that night."

She is 56, a mother of five and grandmother of 16. She was born in the Old City, to which her family fled in 1948 from Talbieh, in West Jerusalem. In 1970 she married Mohammed, a refugee from Jaffa, and moved to his home in Sheikh Jarrah.

Their troubles also began in 1972. Since then she has seen everything. She says MK Benny Elon came to her house a few years ago, offering an enormous sum for the house. A pistol was placed in the yard in an effort to frame her. Dirty diapers were thrown at her doorway. The sewage pipe was blocked by her uninvited neighbors. She was forced to pay their electricity bills when they tapped into her meter. The settlers frequently held noisy parties in what had been her childrens' home. Fawziya says that since their eviction in 2001 there were new settlers every few months - Jewish immigrants from Ethiopia, Yemen, America, in her backyard.

The eviction: "Everything I had experienced until then was nothing compared to that night," Fawziya related. "They knew I had a sick and paralyzed husband." At 3:30 A.M. they heard knocking. She was holding a bedpan for her husband. Several dozen local police and Border Police officers burst in. "What are you doing?" she shouted, and then two police officers grabbed her arms from behind and dragged her outside. She says her husband slipped and fell off the bed. They took her by force into the street, far from the house, and dragged her husband to the neighbor's house.

Everything was left behind, all their belongings. Her husband in pajamas, she in a nightgown, that's all they had. "I asked a policewoman for water and she shouted: 'Shut up!' They were so violent, that's why I'll never forgive them. My husband was crying and they were laughing."

The next night they were already in the white tent. "Had you been in my husband's place, all his life in this house and suddenly in the street, what would you have said? What would you have felt? If you lost a cell phone - how angry you would be, and he lost his home. All his money and his entire life and suddenly he is thrown out into the street."

Mohammed stayed in the tent, but on the 11th day his strength ran out. He was rushed to the French Hospital in East Jerusalem, after refusing to be taken to an Israeli hospital.

"If they don't show any mercy to me in my home, they won't show any mercy in the hospital," he told his wife. A few hours before he died, Mohammed asked Fawziya: "If I'm discharged from the hospital, where will I go?" Fawziya says God took mercy on her husband and took him away. She says she would like to meet Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, to look them in the eye and ask: "Why did you do this to us? Only because we're Palestinians."

"Close your eyes," she tells me quietly. "What do you see? Darkness. That's what I see." Since the eviction she has not dared to approach her house.

Claiming a Right to Love and Respect Ourselves

My mind keeps drifting back to something David Brooks told PBS’s Jim Lehrer early in the 2008 election cycle. Looking ahead to the key issues facing the nation, Brooks listed “failure of the leadership class” at the top. I wonder now if Brooks understands the full import of his words. He is among those applauding as president-elect Obama fills his cabinet and other top posts with the same Ivy League cabal that sat by fiddling as America burned.

It seems fair to ask whether one can bathe in this wellspring of American elitism without taking on an elitist view. When the media paints the public face of current or recent leaders — from Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama to Barney Frank — the features of note have nothing to do with what makes them unique, like being raised on the south side of Chicago or in a poor family in Arkansas, or sensitivity to a certain disparaged group. Those are challenges to overcome. The words that matter are Harvard, Yale, Princeton. For the news media elite, that’s all that matters.

But then, amazingly, along comes William Kristol, conservative editor of The Weekly Standard. Before the election, I would never have bothered to read anything he wrote. In fact, if I saw him on a TV news panel, I’d change the station. But he, among almost all the commentators, seems to have grasped the implications not only of the election but of America’s economic troubles. While the old William Kristol was a doctrinaire conservative, the new model comes across as a common sense populist. As a Republican, Kristol may be showing his party a path back to relevance. It’s ground that Democrats Kristol calls “limousine liberals” shouldn’t cede.

In Monday’s OP-Ed column in the New York Times, titled Right and Left, Piling On, Kristol uses the words “disdain” and “contempt” to describe the way media and political elites have ganged up on the American automakers: “… I say this as someone who grew up in non-car-driving family in New York, and who is the furthest thing from an auto aficionado — there is a kind of undeserved disdain, even casual contempt, that seems to characterize the attitude of the political and media elites toward the American auto industry.”

He’s right of course. How many times have we heard political or media elitists totally ignore quality and mileage improvements while asserting Detroit is building cars “no one wants to buy.” Apparently, the millions of Americans who buy cars each year from domestic auto makers are a bunch of nobodies — certainly not graduates of Harvard or Yale or Princeton.

Kristol goes on: “As Warren Brown, who writes about cars for The Washington Post, recently put it, ‘There is a feeling in this country — apparent in the often condescending, dismissive way Detroit’s automobile companies have been treated on Capitol Hill — that people who work with their hands and the companies that employ them are inferior to those who work with their minds and plow profit from information. How else to explain the clearly disparate treatment given to companies such as Citigroup and General Motors?’”

Let's be clear: America's war against its workers didn't just begin, but finally — and thankfully — the carnage is spilling into public view.

I recently heard my own pastor, whose credentials as a pacifist are beyond dispute, use the phrase “spiritual warfare.” She even preached a sermon around Paul’s admonition to “put on the armor” of faith. I’m not saying she agrees with all my opinions, but I think we agree on one point: Being a believer clearly means operating out of love, but it doesn’t mean being soft. In fact, it means having the courage to stand up for justice.

On a recent show, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews brazenly raised the specter of “class warfare” to contrast the treatment of manufacturers and bankers. Surprisingly, no one chastised him. Discussing class warfare has been as taboo in the media as in our churches. Sometimes it takes a crisis to allow people to speak the truth.

Discussing class warfare from the pulpit makes some angry and others uncomfortable, but it’s central to the salvation history recorded in Jewish and Christian literature. Class oppression was the main fault God found in the people who occupied Canaan before the Israelites; it was at the heart of why the kingdoms of Israel and Judah failed; and it was the backdrop against which Jesus’ ministry played out. We shouldn’t forget that fact if we are going to borrow his name. So let’s say it out loud: The ministry of the prophet called Christ was to the lost, the last and the least. That means more than throwing a few old clothes to the homeless. It means claiming a right to love and respect ourselves.

Looking for Inner Peace? Take up Your Sword

You may be familiar with the many spiritual leaders working the marketplace these days by specializing in a message of personal peace and anxiety-free self-satisfaction. You may even take solace from one of them. Some are Christian, others represent forms of eastern practice. Their methods differ but the common goal is finding a path to inner calm. What’s not to like about that?

I hate to be spoilsport since I agree that most of us suffer way too much anxiety, but I don’t think the problem can be solved on an individual basis. Think about it: If these treatments work so well, why do people keep needing more treatment? We need cures not comfort, and that requires cultural change.

I’m not saying there’s no value in the work of someone like Joel Osteen or Deepak Chopra, although I cringe when any spiritual leader crosses the line and sells their path as leading to material prosperity. If you’re looking to build your financial profile, get an MBA or talk people into selling you their gold at depressed prices. If you’re looking to build your spiritual profile, find a good prophet -- preferably one who doesn’t fly first class. If a teacher promises you both, you’re probably looking at a false prophet. Five days at the Chopra Center will cost you $4,000. If you don’t end up with prosperity, at least someone will.

Let me suggest an alternative path to reducing fear and anxiety: take the fight to the enemy. Go on the offensive. Anxiety is a trait of victims. Fight against those who would victimize the powerless. Fear comes from being on the defensive; going on offense breeds elation.

Jesus, we know, is often called the Prince of Peace. Christians, like myself, who oppose war as a form of foreign policy have been known to wield that name against those who would excuse violent tendencies by mixing God and country. But when it comes to standing up for justice, Jesus says being too peaceful, too calm and complacent, is no virtue. Check out these words from Matthew’s Gospel:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:34-39).

Now that’s some powerful stuff. Remember those Spartans in the movie 300? Here were these 300 dudes about to die and knowing it was inevitable, but each of them is feeling really fulfilled. Why? Because they were answering their passion. They were taking it to the evil doers in the name of the one thing they loved more than life. But Sparta was only their country, or really just a city. We are called to be champions for a greater cause, the greatest of all causes: to match our intentions with God’s wish for a world of beauty, justice and compassion. Now there’s a real path to harmony.

Do you want to find true freedom from anxiety? It won’t hurt if you start by finding a little inner peace. Then when you feel nice and calm inside, take up your sword. As Jesus said, if you want to know life to the fullest, be ready to put your life on the line.

How to Sort out the Truth in Complicated Conflicts

Just before the election Charles Barkley was a guest on Larry King’s show along with Ben Stein. It was the usual setup: one from one side, a second from the other. Charles B. was the Obama man and Stein the trumpet for McCain. Like I said, the classic setup: left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, liberal view vs. conservative view. This method is often called a dichotomy, which means separating a single thing into two contradictory things. We all know it’s too simplistic, but in theory you can look at an issue that way and see both sides, as if there’s no chance of a third side or a fourth, or … you get the picture.

Barkley made an surprising point by saying he didn’t see America divided as liberals and conservatives, or, especially, as black and white. He sees it as rich vs. poor. From his point of view, I suppose we’re more likely to have a class war on our hands than the race war some ardent Obama haters predicted. Given the state of the economy, that makes sense. It’s hard for a working class white person to care much about issues like affirmative action when he sees a Harvard grad throwing him under the bus. And who does he find with him under the bus but his black brothers and sisters.

But, as I said, there’s usually more than two sides to all this. Given the way stock portfolios are tanking, much of the Ivy League crowd may soon be under the bus too.

But the subject here isn’t the economy, it’s seeing things as dichotomies. A friend who has a real name but also is known as Stardust the Clown is currently in the West Bank, home of the world’s most famous dichotomy -- Israel/Palestine -- working with the nonprofit Bethlehem Christmas Project. Her purpose is to bring cheer to Palestinian children and she’s been doing so by entertaining wherever she goes, including a dialysis unit for poor children, which I guess is a redundancy because most all Palestinian children are poor. She’ll have more to do as the Christmas project hits full swing. By the way, her host in Palestine is an organization sponsored by the Lutheran Church. Apparently not all Christians in the Middle East are hoping to stir up the apocalypse.

Stardust, whose real name is Dana Humphrey, has her serious side too. She has become involved in a showdown between Israeli authorities and a Palestinian family that was forcibly evicted in the middle of the night from an east Jerusalem home they’ve occupied for more than 50 years. Jewish settlers immediately moved into the house. Which brings me back to this false sense you can divide everything into two sides with everyone on one side or the other. One of several groups standing up for the Muslim Palestinian family is Friends of Sabeel, The Voice of Palestinians Christians. Another is the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, a group of Israeli citizens with no stomach for injustice and the courage to oppose their own countrymen. Not everyone fits neatly into one box or another.

The Rev. Richard Toll, a spokesman for Friends of Sabeel, found two aspects of the eviction especially obscene. One was seeing this family violently dragged out of their home at 4 a.m. by 30 to 40 Israeli soldiers, which tragically led to the death by heart attack of the Palestinian father, Abu Kamel. The second was that one of the Israelis who took the Palestinian home taunted remaining family members by dancing before them in triumph -- in effect dancing on Abu Kamel’s grave.

Subsequent news reporting helps cast a light on bias in the American media. While this story got almost no notice, another in which Israeli settlers were forcibly deposed from a Palestinian property was played large by the New York Times and others. Nothing wrong with that story being told, and I guess it adds still another perspective to the debate, but it’s telling that one story is highlighted while the other is buried.

“Politics,” Tip O’Neil famously once said, “ain’t beanbag.” It’s usually down and dirty. And it’s complicated -- not easily divided into neat dichotomies. But that doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and say, “it’s too much to sort out.” We still have to take our best shot at deciding what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s not always clear-cut, but history tells us that those who hold power will usually cross the line to impose injustice on those who don’t. That’s what Charles Barkley was warning of -- that the poor shouldn’t expect fair treatment from the rich in America unless they demand it and are willing to go to the mat for it if necessary. It’s not simple, but if you believe in justice, you probably can’t go wrong by believing those with less power usually are the victims.

To follow Stardust's work in the West Bank, go to www.stardustinbethlehem.blogspot.com

Nurses on the Battlefield or the Point of the Spear

If you’ve followed this column over the past year, you know I’ve been very hard on church leadership, especially progressive leadership, for failing to find ways to translate our values into political change. The God’s honest truth is my disappointment on that score runs all the way back to Viet Nam. I’m not apologizing or changing my mind, but I do believe in giving credit where it’s due.

Last night I attended a World AIDS Day vigil and healing service at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Daytona Beach. Several hundred people were in attendance representing various faiths -- and not only Christian. I felt proud to be present as a believer in God, and proud to see the faith community taking the lead. There was no such parallel secular event. If you wanted to honor and remember those who have suffered and died, and recognize the progress being made in treatment and care, this was the only place to do it. And people of faith were behind it. So I say, hats off … but …

I’ve been thinking lately, in this time of worldwide economic unraveling, that the looming upheaval offers a choice of paths that can lead either to collapse and chaos, or a positive rebirth of our world culture. The church must decide whether it wants to be the point of the spear prodding us to a new, more compassionate order, or a nurse on the battlefield caring for the wounded. Just as no secular faction was capable of organizing World AIDS Day gatherings, no other institution has proved able to lead us beyond self interest to a vision of our culture as a common-good covenant with God and each other.

Of course, I’m not talking about supporting specific political parties or candidates; that is a violation of nonprofit status, among other things, and just serves to divide people. But, as wonderful as last night’s event was -- and it truly was healing for many -- it was another inside-the-walls event. Somehow, we have to find a way to carry our message of God’s love and its world-changing power beyond the walls of our sanctuaries. Evangelicals have been adept at getting their voices heard in the public square but, unfortunately, the things they say aren’t very helpful. When we on the progressive side pierce public consciousness, it’s usually in our role as nursemaids to the hurting, such as the hungry and homeless, or those touched by HIV/AIDS. That’s admirable and much needed, but it’s reactive. It’s not the point of the spear.

The stakes have never been higher. We stand at a moment in time when the Evangelical voice is losing force because of its narrowness and exclusiveness. Even the Republican Party is asking them to step back. So we have a soap box waiting, open to someone who can drive the right spirit-driven leadership straight into the heart of an eager populace.

Beyond opportunity, we have an obligation to act. God calls us to it, and the people desperately need us. Our secular leaders have failed and I believe there’s hopeful celebration in heaven as a corrupted and inadequate political/economic vision fades away. Sure there’ll be short-term pain, so we do need to be on the battlefield binding wounds of the fallen. But we also need to be the point of the spear as we prepare to rebuild the kingdom once more. With enough faith, this time it may emerge looking a little more like God’s kingdom.

How Can We Plan While We Still Lack Vision?

A few remain among us who remember the Great Depression. Except for those few, none of us have ever seen such a time of uncertainty as we have now. Even World War II, for all its deprivations, was a time of economic boom. Everyone was working, and very certain of who we were as a nation.

For those of us who didn’t actually endure the 1930s depression, the era carries a certain romantic appeal because it produced a vision for America that carried us through the end of the 1970s. Since then we have been chugging along on the fumes of a fading vision. Yes, we had the Reagan vision of neo-rugged individualism, but that was really a mini-vision, more like a convincing Madison Avenue sales hype than a true vision.

So now we come to a time of crisis that goes well beyond falling stock markets, and in our wish for vision we turn hopefully to a bright and personable young man who promises change we can believe in, but we’re not sure what that change will look like because we still lack vision.

Our new president, now less than two months from taking office, has been busy making plans. But plans are not vision. Plans are process. Vision is an understanding of what kind of people, what kind of nation we want to be. How can we craft an effective plan to get somewhere if we don’t know where we’re going?

In fairness, this is not a question that should be dumped on President Obama, and it’s certainly not a question best answered by economists and politicians. It’s a question that asks us to make a wish and to imagine if our wish did come true, who we would be as people. What would America look like? Finding answers will require more of the spirit’s warm-blooded intuition than the mind’s cold-blooded analysis. And while bank portfolios hang in the balance, we won’t find satisfaction unless we search our souls. For now we walk in the dark, seeking light, our spiritual leaders having failed us just like our economic and political leaders.

Over the past days two stories have dominated the news, starkly contrasting the throes of two dying visions. The first is the story of the automakers and their economic troubles. Much of the nation turns up its nose, accusing the companies of having created their own problems. But their problems are the remnant of that first powerful vision which carried us from the 30s to the 80s, a vision of great companies with well-paid workers who retire with health and pension benefits. That vision handed a steady and sturdy nation to what we call the baby boom generation. Then comes the story of Citigroup, emblematic of our financial meltdown and the vision that came from the Reagan era. That vision took the wealth created by the first vision and trusted the financiers to make it grow. But it turned out more like a trip to a casino where a few got rich and everyone else left dragging their feet. The broad benefits the new vision promised turned out to be a lie perpetrated to provide a shroud of hope to the many while the greedy elite gorged at the trough.

So now we hesitate to bail out the first vision because we wonder if it has any life left in it. And the second, though its stench fills our nostrils, we hold on to pathetically, fearful it will die without a successor and bring total chaos to the world. Suddenly aware that we don’t know where to turn next, we become angry -- and afraid. Confidence ebbs. The answers coming from our leaders are not believable, because they have yet to articulate a vision.

If there’s one laughable bright spot in this, it’s that we finally found something the right and left can agree on: We’ve all lost faith in our “experts.” Did you see President Bush and Secretary Paulson announcing the Citigroup bailout? They both looked liked wounded fighters trying to survive the 12th round. As for the incoming team, it’s been said that FDR didn’t begin with a vision but developed it by trial and error as his administration went along. Let’s hope that can happen again.

So why don’t we help them out? If you are a church leader or just a person of the spirit, work on a vision. You have a right. When Jesus came on the scene he didn’t wait for the leaders of his culture to come up with a vision. He knew that would be as fruitless as it has proven to be today. He picked up the book of Isaiah and found in it God’s vision of what the world would look like if the “the year of the Lord’s favor” came to pass. Then he shared it with anyone who would listen. Can’t we do the same? What’s your vision for America’s future? Where do we want to end up? When you think you know, tell your neighbor or your pastor, the people next to you in the pew, your congressman and the president, or write a comment telling me. God knows we are in need of vision, and it’s just as likely to come from the bottom up as from the top down.

Normal People Know About Rusted Floorboards

Like many Americans I listened to Barack and Michelle Obama being interviewed on 60 Minutes Sunday night. Of all the things that struck me, the one which most warmed my heart was their description of his old beater of a car with rusted out floorboards and a clear view of the road passing below. I had a car like that myself, and when he claimed they were the most normal people ever to occupy the White House, it sounded like the truth to me.

The Democrats’ last two presidential nominees rose from more aristocratic backgrounds and were defeated by a fellow aristocrat in George W. I don’t want to craft a complete study from two cases, but it seems when the masses feel the need for someone to truly represent their interests, they turn to someone who might understand them. Bill Clinton, the last Dem to reach the White House, was raised in circumstances even more “normal” than Barack’s.

Of course, one doesn’t have to come from working class folk to be an agent of change or to champion common interests in demanding times. Abe Lincoln was a self-taught, poor frontier boy, but FDR was a child of privilege. Others have come from backgrounds somewhere in between.

The record is similar for God’s prophets. Jeremiah was a born aristocrat, Isaiah not, and Moses the child of slaves who was raised in Egypt’s royal family. The Buddha was a child of great wealth, which he gave up, while Jesus never owned anything to give up -- other than his life. It just goes to show, it’s not who you are but what you do. It’s not where you start that counts, but where you finish.

Still, it was comforting to know that Barack owned that car with the rusted out floorboards. I can picture him and Michelle driving on the streets of Chicago, cold air blowing up through the floor, both of them laughing, just happy to be alive in this great country with an opportunity to make it even better.

The story of Barack’s childhood is pretty well known but I see Michelle’s as more typical of the nation as a whole. Her story is America’s story. Her father held one of those good-paying blue collar jobs -- yes, a union job -- that allowed him to imagine a better life for his children. Because his job provided a decent wage and benefits, he and his family were not overwhelmed by the fearful burdens of poverty and were able to look upward with hope for the next generation. Success was no given and required ambition and hard work. Michelle wasn’t handed a legacy that would make her comfortable no matter what she did. She had to achieve for herself or it all would have slipped away, but at least she had a chance.

We Americans, maybe all humans, love heroic myth making. Ultra-conservatives like former senator Phil Gramm are struggling right now with the failure of their mythology. Most of them may never admit they were wrong. But most Americans have learned our lesson again: unbridled capitalism doesn’t automatically lift all boats. The altars at which we worshipped the cult of the individual have proven once again to be altars to a false God.

What surprises me is the easy way Christians can be persuaded to worship at those altars. Most of us own a Bible, some of us two or three. If we’d spend less time searching for passages on homosexuality -- or sex in general -- and more time digesting the full message we’d see that God has a bias for the poor and underprivileged. In fact, God is the original architect of upward mobility and must be smiling to know that this winter two of his humble children won’t be feeling the chill Chicago air blowing up through rusty floorboards.

Time For Our Money Men To Look In The Mirror

In 2004, at the peak of the Florida real estate run up, a woman I know quit her management job with the local convention bureau to become a real estate agent. She was tired of watching others pick bushels of juicy low-hanging fruit while she endured politics and long hours to make a mere middle class wage. Two years later, still working in real estate but in a much diminished market, she added a job as a retail clerk. As they say, timing is everything.

Now, as our economy collapses, those in power scurry to find an explanation that excludes their own greed, and we learn the real culprits are teachers and unions. Amazing. Who would have thought it? It wasn’t the market manipulators after all. You know who I mean, the ones who perpetrated one easy-money scam after another? Here’s a partial list of scams that you can to if you’d like: the tech bubble, the stock bubble, smoke and mirrors financial derivatives, multi-level marketing, the real estate bubble, media and sports billionaires, elimination of basic industries to be replaced by ... just trust us -- and all of that coupled with the replacement of worker benefits with easy access to credit, a pat on the back and assurances it will all be OK.

Still, turning a blind eye to all of this, columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times traces the national tailspin back to the 1970s when the high school graduation rate began to stagnate, and concludes the cause is strict certification standards and tenure for teachers -- both concepts championed by teacher unions. I’m still trying to figure why so many think hiring uncertified teachers is a great idea. In fact, getting rid of the uncertified was one of the most agreeable actions taken by radical reformer Michelle Rhee, the Washington D.C. public schools chancellor. Apparently, for some on the right, any idea the teachers support is a bad idea.

Getting back to the 1970s, if we’re simply going to match trends with dates and pretend to see causation, that was also the time when our basic industries began to move offshore and our traditional work ethic began to unravel. I’ve never been a big supporter of the protestant work ethic claim that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, but I admire the part that says productive work should make you feel good about yourself. In the new American paradigm hard work that doesn’t produce big bucks makes you feel like a fool. Is it any wonder top graduates of top colleges opt to make easy millions on Wall Street rather than a mere 100 grand to start in engineering or scientific research? Or, to take it further down the food chain, why kids dropped out of high school to peddle drugs or master other criminal pursuits?

Scripture -- both the Old and New Testaments -- warn against a world view that places the highest value on generating personal wealth. I always took this to mean that a life focused on accumulating wealth would crowd out spiritual possibilities. Now I’m beginning to think Jesus and the ancient Hebrew writers knew more about economics than they let on.

So here we are in the middle of this mess, with employment numbers tumbling along with 401k balances, and we turn for answers to the very people who first betrayed us by creating wealth for themselves instead of the nation. Reminds me of the way we turn to the military establishment for answers on war and peace. Is it any surprise when they say “make war?” It’s equally no surprise when the money men say “give us some taxpayer cash and we’ll fix it for you.” Trouble is, they’re not fixing it; they’re just making themselves richer -- and already asking for more.

Meanwhile, most of our church leaders stand around with eyes cast down, scuffling their feet on the ground, saying, “well geez, they’re the experts,” all the time hoping they’ll get their little piece of the action.

Election Brings Hope, Now We Need Love

Hope is a powerful medicine. Paul placed in among the big three in his first letter to the Corinthians. Faith, hope and love, he wrote, open a path to joyful living filled with fruits of the spirit.

Often we view words like faith, hope and love like pretty pictures, or hear them as sweet musical notes that charm us but carry no deep meaning. Doing so allows us to go on leading the pedestrian lives we seem to prefer.

But they have real meaning for those who wish to feel their power. Faith is the conviction that all of God’s creation was meant for good, and hope persuades us that with enough faith we can restore that goodness. But this is possible only if we live our lives with love for God and one another. The big three: faith, hope and love.

So now we have a new president. The nation -- and the world -- is full of hope that changes we’ve wished for will come to pass. But do we have enough faith and love? Without faith and love, hope can accomplish nothing. Paul ends the 13th chapter of First Corinthians by saying that of these three, the greatest is love. Do we have love? Without love, neither faith nor hope will prevail.

So now we have a new president. For many there is a great euphoria of victory. Among some who did not support the winner there also is hope -- even if faith is lacking -- that a restoration can begin. Almost everyone agrees that change is needed.

Most of us like to believe our answers are the right answers. So when our side prevails in a presidential election, we are swept up in hopefulness for a new and improved era. Ronald Reagan’s devotees called it “morning in America,” and I still recall hoping that that the Carter and Clinton victories would restart the march to freedom begun under FDR. But morning gave way to afternoon showers, and the march forward bogged down in economic self-interest and the mire of distant battlefields. So here we are in 2008, full of hope but wondering whether there will be enough faith and love for hope to win out.

Jesus said the antidote to fear is belief, and I do believe in God’s goodness and the power that comes from embracing it. I do not fear, but I do doubt. Doubt, I suppose, is the opposite of faith. Fortunately, there is a correction for doubt, which is called Love.

As Paul writes to the people of Corinth, in the end it is only love that can carry us through:

“If I speak in the tongues of mortal and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal. … Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. … And now faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”

As we look around the nation and world in this post-election time, hope seems to be rising like the phoenix. If you watched the faces in Chicago’s Grant Park Tuesday night, or listen to the voices of those for whom the new president is a dream come true, you might see a possibility of faith taking hold. But what of love? Listen to our news media and you hear a “noisy gong or clanging cymbal.” Love? That’s church talk. Maybe even crazy talk. Certainly not the job of those reporting the news. So the charges and counter-charges continue.

Hope? Yes, we have it. Faith? Maybe we can get it. But love? Without love hope and faith will whither on the vine. Jesus says that if we desire to be a special people, we must go beyond greeting our brothers and sisters with love. Anyone can do that, he says. The true test of love is to love those who oppose us. That is what makes us true children of God. That is what will make us the great nation we aspire to be. Let’s hope that with enough faith, love will overcome our doubts and fears.

Jesus's Actions Speak Louder Than Our Words

Talk is cheap! Actions speak louder than words! I’m sure you’ve heard both of these scraps of wisdom. Here’s my favorite, learned from my father: “He talks a good game.” A star in the locker room, a flop on the court.

If I’m repeating myself, I apologize, but over the years I’ve become less and less interested in theology and more interested in results. I could say the same about political philosophies. I’m hoping on this election day we see the beginning of a new pragmatism and a silencing of ideologues preaching political “theologies” which have been proven not to work. We all know what we want this country to look like. Why don’t we just do it?

I wrote in an earlier column of how representatives of the Methodist Church ranted against homosexuals at their 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth while a predominately gay and lesbian Methodist congregation in Chicago ignored the brickbats and continued living the Gospel message in service to their community. I could picture God in heaven looking down on the Fort Worth gathering and muttering, “they talk a good game.”

It doesn’t matter who we say God is, God is not confused. While I believe God is still speaking, I don’t think God’s intentions for good have changed since creation. It’s really quite simple and only gets complicated because we make it so as a sleight of hand to advance our own selfish interests.

Let’s be honest; if you read scripture with a biased heart you can find an isolated proof passage to support your prejudices -- as slave owners once did. Read with an open mind and the true beauty of God’s glory will shine through. I was raised Lutheran and was educated in their schools and colleges, then later became a United Methodist, serving for many years in UMC churches. I now worship in a United Church of Christ congregation because their inclusive spirit appeals to me. When others try to probe the theological nuances of these different denominations and how I can jump between them, I say “it’s the same Jesus.” And it is. He’s easily recognizable: teaching a spiritual path, healing and loving all who come seeking the true heart of God. The very same Jesus.

When we read the Gospels it’s easy to see who this Jesus is and who he isn’t. Certainly, he’s less complex or conflicted than most of us. Historically, we’ve struggled to describe his dual nature and his place in the Trinity, but the Jesus of the Gospels is a pretty clear-cut character. He is a man of compassion, uniquely connected with God’s creative and holy spirit. He is a man of courage who doesn’t back down from the establishment’s threats of danger or suffering. He is a man with open arms, welcoming all to come and place their burdens on him. No one is rejected by him, although some disqualify themselves. He is in the business of opening doors, not closing them. The only people who seem to irritate him are those who are always looking to exclude others from God’s kingdom -- like the Pharisees.

Because Jesus is the Great Includer, I’m often surprised to find Christians still dictating who can be forgiven and who cannot, or teaching a theology that designates who can and can’t be saved. Jesus himself says that kind of decision is up to God, not us. Jesus himself had a crystal clear vision of how the world would change if it could be reborn in God’s image. He acted to make it so. Philosophy and theology? He said keep it simple: Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. Enough said. We -- especially we Christians who would seek to carry our faith into the political realm -- will be well served if we do the same.

Feeling a Little Too Good in a Shaky Time

My friend and I were discussing the current financial chaos when he paused to measure his words, reluctant to say out loud what he’d been thinking. “I know you and I think alike most the time,” he said. “We usually have pretty much the same visceral reaction to things.” I agreed and he continued, almost apologetically. “Well,” he said, “I’ve been feeling something like exhilaration at what’s been going on. It doesn’t make sense since I have a bit of money in a 401k myself, but that’s how I’m feeling.”

I did understand. Just that morning I’d told a different friend I had mixed feelings about what was happening. I’d been suspicious of our economic system for some time, and not just that it was a house of cards built on a foundation of smoke and mirrors. I had watched the broad economic opportunity of post-World War II America, built on FDR’s concept of social compact and shared prosperity, become dog-eat-dog America posing nobly as a land of individual responsibility. But speak of it and someone would scream “socialist” or “class warfare.” The facts, however, were undeniable: the income gap was widening and health benefits were becoming an endangered species as CEOs and hedge fund managers laughed all the way to the bank. Most Americans seemed ready to accept this as the new reality, even ready to blame the victims as not smart enough, or industrious enough, or for having chosen the wrong profession.

No one seemed able to articulate a temperate path back to the “covenant” America I grew up in, so when radical change through economic collapse appeared on the horizon, it was natural to feel something good might follow. After all, that’s how the Great Depression worked to give us the social safety net Americans once took for granted.

And where has the church been on this great moral issue of economic disparity? Either totally silent, or speaking with its wee little voice for fear of offending the beneficiaries.

The Bible presents a clear view of a culture’s responsibility to the least of its people. It’s easy enough to see when the blinders of self interest are removed. When God gave the land of Canaan to Israel, the gift was contingent on building a covenant culture where no one would be allowed to fail. If you don’t believe it, read the books of the law. Open your eyes and you can’t help but see it. Later, when the people of Israel and Judah turned greedy and failed to follow God’s vision, God didn’t hesitate to bring radical failure as a precursor to change. The Book of Ezekiel is a good example. Written from within the Exile, the prophet’s tale of “fat sheep” who took the rich pasture for themselves and pushed aside the weak helped explain why God allowed the people to fall before the Babylonian onslaught. .

So, my friend and I are discussing the financial meltdown and are perhaps a little too happy that crisis is at hand. Trust the markets, we had been told; deregulate the financial institutions and let them do what they do best. It turns out “what they do best” is promote their own interests without concern for the nation as a whole. Maybe what we need is a total shaking. It worked for God’s people in the Old Testament. They would fall away, God would shake (usually with the help of a foreign power), the people would repent and God would restore. Since there’s no foreign power capable of shaking our great nation, perhaps the shaking must come from within. It will require more than changing the political party in charge. It will take systemic changes, equal to or greater than those FDR instituted. Maybe that’s why my friend and are feeling exhilaration at such bad times. Could such a moment be coming?

Unfortunately, as my second friend reminded me, it’s not the fat sheep but the lean sheep -- the poor and middle class who’ll suffer most in a collapse. True enough, but that also was true in the 1930s and few would argue the changes that emerged -- such as Social Security -- were not worth the agony people suffered

The time for laying blame on individuals is over. The kind of tweaking we’ve seen lately won’t get it done. That is designed to protect the status quo and its beneficiaries. As was true for the people of Old Testament times, our leadership class has failed because they themselves are so vested in the great disparity.

It appears the people will vote for change in November. We’ll see whether it is the kind of radical change that can right our foundering ship and restore our moral compass.

In Search of a Better Cure for Mental Illness

You may have heard that a so-called “mental health parity” bill was attached to the financial bailout package that passed into law last week. The bill affects more than one-third of Americans, and requires insurance coverage for most mental health conditions to be substantially equal to coverage provided for physical illnesses.

Of course, this is a positive step and a victory for a dedicated group of legislators and advocacy groups that fought for the changes. But the fact that it covers just over a third of Americans shows the sad state of health coverage in the world’s richest nation. Companies with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from providing the parity coverage and most people with privately acquired insurance are unlikely to see much benefit due to large deductibles. Or, to say it another way, their coverage for mental illness will be just as flawed as their coverage for physical illness.

I’ve had personal experience with severe mental illness and I’m not convinced this bill will make a giant difference. When we needed help in my family, we couldn’t get it at any price, despite good insurance coverage. Everyone in the medical establishment who we asked for help turned their backs until a final crisis arose. Which leads me to believe that simply requiring such care be covered is no guarantee effective care will be delivered. Even after treatment, I was left wondering whether a non-medical remedy might have been better than doctors experimenting with pharmaceuticals.

Anyone who has suffered from chronic disease knows that if you don’t manage your own treatment, the medical/health insurance industry won’t do it for you -- at least not well. When it comes to mental illness this is doubly true. It’s hard to describe the dark shroud severe mental illness can throw over an individual or a household, except to say it is worse than impending death. Many sufferers long for death or seek it out, and when the treatment involves incarceration in a mental health facility, the treatment can make the suffering worse. Depending on doctors and nurses -- even dedicated practitioners -- to do their jobs is often not enough.

Mental illness is not new to modern times, although there seems to be consensus that the numbers are growing. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in four Americans will experience some form of mental illness. Many of the sick people Jesus cured suffered from what the Bible calls “demon possession,” a phrase most modern scholars view as an ancient description of mental illness. I know some people still believe in the presence of supernatural entities on earth -- angels and demons alike -- and I can’t prove them wrong. I do know that time and again Jesus was able to provide relief.

Modern psychiatrists insist mental illness is a biological condition. They will tell you, and I’m quoting here, “if an organ like the heart or kidney was ill, we wouldn’t talk to it, we’d medicate it. The brain also is an organ. If it is ill, we take the same approach.” In other words, they use drugs to restore what we think of as normal function. I’m not saying that’s a bad idea; in fact I’ve seen it work. But I have to wonder why, despite improved treatment options, the number of mentally ill keeps rising.

Jesus once told a parable of a demon expelled from a person that returns to find its former “house” swept clean and put in order, but empty. After the demon was removed, nothing good was put in its place. And so the demon moves right back in. Had the demon come back to a house filled with God’s spirit, the demon would have found his former house a most unwelcome residence.

Why was it that demons, or mental illness, fled at the sight of Jesus and the sound of his voice? Could it be that his presence was so filled with God’s spiritual power that all doubt, fear and despair were chased away? Could it be he was able to convey such a sense of joy that confidence in the goodness of life was restored?

Christianity was once a faith filled with spiritual consciousness. But when the scientific age induced Christian thinkers to substitute salvation formulas for salvation power, spirituality as a discernable life force began to whither. Jesus once described being “born again” with metaphors of faith and feeling. We know the wind is real, he said, even though we can’t say where it comes from or where it goes. But in the modern era we began to substitute simple formulaic statements for intuitions of spiritual truth. To be born again became nothing more than a matter of signing on to a group of specific beliefs.

That is all nice and tidy -- like the house the demon reoccupied -- and easier to explain to others, but it lacks the potency of a spiritual power that fills every corner of your being with a light that washes out all darkness. Night can’t prevail when the sun is at its zenith, just as “demons” couldn’t survive in the light of Jesus’ love.

To offer a metaphor of my own, the difference between knowing God through belief statements and knowing God through spiritual rebirth is like the difference between describing sexual arousal and feeling it. The first is an academic exercise while the second overwhelms. Can someone filled to overflowing with the bright joy of God’s spirit also suffer the darkness of depression? Perhaps so, but it’s my guess that it would be rare.

Our Last, Best Shot at a Covenant Culture

You hear the word “crisis” used regularly these days to describe the nation’s financial mess, although most of us “regular” folk feel no regret that the boys and girls playing on Wall Street fell off the monkey bars. But as much as we enjoy seeing these narcissists get their due, we as a culture have no choice but to fix the mess before their pain trickles down in a way their gain never did.

In the short term Congress will craft a fix that keeps the boat afloat without addressing the basic design problem. We will remain a nation in absurd contrast to our vision of ourselves. Hopefully, at least, the bailout cost will prevent us from starting any more foolish wars around the world. Sometimes it takes a crisis to initiate change.

When I look out on the landscape of our country, I’m reminded of Jesus looking upon Jerusalem and calling it, “… the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often,” he said, “have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate.”

These words in the 23rd chapter of Matthew conclude a long section in which Jesus rails against the religious leaders of his day, calling them “blind guides” who strain out gnats while swallowing camels whole. And since we in America have become more and more like the Judea of Jesus’ day, a land for the privileged few which he saw as neglecting “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith,” it’s no surprise our churches are indecisive about our own social-economic plight. Like the Pharisees, they strain out gnats while swallowing camels.

As our modern Jerusalem falters, the boys and girls at Focus Action, the James Dobson political group, are sending out dire warnings on what will happen if Democrats capture the White House. Their main fear is that gays and lesbians will be allowed to seek God’s face in peace. Talk about straining out gnats -- here we are at a watershed moment when religious leaders could join forces to encourage the true covenant society described in the Old Testament, but all they can think of is whose zipper is up or down. By the way, just decades after Jesus’ warning, Jerusalem became a dust heap.

Something like a year ago, as the presidential campaign was warming up, conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks said the central issue we face as a nation is the failure of our leadership class. His message is similar to the one Jesus brought to Jerusalem, and Brooks also has been proven correct. Fortunately for him, he hasn’t been crucified for his words, which I guess shows we’ve made some progress in two thousand years. But like Jesus he has been pretty much ignored.

Still, I’m going to take this moment to think positively -- not about the crisis melting away, but about the change it might bring. Jesus couched his criticism in spiritual terms because he knew that was the only quarter from which true reformation could emerge. It’s no different today. But our churches must quit worrying so much about gnats and focus on camels.

We see now what comes to us when we allow the material to dominate the spiritual. Masters and servants both suffer. Marx predicted that capitalism would sow the seeds of its own destruction. The one things he didn’t count on was the power of God’s love to moderate the forces of selfishness. This might be our last, best opportunity to recapture a society that truly embraces what Jesus calls “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.”

My Simple Plan for Deciding How to Vote

Saturday evening a friend told me she’s looking for a new church because her current pastor preached a sermon on how a Christian should decide for whom to vote. The preacher, she said, made an effort to keep his criteria generic -- not favoring one political party over the other -- but somewhere during the sermon he tipped his mitt and my friend saw he was really saying, "vote Republican." When she called him on it privately, he admitted his preference and she went church shopping.

Ironically, she and I had once been members of a different church where the pastor was criticized for leaning too far to the left. She left that church for a different reason, but many other long-time members left because the preacher there failed to endorse the Iraq invasion. I guess everyone wants to believe God agrees with them.

It’s the job of the Internal Revenue Service to make sure non-profits like churches don’t shill for one candidate over another, or for a particular political party. Unfortunately, under this administration those rules have been skewed to favor one side over the other, but I’d better not say more on that subject since Christian Heartbeat also is a non-profit subject to those same judgments.

I’m not suggesting that churches or individual Christians should isolate faith from politics and paste a happy face over the radical face of Jesus. Since God is a God of relationships, God is political by nature. Same was true of Jesus. In fact, being politically incorrect is what got him killed. The failure of the church to follow courageously in Jesus’ footsteps is part why it seems so irrelevant today to so many people.

So, getting back to the preacher who outlined some basic principles for voting but couldn’t help showing his prejudices, here’s my quick and non-partisan one-two-three on how to bring your faith to bear in casting your vote:

One: Know your own prejudices and don’t try to pass them off on God. So often people start with hearts full of hate and bias and then search scripture for ways to attribute them to God. If you’re a socialist who hates the rich you can find passages that support your feelings. If you’re a homophobe who hates gays and lesbians you’ll find passages to support you. Know yourself and don’t say your attitudes come from God when they really come from your own dark heart. We should all be able to agree that Christians shouldn’t cast votes motivated by hatred.

Two: Keep it simple. Throughout history great trends and great issues like life and death, peace and war, wealth and poverty have divided humanity, and for the most part broken God’s heart. To God the choices are clear as crystal waters, but we always try to muddy everything. So in Israel and Palestine both sides say they favor peace over war but each has its nuanced argument for why the other side makes peace impossible. Keep it simple and quit saying, “yes but.” Keep it simple and choose. You are either for peace over war, for life over death, for the right of all people to materially sustain themselves, or you are not. Jesus says you’re either with me or against me. Don’t make excuses; stand up and be counted.

Three: Know who God is. Have you ever put together a puzzle without first seeing a picture of how it should look once completed? It’s almost impossible yet many Christians approach their faith that way. They take the little pieces in the form of proof passages, assemble them as they see fit and sit back feeling satisfied. Unfortunately, what they’ve created looks nothing like God. If we read the entire scripture we come away knowing some specific things about who God is. First of all, God is the God of all people. Any time two people stand against each other, it’s two of God’s children facing off. Doesn’t matter what faith, if any, either person claims. Second, God is the God of love. If I have to explain that one, you really don’t know your Bible. And third, God is the God of compassion. Any time one human causes another pain or looks down on them as less than themselves, God’s heart fills with sorrow. If you’re asking yourself, “what would Jesus do,” or how would Jesus vote, start with the full picture of who God is.

I’ve avoided discussing the specific issues of this election. If you read between the lines, like my friend did listening to her pastor’s sermon, you may think you know how I’ll cast my vote. But I’m not asking that you vote like me; I am asking that you be true to God’s true principles. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that we’ll never change this world until we each take personal responsibility for knowing God’s will, and then step forth in courage to do it.

Goodbye to being Lukewarm on War or Peace

Anyone who has an ear for the news knows a small war has erupted on the eastern edge of Europe. In response our State Department blusters about territorial integrity, condemning our traditional enemy Russia while ignoring the provocative role played by the other side. The result is another example of the moral jumble we‘ve made of foreign policy. Once we've labeled you a good guy you‘re home free, and vice versa. It's the reverse of what Jesus taught about good fruit not coming from bad trees. If our government has declared your tree good, your fruit is sweet by definition, no matter how it tastes on the tongue.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not defending Russia, just stating the obvious: Standing up for peace looks a bit foolish when you’ve ignored territorial integrity to conduct a war in which hundreds of thousands have died. I suspect that just like in Iraq, war in Georgia could have been avoided if leaders were committed to other strategies. But as long I can recall, propon
As a follower of Christ, I have the habit of looking to our scriptures for insight on political situations. As I read of the new mayhem in Europe the verse which came to mind is Jesus saying his preference is that we be hot for God’s ways, but if we’re not hot, being cold deserves more respect than lukewarm. Since that scripture comes from John’s Revelation, I’ve never put much stock in it as an authentic saying of Jesus. But just the same, I love the sentiment it expresses.

I have no doubt that God’s way is the way of peace. I don’t believe any other conclusion can come from a thorough reading of scripture. You can argue otherwise if you’d like, but in my informed opinion that places you firmly on the other team (and we know who captains that team!). In the Revelation passage, John’s visionary Jesus says he respects people more if they admit who they are, than if they pretend to with you when they’re really against you. It’s a little like letting Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.

After the last presidential election many progressive Christians found it difficult to converse with brothers and sisters who supported President Bush’s war policy. I still find it difficult. When the fudged explanations begin, when unprovoked, preemptive strikes are interpreted as defending oneself against an actual attack, I know the conversation is over. I simply can’t accept our right to decide who might be a threat and then hand out death as a legitimate way of dealing with them. All of us, Americans as well as every other people, carry too many biases to do that with any reliability. The result is that behavior we condemn in our enemies is excused in our friends -- a hypocrisy that breeds cynicism and more destruction. The simple solution is to act from courage, not fear, in a foreign policy that chooses peace over war.

So now when I discuss war and peace with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I avoid letting them cloud the air with details that usually prove false anyway. I simply ask the question John the Revelator had Jesus ask: Are you hot or cold? Are you with me or against me? Are you on the side of peace or the side of war? Isn’t it time we stop excusing those who makes excuses for war? Isn’t it time to get hot for Jesus and choose peace?

Living Together to Feed the Spirit

The Associated Press recently circulated a story about “intentional communities,” a kind of communal arrangement in which residents share living space, expenses and responsibilities. According to The Fellowship for Intentional Community, a nonprofit that follows such groups, at least 100,000 Americans are now enjoying this lifestyle.

The AP article focused on an urban community on Chicago’s north side called the Keystone Ecological Urban Center, but nationally two-thirds of such communities are thought to be rural.

I came across the article in the Detroit Free Press while visiting my parent en route from Chicago to Florida. The article appeared in the Detroit paper under the headline, “Americans save by living simply, together.” It included quotes from a 31-year-old woman who lives in the Keystone community. She explained that she pays a total of $775 a month to cover her rent, food and utilities. Her private living space is essentially a very small one-bedroom apartment. But she shares bathroom facilities with other residents, and the entire community eats together in a common dining room. Even though the woman in the story, Keri Rainsberger, works in a fairly low-paying nonprofit position, she says she has no problem making ends meet. Of course, she also rides a bike as her primary mode of transportation, and Chicago, unlike some cities, has an extensive public transportation system that can take a traveler almost anywhere in the city or suburbs.

I happen to know Ms. Rainsberger a little, having worshipped at the same church. The article said she tithes, which I was never able to do even though I tried to live economically in my traditional way. My point in saying I know her a little, is that when I saw how the story focused on financial economy, I knew right away they had missed the heart of the matter. If she is any example of what motivates people to seek such communities, living cheaply is just part of the story. Feeding the spirit also has to be part of the inspiration. Living a life that extends God’s intentions of compassion, justice and mercy to others must also be part of the motivation.

According to the AP, 28 residents share facilities in the Keystone Center. Ms. Rainsberger says she often jokes, “It’s like a college dormitory but with better conversation.” Among the 28 are college professors and young professionals. Certainly some could afford to choose a more expensive, more conventional lifestyle. I’m confident they get more from the experience than the thrill of living like college students.

The article quotes author and environmental activist Duane Elgin on the benefits of living simply: “It isn’t just cutting back on things. It’s about people not needing so many things and putting more attention into their personal interests and their family and friends, being creative, being of service. As a result, they are richer people.”

Those are values we could all embrace, values from which we could all benefit -- us and everyone around us -- no matter how we are housed.

Looking for a Door? God's Got One for You

If you’ve ever tried to explain the Trinity to someone accustomed to seeing God as three distinct “persons,” you may understand why Jesus taught mostly through imagery. Unlike Paul, Jesus avoided getting mired in details of theology. Read Jesus’ words and it becomes clear he intended his listeners to shape God’s story into something that made sense to them. Early Christian teachers knew this, which is why they stole the winter solstice from the Romans and called it Christmas, and turned Druid worship of trees into our most prominent symbol of Christ’s birth.

I remember a wonderful woman in a Disciples class who lashed out at me because I said her picture of the Trinity as three individual Gods amounted to something like the Greek deities of Olympus. In her mind there was no conflict between her scheme and monotheism. So I shut up and apologized.

The more I taught people about God, the more I learned from them. It led me an analogy with that familiar theory on methods of learning: Some learn by seeing, some by hearing, others by touching. Actually, most of us learn by a mixture of the three with certain methods being stronger in each individual than the others. A good teacher discovers which styles dominate in each student and caters to them. A bad teacher says this is how I do it, you adjust.

The same is true I think of helping people find their door to spiritual enlightenment. Many of us grew up with a top-down style of believing in which some authority figure dictates what to believe. But I’m convinced Jesus wants us to participate in discovering God’s presence for ourselves. If that wasn’t so, why did he tell us to seek and knock instead of just saying, “this is what you need to do?” And why would he describe God’s realm in terms of parables instead of just giving us hard facts?

A few years ago, even as I was feeling the spirit more powerfully in my own life, I mistakenly thought I could advise others on how and where to find those doors Jesus told us to seek. But my list of doors kept growing until finally I realized that for all who seek and knock God would provide a door to fit their needs. If I hadn’t let myself get carried away with my own sense of revealed truth I would have noticed right away what Jesus had made clear. “Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will open,” he said. It’s that simple. To seek and to knock are enough by themselves. We don’t need to put in words what is on the other side of the door; seeking by itself guarantees we will find it.

Following that same path, I came to understand how simple Jesus’ message is if we stick to the heart of it. He says that seeking a way to the healing waters of God’s will is more important than knowing where the journey ends, and hungering and thirsting for righteousness is an end in itself. Being righteous -- or thinking you are -- means you‘ll quit seeking.

All of this falls in line with our fickle nature and how Grace is God’s way of giving us a pass into heaven’s realm. God’s intentions are rock solid and always play out as planned. Ours, on the other hand, are distinctly human. We often don’t arrive where we mean to go. But God accepts our good intentions as success. To seek and knock, to hunger and thirst is good enough. I can’t explain how that works, just like I couldn’t explain the mystery of the Trinity. Maybe the seeking keeps us so busy we don’t have time to get in trouble. That’s just a guess. But as the old classroom saying goes, God gives us an “A” for effort.

Ready for Honesty on God's Wish for Peace?

A letter this week to online subscribers of Sojourners Magazine begins with this scripture:

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:4

Sojourners is edited by Jim Wallis, one of the leading voices for sanity and honesty in the Christian community. So let’s declare Jim Wallis Day and join him in a moment of honesty: Our scriptures demand peace and to pretend they mean some future time when the world is less dangerous is fundamentally dishonest. It’s been almost three thousand years since Isaiah wrote. If the time of peace hasn’t come yet then I guess it never will, unless of course, we make it come.

Wallis and Sojourners are also voices for common sense, but voices crying in the wilderness. It should be obvious that who we are comes from what we do. To claim we are people of peace while making war defies reason. Can a drug user call himself clean because he intends to quit right after his latest fix? Drug addicts use drugs, war makers make war.

The Sojourners letter goes on to state:
America, Iran, and Israel have been playing war games this summer: Showing off warships in the Persian Gulf, launching missiles, and testing aerial maneuvers – it is like watching a bad game of one-gunmanship.

But it’s not a game. Once again, the talk of military action against Iran has reached a fever pitch, with demonstrations of force on all sides. But this saber-rattling is a dead-end street for the United States and the Middle East.

The letter suggests we contact our government representatives and tell them how we feel. I’m all for that, but I doubt it will do any good. The bias for using military power and threats of annihilation as foreign policy is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has now infected our latest prophet of change, Barack Obama.

Embedded in the nebulous promise of change which drew so many young people to Obama was the promise we would no longer divide the world into demons and angels, casting ourselves as angels wielding swords of justice. That promise was the implicit bigger picture in his call to end the war in Iraq. But now Obama finds himself so overwhelmed by our national compulsion for military solutions and self-righteousness that he could never endorse a statement condemning “America, Iran, and Israel” equally. The media would annihilate him.

Many believe improving prospects in Iraq take the war off the table in the campaign. But how the war started remains the more important issue, not whether it may finally end well. If you don’t believe it was a mistake to choose war over diplomacy, then you are likely to make the mistake again.

Three thousand years ago we heard God’s will spoken through the prophet Isaiah: God’s way is the way of peace. If we don’t walk it, how can we declare ourselves clean of our addictions?

To read the message from Sojourners click or paste the link below:

http://go.sojo.net/nd.html?r=LdSN2bnqkihd&n=27897552

To Serve the Nation, First Seek God's Spirit

In my last column published in this space I talked about how God's plan for equality among the people of our world was central to the founding documents of our democracy. I also discussed how various definitions of democracy and equality affect the shape of our society and whether we truly arrive at anything close to actual equality.

I also observed that because the founders couched their equality statements in terms of God's intentions for a created people with natural rights, that we as Christians are perfectly within our rights when we apply our beliefs to the marketplace of public opinion. In fact, it is our obligation to do so. Unfortunately, I noted, we don't agree on which issues should get our attention, and from opposite sides of the values divide, we often view the other camp as corrupted and manipulated by secular political interests.

Christians are much better at singing songs about being "one in the spirit," and proclaiming "one baptism" and "one Christ" than we are at actually closing the gaps that divide us. The truth is we've seen more dividing recently among Christian groups than uniting. It's not my purpose here to measure the pros and cons of the current fractures over sexual orientation issues, except to say those who opt for inclusion always stand a better chance of standing with Jesus. And if we look beyond the church to how Christians influence our democracy, we come back to the statement in that original declaration which says "all," not "some" are created equal.

Looking upon the landscape of our democracy and culture, it seems that acknowledging God-given rights -- and assuring they translate into civil rights -- is no more than a good first step. As disciples, as Jesus people, we must go further in our own lives if we expect our society to become the beacon of light we dream of. Let's be honest, for all its virtues we live in a nation which has traditionally celebrated the self. We are proud of our "rugged individualism." And we live under an economic system that enshrines the pursuit of self interest. But as Christians we are part of a faith system, and claim a scripture, which teaches the denial of self. Deny yourself and follow me, Jesus says. Make your neighbor's interests equal to your own. Paul teaches that unity with Christ begins with the death of the self. In the Old Testament God warns the Israelites against coming into the promised land with its wells they did not dig and groves they did not plant and taking credit for the self. We can't have it both ways. Something's got to give. As Jesus said, no one can serve two masters.

Clearly the founders wrote from a universal perspective, reflecting the emerging enlightenment of their time, when they spoke of an equality endowed by our creator. They would have said that what is true for our young nation should be true for all. One of the best proofs for believing that all who seek spiritual enlightenment seek the same Spirit is that all the enduring faiths share this emphasis on folding the self into God's universal intentions. Of course, America is a nation, not a faith system. But Christians who are also Americans carry two passports. Which master will we serve? If we serve God first, I believe we will also serve the future of our great nation.

Don't Apologize for Swimming in Political Waters

If there’s one thing Christians on the right and left seem to agree on, it’s that our culture leaves a lot to be desired and could do with some radical change. I’m not saying all Christians think that way. There are some in the middle who are generally happy with the shape of things. They’re doing fine financially, living in the dream house, and steadily reducing their golf handicap. Their greatest wish would be for conservatives and progressives to stop fighting amid the pews and leave politics to the lobbyists where it belongs. Then we could come to church minding our manners like they did the 1950s, sit quietly while we sing a few hymns, listen to a nice polite sermon and go home to the real world.

Unfortunately for the comfortable middle, those on the extremes agree that taking action for social change is part of our calling from Christ. We fight because we don’t agree on what that change should look like. We all know that evangelical issues have had the limelight these past decades and been portrayed by secular media as the core concerns of Christians. That’s changing as progressives find their voice on issues like war and poverty, and evangelicals look to expand their horizons.

Please don’t let this get around, but I have friends who are conservatives. Some are even Republicans; and I don’t think they have horns and tails. Not all of them anyway. When we look beyond issues to the philosophies which divide us as a nation -- and as Christians trying to follow Christ’s example toward a just world -- we come up against the promises of democracy embedded in our founding documents. “Created equal” implies that God intended us to be treated as equal by each other and by our institutions. “Endowed by our creator” implies we have a God-given natural right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s clear that the founders saw the world through God’s eyes and envisioned God’s wish for equality as central to the natural order. The tradition in America of religious people taking their beliefs into the political arena goes back to the beginning.

One of the questions eternally debated by citizens and believers alike, is what does democracy and this so-called “equality” require. Some would argue that equality means equal opportunity; others would say we must achieve at least a rough equality of results or there isn’t true equal opportunity. Those who have excelled materially in our society often justify their privilege with a certainty of their own merit. Conversely, the poor are poor because they lack merit. In other words, it’s your own fault baby. Proponents of societal democracy argue that when a culture consistently produces great disparities between citizens, something is probably wrong with the culture. I tend to belief that our creating God doesn’t turn out a ton of garbage. Failure should be the exception and not the norm.

But it doesn’t need to be an “either/or” proposition. It may be more productive to pursue God’s values under both interpretations of democracy. We can demand equal opportunity for members of dispossessed groups, while simultaneously advocating systemic change in our culture. These two tracks often dovetail together to the detriment (or benefit) of individuals and society. For example, the American Medical Association this week offered an apology for past offenses in deliberately keeping black doctors from joining their organization. But beyond the injury to individual doctors, the AMA is convinced that its actions played a role in the poor quality of health care available to blacks throughout the society. Now the African-American doctors are welcome in the AMA but black citizens still lack adequate health care. Apparently, individual rights are easier to restore.

What if Steelworkers Ran the World?

I read earlier this week about a federal government official, a lawyer, who has been nominated for an important judicial position. It seems that several significant examples of plagiarism have been found recently in his academic writings. Some in congress have said the plagiarism issues demonstrate a disqualifying lack of integrity. Those who support the appointment cite the man’s professional experience, and that he is a graduate of Yale Law School.

It hit me as amusing that being a graduate of an Ivy League college should be a positive credential. I mean, haven’t grads of Ivy League schools like Yale and Harvard, along with other elite universities, been the ones leading this country? And look where they’ve led us. Maybe it’s time we stop accepting “graduate of Yale Law School” as a badge of honor, a credential conferring a right to leadership. Maybe it’s time we start searching news stories for words like, “a graduate of Eastern Carolina University,” of Northern Illinois, or Berea College. Can you imagine a voter leaning over the back fence to tell a neighbor about a congressional candidate and saying, “you know she was tops in her electrician apprenticeship class.” The neighbor nods and you can hear him thinking, “that’s good enough for me.”

There’s a commercial running on television right now that asks the question, “what if steelworkers ran the world?” It’s meant to be humorous, but in the ad this group of dirt covered, burley men fairly and efficiently take care of business in a manner you have to admire. What if steelworkers ran the world? The answer seems to be that it would be a better place.

There is little doubt we’ve become an increasing divided society. The most obvious marker has been the growing income disparity between average workers and top management. But economic equality is the smallest hope we’ve lost from democracy’s promise. We now readily accept education as occupational training, treating our children as future bricks in the road of commerce connecting industry and consumer. Respect for the arts, music and literature are gone, except when they lead to a commercial product. All that matters is generating workers with the tools in science and mathematics to keep the machine running. Why would a worker need the arts and humanities to do his or her job? These things are liable to encourage too much independent thinking.

It once was charged that nations encourage religion in order to drug the people and keep them in line. True enough, the practice of religion has often been stripped of its spirituality and made into a method of behavior control. Today the church has been eclipsed as chief “opium of the people” by action films, virtual reality games and mixed martial arts fighting. But inside many people lives a hunger for meaning that these cheap, hollow thrills can’t satisfy. If leaders in the church have their eyes open, they might see this as an opportunity to reassert the original purpose of faith, which is to create a new form of being out of simple flesh and blood.

Since the days of Machiavelli we’ve known that people who have enough of the expected comforts don’t often stop to consider how much greater life could be. But we could now be entering a new era in which our culture’s ability to deliver material benefits is in doubt. Instead of asking “what if steelworkers ran the world,” it might be time to imagine how the world would change if faith in God’s will drove reality. Can you imagine a world in which we awoke each day bathed in the joyful light of God’s Spirit?

When Scriptural Truth is Found, Grace Prevails

When sports teams fall on hard times they often get back on course by going back to basics. In football that would be blocking and tackling; in basketball, defense and rebounding. If you’re failing with the fundamentals, nuanced systems and fancy plays aren’t going to help.

Going back to basics could be good advice for the Christian faith at this moment in time. Lord knows change was needed even before conservatives started pointing fingers over their exclusive little manias. We took a step closer to the breaking point this week as angry Anglican conservatives met in Africa to stomp their feet over gays in the church and women in the pulpit. They claim to be doing this in the name of Christ, but as one prominent politician said recently, “Some people aren’t reading their Bibles.”

I don’t remember much from my college class in Principles of Biblical Interpretation (insiders call it hermeneutics to scare off lay people), but the one principle I do recall is really the only one worth recalling: Rule No. One -- “Let scripture interpret scripture.” This means that any individual verse or point of belief has to be understood within the comprehensive message. As I said, when in doubt, go back to basics.

I suppose not everyone is going to agree, but it seems to me the main defining ingredient of the Christian faith is grace. Some people, following the footsteps of those who opposed Paul’s message, hate that fact. They would prefer to give obedience to the law equal standing in a kind of offsetting tension which keeps us from going overboard. Unfortunately, that’s not the Bible’s message. That’s the message of men who lack faith in the message. The message of scripture is freedom, not constriction. God asks us to have faith that freedom will lead to better behavior, that grace and freedom will transform us into spiritual beings with a new capacity to follow the fundamental commands: to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.

Unfortunately, while many have faith in God they lack faith in other men and women. So just in case grace doesn’t get the job done, they start making rules such as no women in the pulpit and no gays or lesbians at the communion rail. I guess they figure Jesus -- and God -- must be so naïve that they need a little help understanding just how bad these humans can be. Still others, desperate to justify their human doubt, try to find little passages to support themselves, or attribute grace to Paul and say Jesus never mentioned it. To those people I repeat, you aren’t reading your Bible. Grace is there from cover to cover, and certainly in the teachings of Jesus. To illustrate how grace is central to Jesus’ teaching, this quotation from Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Assurance of Grace:

“… The knowledge and the certainty of God are a gift to those who strive after perfection without the illusion of having attained it — the ‘poor in spirit,’ and those who ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness’ (Matt. 5:3, 6). Those who imagine themselves righteous are consistently condemned. Those who strive after pure spirit are consoled in the inevitable frustration which attends their striving, because in their very search after perfection they are initiated into the true character of spirit and realize that perfection is love and not justice. Thus they obtain mercy while they learn to be merciful.”

As I said, back to basics: The message of God’s word is trusting love over justice, knowing we have the gift of God’s mercy and the power to pass it on. In the shorthand of our faith, we call it grace.

I’ve been on sports teams where players who insisted on being divisive, who ignored the fundamentals and did things their own way, were allowed to say goodbye and go their own way. With the doubters gone, the team was able to pursue its true potential.

So, let them seek their twisted little pathways. I plan to stick with the basics and walk in God’s grace. If God has a better road to success than the one in scripture, wouldn’t we have been told of it?

Will Economics Revive the Dreams of the 1960s?

You’ve probably heard George Carlin died this seek. With his passing goes one of the last counter-culture icons of our time. Carlin was an early and enduring darling of the 60s generation. Irreverent to a fault, Carlin always refused to kiss the imperial ring. As America moved into the post-Vietnam era, trading bell bottoms for Brooks Brothers, Carlin maintained his loose and casual style. He turned gray but he never grew old.

HBO is playing a special this week of vintage Carlin performances, and while I could do with fewer f-bombs, he still seems relevant. As he wound through one of his anti-war, anti-church tirades on how killing people is applauded while having sex is a sin, he paused shook his head and said something like, “We’ve got a great country here, but a ridiculous culture.” Like I said, he’s still relevant.

But the positive values of the 60s haven’t totally passed away with Carlin. In fact, they are enjoying a rebirth right now thanks to the oil crisis. As Paul Krugman of the Times pointed out this week, the environmentalist community -- itself a remnant of 60s values -- has welcomed higher oil prices as a motivation for burning less fossil fuel and developing less polluting forms of energy. Citizens struggling to make ends meet will no doubt have difficulty sharing their joy. Indeed, a few might wish they’d join Carlin wherever he’s gone.

Eventually we may come up with forms of energy and transportation that allow us to return to ever expansive consumerism and materialism, but in the near- and mid-term we may be witnessing the best shot in decades for real spirituality to make inroads. Some may not see the logic of this, but it seems self evident to me that the more our lives are tied up with material objects the less room there is for the spirit, for enjoyment of God’s creation, or for the true expressions of self which are part of our nature.

Near the beginning of Jesus’ most comprehensive belief statement, his Sermon on the Mount, he says the first step to being filled spiritually is to hunger and thirst. In other words, if you want to be full, first you must be empty. Near the end of the sermon he returns to the subject, speaking more specifically of the risks of a life focused on filling up with material. To paraphrase, he says, “look I know you need some things, I know you can’t live like a bear in the woods, but if you want to feel the power of the Spirit in your life, you need priorities. Seek God’s realm first, and enough stuff will come to you. If you go for the stuff first, there’s no chance you’ll ever know the spirit.” It won’t matter how much of you toss in the plate on Sunday.

So maybe we are at a time of opportunity, although I’m not sure we can get there from here. In the 60s, spiritual exploration grew when war and a national admission of racial injustice caused us to question our values. But in the long run spirituality was no match for the consumer culture. Who knows, maybe this time shifting economic realities will open room inside us for the true life God intended. We can always hope, and like George Carlin taught us, laugh at our failures.