Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Well. I still sometimes feel like a stranger in a strange (and crazy) land.

We continue to witness clashing worldviews here in the U.S. that seem to me less like disagreements and more like we’re from different planets.

For example, the current U.S. health care reform conflagration. As I see it, I’m thinking, who in their right mind wouldn’t want the U.S. health care system changed, improved, made more effective, made more sustainable? (Even if it takes more than one try to get it right.) Yet many of us, including ones who stand to benefit the most from health care reform, are nevertheless violently opposed to any change¹.

Most of my explanations for this so far are fragmentary. “These people are stupid,” for example, tempting though it is to think, is not a comprehensive — or helpful — explanation.

I am absolutely determined to grok this multiplanetary-views-on-one-planet situation before I die.

Because, my thinking goes, if we really are all children of one God, as lots of us claim we are, then even my most batshit insane incomprehensible brothers and sisters deserve my attempt to understand where they’re coming from. (Why yes, it would be way easier to not give a crap. That has crossed my mind. But turns out I’m just not wired that way.)

So … I’m studying the Spiral Dynamics model at the moment, “a way of thinking about human nature [that] explores what makes us different and alike at levels deeper than the demographics of age or gender, economics or ethnicities.”

It’s a seriously big-picture understanding of human motivation and behavior.

(Here’s an excellent starting-point text-, and another graphical, description.)

I think it’s helping.

later in the day …

I’m reminded that the idea of a spiral of development has resonated with me for a long time. See Inconsistency has its place from May 2003.

next-day addendum …

It is important to try to understand each other, as I’m advocating here. It is simultaneously as important not to shy away from pointing out the extreme social and spiritual consequences of bearing false witness in hateful and ridiculous ways, as these townhall-protest teabaggers are doing. (“By their fruit you will recognize them.”)

¹Note that violently opposed is no exaggeration. When citizens attend U.S. representatives’ town halls yelling “Liar! Liar!” and displaying signs that accuse “Hitler! Nazis! Socialism! Fascism!” — and it’s significant that many of these yellers are older white folk, like me, who I charge should damn sure know better than to believe and propagate this illogical nonsense — then you know something is catastrophically flawed with the information distribution system in this country.

“Bush may ignore the 4th Circuit’s stinging rebuke of his war paradigm. But his policies are losing the cloak of legality.”

When John Dean announced his new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, on the TV news program Countdown with Keith Olbermann Monday night (transcript), I experienced A Big Jell: a sense of everything coming together to make conservative behavior comprehensible^*.

Thesis. Dean’s thesis (as presented in the book’s preface excerpt) is that modern conservative behavior is explained by “the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism”:

Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral.

Resonance. This finding resonates with Dean as he assesses its role in Watergate, about which he has unique historical perspective: “authoritarian thinking was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon’s presidency.”

This finding resonates with me because, as much as I’d like to hem and haw that conservatism correlates with authoritarianism but isn’t defined by it, I can’t think of a single hardline conservative person I know who isn’t authoritarian in outlook and behavior.

OMG. It’s not an insult to identify authoritarian thinking in someone, just a hard-to-miss observation: anyone’s behavior reveals whether he or she “favors unquestioning obedience to authority,” or else says “Hell, no” to the unquestioning part, or else is in an OMG transition from one point of view to the other.

(My earlier post, Why I became a liberal Christian, briefly recounts my own OMG transition from a conservative worldview to my current one.)

These days I swing anti-authoritarian. As a yute, I was extraordinarily compliant. But as a grownup, I think this is a vital part of being grown up: Always question authority. Is the authority sensible? Is it informed? Is it honorable? Is it just? Is its worldview internally consistent? Do its words and deeds cohere? If not, then no freakin’ sale.

Community. Then, what I thought was safety and responsibility — always complying with authority — I now realize is horribly dangerous. Obedience is not praiseworthy of itself; it must be discerning, it must be wise.

Now I’ve learned that the only sustainable wisdom is consensus wisdom. It is the priceless distillate of sweat, study, careful thinking, and apprehending the still, small communiques from the holy — averaged out over filtered through the hearts and minds of many people, over many years.

In contrast, the so-called wisdom of the “chosen few” — often characterized by secrecy and exclusivity and exercise of might, often led by a handful of authoritarian leaders who tolerate no dissent — is almost always shot through with bullshit.

So how do we make common cause again? How do we spread the viral realization that what we as humans have in common far outweighs the ways in which we differ? And that we should focus our time, talent, and treasure on the in common?

And that unquestioning obedience to unsound authority always leads to grief?

I believe God gives us conscience for a reason. It must never be switched off and checked at the door.

2006-08-23 update: Glenn provides a thorough review of Conservatives Without Conscience, going into significant detail and well worth reading for further understanding.

2007-03-06 update: Today Glenn diagnoses Ann Coulter’s behavior (who recently called John Edwards “a faggot”) in the context of the larger conservative movement. This column was triggered by a conservative pundit’s observation of Coulter that “she’s very popular among conservatives.” (See Salon, March 6, 2007: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity.)

As when I wrote this original entry, the groupthink behavior under discussion is otherwise incomprehensible to me, so for me Glenn’s explanatory opinions help build a framework for understanding the pathology. (I’d rather understand it than demonize it, which I guess outs me as a liberal right there.)

2007-03-19 update: Dean’s primary undergirding scientific research for his observations and conclusions about authoritarianism is that of Bob Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba, as he carefully credits in his foreward. I see that Altemeyer has taken the unusual step of publishing his own summary of his decades of research as a free online book, The Authoritarians.

I am struck today by this comment in this thread (props to ThatBritGuy) that addresses — with more understanding than I usually display — how psychology influences worldview:

My experience of Right Wingers is that their psychology revolves around two poles. One is lack of empathy. So when you and I see people suffering, they see a blank space. The other is lack of imagination. So when you and I see what’s coming, they see a row of dots and no trend line joining them up.

Hence, for example, the conservative shortfall of outrage and heartbreak (so far) at the loss of life and limb among all players in the Iraq war, and the non-acknowledgement that U.S. actions there have inflamed anger and escalated danger in the world as night follows day.

Another example: blaming the devastated residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast instead of assessing leadership accountability top to bottom, identifying points of failure, and replacing incompetence with competence for a more effective next time.

It’s really a kind of pathology. The pattern only breaks when sooner or later the trend line [IOW, connecting the dots] becomes really obvious and unavoidable. That’s when you get conversions. The rest of the time you have to sit on your hands and remind yourself that these people have cognitive disabilities that make it impossible for them to connect to the real world without a big effort.

Now I probably wouldn’t have accepted this explanation 5+ years ago, because I hadn’t witnessed this psychology in action again and again. Now I have.

I think this empathy/imagination explanation dovetails with George Carlin’s observation on the September 9 edition of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher that the Right Wing focus is usually property (“interested in property values, property, property rights”) while the Left Wing focus is usually people (“concerned with … human beings and human concerns, … the care of humans”). (I paraphrase; transcript not yet available to verify my recollection now available.)

Property concerns are valid, of course, as are people concerns. But in any contest between property and people, people is the choice I want to make every time. (It’s well to remember, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth … For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”)

This leads me to my big question —

Maybe in the wake of Katrina the trend line among the last five years’ dots has finally become “really obvious and unavoidable” and now the conversions have begun. (Poll numbers finally imply this.) Maybe our collective conversion is toward a saner way of being that values people, nurtures competence, faces problems head-on, and transcends political polarities.

That’s the most hope I can muster today. But it may be enough.

Wow, Dale notes a powerful Hauerwas quote to start off the new year:

A “truth” that must use violence to secure its existence cannot be truth.
(The Peaceable Kingdom, p.15)

If this statement is accurate, and I believe it is, then all this “freedom is on the march” talk cannot be truthful. I think such talk is instead, generally speaking, nonsense. Deadly, deadly nonsense.

I’m enjoying the unlikely benefit of a houseguest who lived in and through the rise of Nazi Germany. His stories are changing me, and giving me fresh first-hand confirmation of the perils we face given current U.S. leadership, practices, and attitudes.

Eeriest similarity between here-and-now and there-and-then:
Government manipulation of public opinion through the media.

If I understand him correctly, that’s the factor that most enabled the consolidation of power in the Third Reich. And in our time, it’s what chills me most about our current U.S. governmental predicament.

In this new year, I seek to grow beyond simply railing against the problem — as God knows I did a lot last year, and which can’t possibly be interesting — to participating somehow in the solution. What we’ve lost in embracing the worldview we’ve embraced is monumental and, too often it has seemed to me, unrecoverable. Yet presumably, with God all things are possible. Heartchange can happen in the blink of an eye, and over sweeping numbers of people. I tend to forget this over and over, but the reality securing this hope is as constant as ever.

[Promised Textpattern blog rollout almost ready; family holiday activities took precedence over its preparation, as they should.]

Orcinus: David Neiwert: ‘One of the real keys to understanding our situation is realizing that conservatism and the “conservative movement” are in fact two entirely different things.’

I’ve been thinking a lot about worldviews lately. Electing a president, I think, is only somewhat about the person we choose to occupy the Oval Office, and much more about the worldview — the lens through which we view the world and our place in it — that we endorse and put our power, treasure, and collective awareness behind.

This worldview choice is a big deal because it affects nearly every aspect of U.S. policy, life, and discourse. And, because of U.S. far-reaching influence (and effluence) in world affairs, our worldview choice proceeds to affect every person on the planet to one degree or another.

An easy way to recognize the radical difference in worldviews between the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. these days is to compare the keynote speeches from each party’s convention (nod to Al Franken).

Assuming each speech is representative of its party’s worldview — and I think it is as each was its convention’s keynote — the difference really is astonishing. Check it out:

Barack Obama (Democratic Convention keynote, July 27, 2004)

• full video, excerpts
• transcript, alt

Zell Miller (Republican Convention keynote, September 1, 2004)

• full video, excerpts
• transcript, alt

(Each speaker’s name above is a link to his Wikipedia entry that contains bio info and numerous links to further related information.)

For me, my Christian worldview preempts all others, and as I find it generally compatible with the Democratic worldview and almost completely incompatible with the Republican worldview — a finding made stronger by further study, interestingly enough — you can understand why I come down on the side I do.

Now presumably, a Christian worldview transcends both Democratic and Republican ones by encompassing more truth than either alone could hope to. But here and now as a U.S. voter I’m forced to choose between these two, so I choose the nearer approximation.

Josh sums up well the Republican Convention proceedings through Wednesday night: “This whole confab has been built around militarism, the seductions of the mentality of seige and insecurity both from without and within, and the sort of no-rules-win-at-all-costs-lie-if-it-works mentality that will lead this nation to grief.”

Just finished watching this final night’s Democratic Convention coverage on C-SPAN, unsullied by any trace of nutty network commentary. So what happened tonight? Big John took my expectations, multiplied ‘em by 100 then knocked ‘em out of the park, closed the sale, and left me speechless (video, alt video, QT/WMP/audio, transcript).

I finally see this Kerry campaign has integrity: what they do tends to dovetail with what they say. This is a new thing, the necessary foundation stone; anything less means a house — or a presidency — built on sand. For by their fruits we recognize anyone, not by their words alone.

Further, my take is these words aren’t just for effect; they’re meant words, humble words, a check-and-balance against our becoming faith-based monsters. I think they reveal the heart of a Democratic worldview:

“I don’t want to claim that God is on our side;
I want to pray humbly that we are on God’s side.”

—JFK quoting Lincoln, July 29, 2004

My prayer is answered: Tonight I became a full-speed-ahead Kerry supporter. Doubts, reluctance, lukewarm outlook — gone. I’m now convinced this is God’s blessing for America we keep asking for: this is the man, these are the people, this is the time, this is the movement, this is the mission, this is the answer.

I think ABB now pales as a reason to vote for Kerry. What’s been awakened here is an audacious hope for our country and our world, and it’s motivating a bumper crop of diverse, talented, and passionate people willing to step up to the plate to serve our country, heal our land, bless this world. They’ve been on parade all week in Boston, and they are but the tip of the iceberg. I did not see this glory comin’.

Hope transcends. I don’t forget for a minute that exercising this hope and implementing these plans depends on fallible human beings, and that as a result these plans gang aft agley. But hope always works through fallible human beings. When it thrives, it thrives despite our foibles. What it accomplishes, it accomplishes beyond our everyday abilities. I think its origins are divine. The ends to which hope leads are left largely up to us.

Mark my words:
This is divine intervention, a lifeline to bring us back from the brink.

How we respond is up to us.

Hours later …

I find myself as hopeful this new day as I was last night when I wrote the first draft of this entry. Sustainable hope, ahhh, this is different.

More impressions:

Wesley Clark. Brilliant, well-spoken, man’s man, soldier’s soldier. What military person can diss Gen. Clark? What military person can discount what Gen. Clark has to say? What military person wouldn’t listen? (video, transcript)

Power quote:

This soldier has news for you: Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: “Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth.”

Vanessa and Alex Kerry. Photogenic, bright, articulate, loving. Who could not want to know these Kerry daughters better? And you know what? The story of their dad’s saving a hamster tells me more about his character than 10,000 words almost anywhere else; it’s a tiny little hologram of deep meaning (transcript).

Max Cleland. The man was beaming. Seeing the bonds of brotherhood on display during Max’s speech, the web of humanity that binds us one to another, moved me deeply. War is a machine that cranks out death and destruction, but it is also a crucible in which humanity’s dross sometimes burns away leaving pure character. And that, I think I see, is the case with Max (video, transcript).

Power quote:

Tonight, I’d like to let you know, that even before I met John Kerry, he was my brother. Even before I knew John Kerry, he was my friend. Even before I spoke with John Kerry, he gave me hope.

The Bible tells me that no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends. John Kerry’s fellow crewmates — the men I am honored to share the stage with — are living testimony to his leadership, his courage under fire, and his willingness to risk his life for his fellow Americans. There is no greater act of patriotism than that.

My hope today: The choice before us has been made so clear, the differences so vivid, the affirming blessings of wisdom, intelligence, and character so inexplicably distributed, the “fruits by which we know them” so ripe before our senses, that even for lifelong Republican voters, even for hell-or-high-water Bush supporters up to now, the downside to voting for Kerry has become so small, the upside so great, that there is now no discomfort, dishonor, or shame in changing one’s position and doing an honest and hopeful and powerful thing: in the privacy of the voting booth, choose the candidate — and the worldview — you really want.

Update: Josh points to William Saletan’s strong Rove’s Blunder. Don’t miss it for insight into what’s happening here.

2004-07-31 update:
For an actual detailed analysis of Kerry and his speech, nobody does it like Steve G. Thanks, Steve.

[Yes, I’ve rewritten this entry ten times in varying degrees of grandiloquence; it’s eventually going to say what I mean. :-) ]

Sunglasses at night. My friend Martin points out Time’s cover story this week, Inside the Mind of John Kerry. Ah, even its subtitle tells me positive things:

The Democratic candidate deals in shades of gray, which means reaching a decision can be a long and winding road.

I like John Kerry’s dealing in shades of gray because (1) that’s how my mind works, and (2) that’s how the world mostly is. Very little in the world shakes out as black or white. In fact, I observe that its Creator nearly always transcends even shades of gray: God thinks, moves, and is a full spectrum of radiant color.

IOW, I just don’t see much warrant for black/white thinking.

Night One. Watching Night One of the Democratic Convention last night, I was — to my surprise — dazzled. I never thought I’d care this much.

The PBS coverage I saw started with BeBe Winans’ unusually phrased but profoundly moving rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner. By its end, my tears were flowing.

Then the speakers delivered one truth-telling, nondelusional, embracing speech after another — Al Gore, then Jimmy Carter, then Bill Clinton (among others). What a refreshing change of pace! Say what you will about them, these guys can speak, and speak well. Made me realize how hungry I’ve been for articulate, reasoned, hope-filled words from my leaders (C-SPAN video links).

Al Gore. Like/respect/appreciate Al or not, there’s little doubt the world would be different now if 2000 had turned out differently. Why would the world be different? Because electing a president is only somewhat about the person of the officeholder; it’s more about putting power and money behind a worldview, which is enacted by many, encompasses more, and in this interconnected world, affects all. As skillfully conveyed by these speakers, there’s a world of difference in the U.S. political parties’ worldviews before us.

Jimmy Carter. That Jimmy was the evening’s bulldog fascinates me. He has military cred, has earned the world’s respect over decades, and at 81 has little to lose by challenging the Powers That Be. The man is unassailable in his decades of service to humanity, his commitment to making the world a better, more peaceful place. Perfect? Of course not. But he and Rosalyn have done more to make the world a better place than most of us ever have, especially me. I yack on and pontificate; they act.

Jumped off the TV screen at me: Jimmy’s repeated use of the word extremist to describe this administration’s policies and actions, which I think — as much as we hate to admit it — aptly and honestly captures their underlying similarity to Islamic extremist ones. Then the observation that “This election decision affects America’s soul.” Indeed it does; every cell and sinew of my body knows this. Something about these days reminds me of the county-fair livestock goat- and sheep-judgin’ contests of my youth, except in this contest we’re judging ourselves. (Carter quote from memory: I’ll find the exact quote and update this.)

Bill Clinton. Bill used self-deprecation well to make his points; for example, pointing out that for the first time in his life, he is in the wealthiest 1%, and as a result Republicans have never treated him so well. Comparing each of several benefits he’s enjoyed as a wealthy American under a Republican congress and administration (tax cuts, etc.) with the cost to us as a people, I think he effectively conveys the unfairness of a worldview that sees wealthy folk as the blessed ones and rewards them at the expense of others. (Ancient Israel made this mistake repeatedly, and God repeatedly disabused them of the notion. The temptation to interpret wealth as blessing continues to this day.)

Bill’s standout quote for me? “For their system to work, Republicans need a divided America, but we don’t. And about things that matter most, we aren’t.” (Again from memory, will update.)

A king with clothes. Which worldview serves us best? Which serves God’s interests best? For me, it’s no contest:

I look at the rich variety of people at the Democratic Convention — colors and genders and socioeconomic variety and ideas and inclusivity — and I see the Kingdom. I used to wonder what it looks like, and now I think I know: in this rich panoply of peoples, ideas, hopes, and dreams, the Spirit dwells.

2004-07-29 update:
I watched the first night on PBS television, thinking its coverage would be relatively free of obnoxious commentary. What happened? I kept yelling at the commentators to please shut the hell up. Succeeding nights: I switched to the C-SPAN cable channel. Ah, C-SPAN: all content, no commentary. It’s wonderful.

I just watched the Bill Moyers NOW episode that’s been sitting on the TiVo since December 26: James Forbes, Jr., Speaking to Power.

(The Rev. Dr. James Forbes, Jr. is the senior minister at Riverside Church in New York City.)

The whole piece was profoundly moving to me. Here’s a place, a pastor, and a people whose worldview and inclusive understanding of faith provides a community in which I could immerse myself. I felt like a lonely man catching a glimpse of home. I wept.

In a snippet of a sermon (captured in episode’s transcript) I see one of the gentlest pastors I’ve ever observed speaking truth to power more forcibly than almost anyone else I’ve observed:

Dr. Forbes: When Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, one of the temptations was the devil took him on a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world and said to him, all this I will give you if you will fall down and worship me. [Matt. 4:8, NIV]

I fear that the ideology informing the present policies of the nation are coming from some people who took the devil up on it, who said, “You elite, you handful of people with your special interests, if you act quickly all the kingdoms of the world, their oil, their land, their money, their resources, I will give it to you.”

Jesus said no. But somebody helping to set policies in this nation got duped by the devil and said yes! And the policy is moving in that direction.

I think this succinctly explains the Bush Administration, its ambitions for empire, and its disregard for life and all that is holy. Someone in it said yes.

Now we outside it must assert our responsibility as followers of Jesus and say no. (I will boldly say no on Election Day.)

Interesting that Riverside is “affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ.” This tells me the word “Baptist” in a denomination name no longer conveys anything meaningful. I went to a Southern Baptist funeral a few months ago where I experienced the most fear-drenched church service I think I’ve ever been to.

In sharp contrast, this NOW episode’s depiction of Riverside Church shows a hope-drenched place of welcoming, scripturally-aware, Spirit-led people of all colors, stations, and gifts that looks to me like the coalescing Kingdom of God on earth.

Now. Where is Riverside’s spiritual kin in Memphis?

2004-01-11 update: Wow, this NOW program motivated me more than anything else has in the last six months — I went to church today, visiting Grace-St. Luke’s in Memphis because it’s listed in The Center for Progressive Christianity network directory (as I had noted back in August).

Welcoming place, that. More to learn …

Early on in 2003, during the buildup to the Iraq invasion, I received lots of email forwarded from conservative Christian friends containing breathless adulation of George W. Bush as an exemplary Christian. One example is the multi-forwarded text of Paul Kengor’s National Review article dated March 5, God & W. at 1600 Penn. —

Though Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore split the popular vote almost 50:50, Bush cleaned up among churchgoers. Among those who attend religious services weekly, he beat Gore 57 to 40%. For those who attend more than weekly, he won 63 to 36%. (Gore won by 61 to 32% among those who said they “never” attend church, suggesting that the former veep easily bagged the atheist vote.) …

[Religious broadcaster Janet Parshall] has never witnessed such an outpouring of sustained support for a president among Christian conservatives. “They call me and say they’re praying for him,” Parshall says of her listeners. “My callers like him and are thankful. They actually tell me they cried when they watched the State of the Union Address. Imagine that! They love this man.” …

My reaction to the January 28 SOTU was somewhat different than this. Beneath the words, something about the speech and its delivery smelled fishy. Indeed most of its assertions and allegations have since turned out to have been made up or outright deceptions.

Bush believes that God “has a plan” for him. He maintains that he could not be president if he didn’t believe in a “divine plan that supersedes all human plans.” …

The Old Testament story [of Moses in Exodus over whether to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land] spoke to Bush. He felt convicted. He began telling friends he had “heard the call.” God was calling him to seek the Oval Office.

Self-deception, we must whip it

I have a family member who still says, “George Bush sets a good example for all Christians in America.”

No.

When in the course of human events, a leader granted power and authority chooses to abuse that power and authority to invade a sovereign nation on the basis of a monstrous doctrine of preemptive war¹ that bears his name, not for reasons of national defense but for ideology (to forcibly demonstrate PNAC neoconservative imperial wherewithal — pride) and profit (Halliburton no-bid contracts, oil — greed), the prosecution costs of which will be borne by citizens yet unborn (multi-$trillion deficit²), wherein said leader stains his hands with the blood of 10,000 dead (~9,600 Iraqis³ and ~400 Americans⁴) and shatters the lives of thousands maimed and wounded (~2,300+ U.S. military wounded⁵, ~7,500 evacuated through Andrews AFB⁶, plus an unknown civilian casualty count), then that leader does not qualify as an exemplary Christian. He qualifies as a war criminal.

I can imagine the prophet Nathan speaking words like these to Mr. Bush, much as Nathan told King David the story of the rich man who took the ewe lamb from the poor man who had nothing — the lamb who “shared [the poor man’s] food, drank from his cup, and even slept in his arms; it was like a daughter to him.” [The rich man took the lamb from the poor man] and slaughtered it for his guest to eat:

But more significant — Nathan could be pointing his finger at us — we are the people. Being unrepentant in our support of such behavior — to repent means to turn, so as long as we continue to squander lives, treasure, and honor in Iraq, we are by definition unrepentant — means not that we’re “showing resolve” but that we’re being unrepentant of our evildoing, like those who are made to weep and gnash their teeth, thrown out of the kingdom of God (Luke 13:22-30).

Agreeing with the Bush Administration that black is white, up is down, that bad news is good news, that monstrous behavior is godly behavior, does not make you a patriot, it makes you complicit.

This worldview hawks a form of faith without its substance. Its trajectory is not God-ward; it ends instead in darkness.

We — all of us, conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive — can do better than this.

[I actually believe now that a critical mass of us have awakened and are again seeing black as black, white as white — and sometimes, gray as gray — whether we articulate our seeing in theological terms or not. Even so, I still have to rant this out of my system; it’s the closest I plan to come to saying “I told you so.”]

2003-11-19 update:
Revised entry title refers to T.S. Eliot’s The Hollow Men.

Another oft-forwarded writer in my inbox was Peggy Noonan, whose writing I noticed took breathless adulation to new heights. Piyush Mathur addresses Noonan’s work head-on in a review of her new book, A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag: America Today. Mathur succeeds in highlighting much that I find unbearable in Religious Right (non)thinking.

[via Atrios]

Thom Hartmann discusses well the differences between conservative vs. liberal perceptions of morality:

[Conservatives] define [morality] first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people’s bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society. …

While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they’re led to acts of civil disobedience.

Then Thom mentions a most compelling reason for conservative Christians to rethink/expand their understanding of morality, IMO: Jesus, according to the Gospels, indisputably emphasizes public morality:

Perhaps best summarized in Jesus’ description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won’t) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: “Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the “strangers” — the less fortunate or less competent among us — in the same way we’d want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?”

Many liberals would say that what people do in [their] private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we’ll have a more humane and decent society.

It’s not that personal morality isn’t important. It is. But it’s not a useful behavioral emphasis because we’ve all fallen short. Personal morality is a fruit of the Spirit, an ongoing outcome of a changed life; it’s nothing we can effort into place. (As Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Bennett are learning.)

Public morality, OTOH, is a behavioral choice that’s crucial toward effecting a just and sustainable society. That is, if you’re theologically inclined, toward effecting the real Kingdom of God. Hence, it’s the kind of morality Jesus emphasizes we’ll be judged for.

What I observe here in the U.S., to my dismay and revulsion, is a thoroughgoing lack of public morality among loud conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular. There’s no excuse, and there’s no hiding: more and more, by their fruit we recognize them. The time of playing along that black is white, up is down, is drawing to a close.

See also related Farai Chideya encouragement, Avoiding the Rush to Gloat.

2003-10-28 update: Bob Herbert in a New York Times op-ed illustrates present intra-U.S. consequences of this Administration’s lack of public morality quite clearly IMO (also archived at Truthout).

And absolutely square-on to the point: Bill Moyers interviews Union Theological Seminary’s Joseph Hough —

There is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country … [that] is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs [14:31] where the writer of Proverbs says, “Those who oppress the needy insult their maker.”

This Washington Post opinion piece by Fritz Ritsch, Of God, and Man, in the Oval Office [relinked, WaPo article no longer available] superbly captures the theological state of affairs motivating the current U.S. presidency. Striking excerpts, italics mine:

Contrary to popular opinion, the religion that [Bush’s religious supporters espouse] is Triumphalism, not Christianity. Theirs is a zealous form of nationalism, baptized with Christian language. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, foresaw the rise of a similar view in his country, which he labeled “joyous secularism.” Joyous secularists, said Bonhoeffer, are Christians who view the role of government as helping God to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. He viewed this as human arrogance and a denial of God’s sovereignty …

The president confidently … asserts a worldview that most Christian denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of redemptive violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on the side of good and Satan on the side of evil and the battle lines pretty clearly drawn. …

In contrast, the Judeo-Christian worldview is that of redemption. Redemption starts from the assumption that all of humanity is flawed and must approach God with humility. No good person is totally good, and no evil person is irredeemable. God’s purpose is to redeem all people. Good and evil, while critical, become secondary to redemption. …

Despite our secularism, the United States has rarely been so publicly and politically “Christian” as it is today. Or perhaps it is because of our secularism. We can no longer tell good theology from bad. …

With the political emergence of joyous secularism, the churches are challenged to preach an alternative message: grace, hope and redemption — the truth of Biblical faith. This is both our pastoral and our political responsibility.

Thank you, thank you, Pastor Ritsch. You write what my heart knows but my mind finds difficult to articulate.

2003-03-04 update: Dr. Ritsch made this point that Biblical faith is about redemptive grace, not the falsehood of redemptive violence, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in his Sept. 16, 2001 sermon:

[The 9/11 terrorists consider themselves] in the war of good versus evil, and [that] they are on the side of good.

This is always the key message of Fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalists believe the same thing: this is a war of good against evil, and we’re good.

It is not the message of the Bible. It is not the message of the Christian story.

Our message, instead, is the story of redemption.

Announcing this prophetic insight to persons who do not yet see it can be very difficult, and requires much courage. But announcing it, speaking it forth, is absolutely necessary. I feel it as a fire in my bones. Bravo.

Later … See also Auntie Propaganda.