Opposing Cliffs

Last time I blogged (and it was a while ago), I mused on Rachel Maddow’s reaction to Obama’s speech about the gulf oil crisis. Her negative reaction to his calling on people of faith to pray brought to mind a theory I have about liberal and conservative movements in America. The recent debacle concerning the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod is a telling counterpart to Rachel Maddow’s reaction in illustrating what I want to suggest.

My theory is this: there is a cliff at the extreme of both the liberal and conservative movements. The danger of each cliff frightens the opposite movement and pushes them toward a cliff of their own.

Though I think my theory is relevant to broader secular political movements, I’ll limit my focus to conservative and liberal American Christians. By doing so, I can speak to underlying biblical themes. Standard warning though: I am going to offer broad generalizations, and such generalizations are always only partly true. They can offer interesting peeks but, taken by themselves, are too simplistic.

First the conservative movement and then the liberal.

Conservative Christians want to conserve. A conservative tradition is a tribal tradition, and its disposition is to take care of one’s family or community against outside threats. Biblically, it evokes the tradition of Moses where the Hebrew people are called to be “holy.” They are called to set themselves apart in worship and in practice so as to form a unique identity and protect themselves against influences that could destroy their community. Gentile outsiders are seen as threats, for interaction with them might dilute the community’s traditions and values putting the community at risk. This tradition runs through Jesus’ teachings when he announces he came not to overturn the Law but to fulfill it, to bring his message first to Israel.

In America, this “tribal” drumbeat can be heard in American isolationism, protectionism, and in the push to promote and defend “traditional values.” Within the Christian community, it is reflected in the desire to promote Christian identity and values, and convert outsiders before accepting them.

I often dance to this drumbeat because I love my tribes: my family, my country, my church, and my treasured circles of friends. “Inside traditions” have formed me and mean a great deal to me.

One cliff Christian conservatives must always be wary of falling over, though, is the cliff of racism. Conservatives have to be careful not to become so insider-oriented that a wariness of “outsiders” becomes an intolerant prejudice against them.

The recent debacle concerning Shirley Sherrod is an example of this danger. If you don’t know the story, Sherrod was falsely accused by a conservative blogger of bragging at an NAACP function of discriminating against a white farmer. A taped snippet of her speech was provided as proof. A rush to judgment quickly followed by the media; especially FOX News which trumpeted the story as evidence of a malicious agenda by minorities. Fearing being identified with reverse racism, the NAACP too quickly condemned her speech and the chief of the Agricultural Department demanded her resignation. It turns out that the Sherrod was quoted out of context making her look like she was saying the exact opposite of the point she was making.

I suggest that this story, like many others, had play among white conservatives because it fed into a fear of outsiders. I don’t want to argue by circumstance (a term used in Logic that means generalizing from isolated incidents), so I encourage you to back over the stories that have gotten significant play in the conservative community and ask if there is not a trend. Many presidents have had messages broadcast to school children. Why was it considered so outrageous that this particular president- this powerful man- would have an influence over children’s minds when such a protest was not raised about previous presidents; both Republican and Democrat?

There are other stories. What is behind the way these stories have been spun: Jeremiah Wright, Acorn, Van Jones, and the two misbehaving African Americans who yelled crazy things at a polling station. There were some inappropriate words and some real misdeeds embedded in some of these stories, but much was made up and amplified. Van Jones is not a convicted felon as Fox News reported him to be. The two African Americans were not evidence of the new rise of the Black Panther movement even though they managed to get a dozen names or so together to say that they were.

I already can hear a Christian conservative who jumped on one of these bandwagons objecting, “Hey, I’m not racist!.” I’ll quickly respond by saying, “I believe you.” I’ll also agree that I’m making a judgment call that can be debated. Also, there are times when something real needs to be discussed. Reverse discrimination can happen, racism is not the vice of only those of western European descent, quotas can promote incompetence and ignoring race as a factor can be another way of being dishonest.

Yet, the consistency of racial nature of these stories and the hysteria surrounding them ought to at least make us ponder. If the stories are revealed to have been overblown beyond reasonable proportion, is it because it works to hype fears of outsiders “taking-over” in order to motivate the masses. The gravitational pull toward believing fear-based stories about outsiders has real pull, doesn’t it? There is nothing wrong and much right with being conservative. But if we are going to obey Christ’s command to be aware of what is in our own eye, we should be wary of the danger of the cliff of racism that the obstructed eye can miss seeing.


The liberal movement within Christianity, on the other hand, has another cliff of which it needs to be wary. The tendency of liberals is to be tolerant of differences and open to outsiders. Biblically, it is the open tradition of Abraham that is about a people being blessed so that all nations will be blessed. The “Abraham Openness” is in healthy tension with the closed protectionism of the Moses tradition. You can find the Abraham tradition in the teachings of Jesus who healed and taught Gentile as well as Jew, and who accepted sinners who others wanted to condemn and exclude. The Apostle Paul, in using Greek images to communicate the Gospel, and in advising churches to change their dietary practices and abandon insider requirements like circumcision so as to bring Gentiles into the church, exemplified the best of this open tradition.

In American Christianity, the cause of being open to outsiders and adaptive to change reverberates in calls for social justice for the marginalized here and abroad and for cross-cultural understanding and interfaith dialogue. As a child of a minister who stood up for Civil Rights in the ‘60s and as someone who loved receiving a liberal arts education, I often find myself dancing to this drumbeat as well.

However, one cliff the liberal wing of the American Christian movement is in danger of falling over is that of agnosticism. If “the right” fears regulation of the market, “the left” fears regulation of the mind. But when suspicion swings away from the threat of outsiders to the threat of insiders, one is in danger of losing sight of, and confidence in, the stability and strength family and tradition can bring. There is a closed aspect to a healthy personality that protects the person and the community. When we become open to believing anything, it can be an easy slip into believing nothing. And nothing is meaningless. And meaninglessness leads to meanness.

This is part of what I was getting at in my previous blog. I have no idea about Maddow’s religious beliefs, but her incredulity at a president making an appeal to people of faith to pray and her wanting only to hear solutions suggested for me a too strong an Enlightenment confidence in our ability to fix all wrongs. Christians informed in the theology of hubris know that modern cures can cause modern problems. Knowledge without morals is dangerous. When science is without moral restraint the possible becomes probable; and that could include nuclear annihilation.

The champions of tolerance can be as blind to the log in their own eyes as anyone. If Maddow’s moment of incredulity is not illustrative enough, I point to the way the shallow documentary “Religulous” attacked Paper Tiger arguments for God and the skewed arguments of bestselling books of “The New Atheists” which do the same.

And if that is not enough, I point to the oversensitivity by the left to any discussion of religious beliefs and the place of religion in American history. I’m not in the “America is a Christian Nation” camp, but to ignore the huge influence religious movements have had in this country’s history is to be intellectually dishonest. Dishonesty does not promote a healthy diversity.

Consider also the bias against people sharing what they believe in public places or at work. There is a difference between indoctrination and sharing perspectives and viewpoints. When honest dialogue is banned simply in the fear of indoctrination or intolerance, then the Enlightenment has given up on enlightening. Toleration becomes its own intolerance.

Another example: In the toleration camp, personal choice can be such a strident virtue that the evidence of the wide spread of sexually transmitted diseases even in privileged communities is under-reported. Also underreported is the damage done by promiscuity to relationships and self-esteem. The climate of accepting of personal choices can lead to a withholding of important information that can promote health and even save lives.

Many liberals get it, but some forget: Toleration of differences aside, we really do need to stick together in this world. We just have to keep negotiating who “we” are.


This was too long a blog. Here’s my point in as brief a way as I can say it today: The ideologues of the extremes, the prophets and soldiers of the fringe, are those who are in the greatest danger of falling over a cliff, and can be those who are the most dangerous in pushing us toward either their cliff in convincing us, or another cliff in scaring us. When we get in our conservative or liberal moods, let’s be careful of the gravitational pull toward those cliffs. People can get hurt.

An Uncalled for Call to Prayer?

On June 15, Rachel Maddow reviewed President Obama’s speech about the gulf oil spill. She did not much like it. She expressed shock that Obama would suggest that a big part of the solution to the oil spill crisis might be prayer. After showing the clip of that part of Obama’s speech, she said, “Presidents don’t always end speeches like this by saying, “The way we’re going to get through this is by prayer.” Maddow did not object to the president sharing his convictions. What she said was that prayer is not exactly a plan in dealing with this crisis. She was frustrated the president did not offer more clear cut proposals, and that made, for her, the call to prayer more shocking.

I’ve included a link to this segment of her show, and her reaction to the call to prayer comes at the beginning. In addition to this discussion, the opening promo for the show, she was even more dismissive of the president’s call to prayer. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37720373)

I don’t agree with Maddow. For those who get what prayer is about, I actually think that prayer is an appropriate response. I say this not just because I am a Christian minister who one expects to speak out for prayer (that’s in the job description, right?), but because true, honest prayer is a powerful act of humility. The gulf oil spill could be in in some large measure due to human arrogance: the arrogance of a company who made assurances they could handle any problem in the event of a crisis, the servicing of corporate greed by engineers who consistently made cost effective decisions at the expense of maximum safety, the naiveté of a government that did not regulate well nor enforced the regulations it had in allowing a drill-for-profit venture in deep water, and a country that lives as if fossil fuel is an endless resource. Real prayer- that is, not the prayer of the self-serving, self-justifying, not-thy-will-but-my-will be done variety- is to go to one’s knees in the acknowledgement of sin, a humble awareness that we do not have all the answers, and a desire to listen and learn to a voice that is greater and wiser than our own. Like Maddow, I want competent engineers who know what they’re doing. But arrogance in our “having all the answers” helped get us into this environmental crisis, and Maddow wanted a speech from a president with the answers to get us out?

Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and obviously is smart. Also smart are the BP engineers and executives in their respective fields, and many of the politicians who shape policy. But those who pray remember that part of the human problem is that we are often too smart for our own good because we can’t help but put self-interest ahead of the common good.

My reaction: Yes, engineers, get to work and figure out some answers. But, unless we learn some humility and remember the dangers that come of the sins of arrogance and power, we will more likely get ourselves into other disasters that could be even worse. I know everyone doesn’t believe in prayer, but I personally don’t mind those who do calling the rest of us to get on our knees so we’ll quit acting like little gods.

Follow up on previous blog

In regards to my previuos post, I called the Board of Pensions and the representative I talked to said that it was not known yet how additional costs for covering college graduates till age 26 will be covered. So, the broader social question of cost, whether in an accross the board increase of dues of plan members (my guess) or through other means such as taxes or legislation that controls costs, remains an open one. I hope I learn the answer before I forget the question.

The Health Care Law and My Good News

I just received a courtesy call from the denominational health care plan, called the Board of Pensions, to inform me that due to new requirements in place because of the recently passed Health Care bill my just graduated oldest daughter can remain a beneficiary on my plan through the age of 26. If she gets a job offering its own benefits she will need to switch to that plan. The cost to me for this benefit will not increase over what is currently being paid. I understood that this benefit would be required in 2011, but maybe the denomination is adapting early. I’ll find out.

This was good news to my wife and me. We looked into what continuation of her coverage would cost if she were not able to find a job with benefits. To keep her on our plan, we would have to pay for the continuation out of our pocket. We discovered that to keep her on our plan would cost us over $6000 a year. She certainly could not afford that on her own. Because of this new benefit, we will not have to pay that additional cost. It doesn’t matter if my daughter has a pre-existing condition or a recent condition, is being treated for chronic condition or enduring a regimen of chemotherapy, she would be covered. And next year, we expect to have another daughter graduate.

(check with your own insurance plan before assuming the same applies to you)

Though my daughter will no longer be allowed to gamble with her health by going uncovered and thereby exposing her, me and the country to the costs of any unforeseen health problem, she is not required to remain on my plan. We can exercise our capitalistic right to choose another plan to cover her if we were foolish enough to make that decision.

If we choose to accept this benefit, who pays the bill? Is this socialism at its worst and others will have to pay for my healthy, college graduate daughter avoid a $6000+ a year insurance bill?

I am going to look into the cost question further by calling the offices of the Board of Pensions when they re-open on Tuesday to better understand how increased costs are covered. My best guesses are that a part of the answer is cost averaging, another part other measures of the new Law to manage costs, and maybe even be a bump in costs by all members of the plan. I’ll research this and write a follow-up post.

Personally speaking, I’m grateful. Thank God my newly graduated daughter is healthy, but it helps my peace of mind to know she will be covered and helps my wallet that I won’t pay those extraordinary bills for continuation of coverage. If I discover that the economics of this outcome make sense, this is one part of the Health Care bill that makes great sense.

I’m a fiscal conservative so I appreciate scrutiny given to the Health Care plan as to costs and feasibility. I think that the recently passed Health Care bill is far from being what it should be. But what I didn’t agree with then and don’t agree with now is any scrutiny that is devoted to defeating the plan for reasons deemed more important than finding the most effective way to create an affordable and compassionate way to provide health coverage. Leave aside the extreme examples (drug abusers) because that is diversion debate. I am talking about the majority of people trying to get by in this world who might be unemployed or who work for wages that can’t afford such high insurance bills.

I hope a future focus will be on improving the Health Care plan, with Democrats and Republicans talking and listening to each other, and putting the fiscal and physical health of the public ahead of enhanced profitability of insurance companies and their stockholders and CEOs. Obscene profits for a service industry don’t make sense when they come at the cost of closing out those who should be covered.

I say all this not as an advocate for either political party, but as a Christian minister who has studied the biblical prophetic demand that the most vulnerable not be sacrificed for the sake of the interests of the powerful as well as the church’s best tradition of promoting dignity of life of which individual freedom is only one important component. I also say this as a citizen who will now benefit from one very sensible part of a new plan that I also wish for others to enjoy.

A Quote Worth Thinking About

I have not posted anything in a while. I've worked on two entries, but neither passed muster. But to prove I'm still in the blogging neighborhood, I offer this short entry on the quote of the day, highlighted in the emailed NY Times, April 27 edition.

I love it because first, I agree with it; second, it speaks to the ambiguity of life beyond full explanation or control; and, third, the quote itself is richly ironic. Army Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster is concerned with the growing use of PowerPoint presentations by military commanders. He said,

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

Effective but Immoral Words

I promised a follow up to my previous blog about the collateral damage of words. Holy Week and a week away for study has delayed me but, true to my word, here’s my new word on words.

Dr. Richard Lischer, a professor at Duke Divinity School, recently came to the church I serve, Second Presbyterian Church in Roanoke. In preparation for his coming, I taught a class using his book, The End of Words. At one point in my teaching, he inspired me to say:

When
what is said is serves
profit motives or special agendas;
and what is said is to the end of imposing black and white realities
on a complex world so as to establish sides-
a necessary prerequisite to one side winning…;
when
words become marketing tools meant to manipulate
and break down self esteem so the shamed will buy something
in order to be someone;
and words become weapons,
so that the louder and sharper they are
the more useful they are in winning;
then
those words have lost their moral meaning.

Unfortunately, those words, even without moral meaning, still can be effective. They work, but only because they appeal to our worst instincts.

I think rhetoric has deteriorated since 9/11. An ends-justifies-the-means ethic even more determines what leaders say because anxiety determines even more what we believe. In the aftermath of 9/11, our country went from one kind of naiveté born of decades of not being involved in a prolonged war, but only in in-and-out invasions, to a new kind of naiveté that thinks that enough shock and awe violence can keep something like terrorist attacks from ever happening again. In this new age of naiveté, we are deluded into thinking that the toughest talk is the wisest talk. Lischer quotes Yeats who might speak more to our day than his:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Talking tough is supposedly real leadership these days. Never mind, that some of these leaders don’t even know what tough is. Jesus was tough in going straight to Jerusalem knowing what awaited him. Abraham Lincoln was tough when he reminded the Union that the enemy prayed to the same God for victory. Robert E. Lee was tough when as the defeated general he worked for healing and peace. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were tough when they wouldn’t strike back but wouldn’t back down either. In their moments of being tough in working for reconciliation, they changed the world for the better.

But somehow the words and work of reconciliation doesn’t seem feasible anymore in the public marketplace. “Those kind of leaders are not appreciated in a black and white, zero tolerance, one percent doctrine, world.”

Yet those leaders are more needed than ever. History demonstrates that lasting stability and peace come not in winning according to some fabricated narrative of Us vs. Them that usually serves an agenda more than the greater good. Lasting stability and peace ultimately come through justice of a particular kind; justice with reconciliation as its goal.

So, here’s hoping for leaders who don’t confuse being tough with sounding tough.

*****

I appreciate those who have posted responses to previous posts, all of which were well stated and which I have taken to heart.

The Collateral Damage of Words

As my “Rules for Reading and Responding” might indicate, I have a problem with the way many things are debated in our country. I don’t want to get in the middle of the fray of the current debate over whether or not the language used by some politicians during the Health Care debate was too inflammatory and intemperate, except to seize on an unfortunate comment made by a blogger. Tom Perriello represents a neighboring district in the House of Representatives. A propane line was cut at his brother’s house, probably because a blogger mistakenly advertised the address as Rep. Perriello’s, and urged those who were upset at his Health Care vote to “drop by.”

I won’t give the blogger’s name because he later apologized both for this blog and for his next one which was even worse. After hearing about the cut propane line, he responded by posting: “Do you mean I posted his brother's address on my Facebook? Oh well, collateral damage."

Again, the blogger has apologized and others are doing a good job of taking him to task for posting the way he did. The phrase I want to focus upon is “collateral damage.”

Words do matter, and “collateral damage” does result when people with influence resort to name calling, caricaturing, ad homonym attacks (attacking the person over the position) to develop an Us vs Then/ Good vs Evil/ world in which there must be victory without compromise. We see it happen among those who govern and among commentators who earn their living talking about those who govern (though sometimes I’m confused as to who is commenting and who is governing). Gossip and sarcasm is all that much of this talk really is, and yet the rhetoric is condoned when used in the service of power. It is ends-justifies-the-means rhetoric that violates all the classic rules of civil discourse.

The collateral damage is that when church or political leaders become hostile in speech that is unfair and even untruthful, while they may energize the most zealous of their followers, they leave many disillusioned by the cynical nature of the whole enterprise. This can be particularly true of young people who realize they have been hurt, or who realize they have been led to hurt others, by the arguments of those they end up seeing being the voices of interests that…, well…, are not serving their best interest.

My next blog will be about how I think that violent rhetoric has become worse since 9/11. Still, the use of words to incite is not new. In fact, the demonization of other leaders and nations, and the twisting and fabrication of facts in order to incite the masses, has been a common tactic to lead nations into wars so as to advance the agendas of certain powers. This led the general Carl von Clausewitz to astutely define war as “the continuation of politics by different means.”

Consider this: When debate becomes violent as political powers seek to win at all costs, politics then becomes war by a different means.