Occasio

"The fundamental problem is this...."

In a press conference this morning President Bush reiterated the same ideology that both sides of congress and both candidates have been promoting for the last two weeks:

"The fundamental problem is this, as the housing market has declined, banks holding assets related to home mortgages have suffered serious losses. As a result of these losses many banks lack the capital or the confidence in each other to make new loans. In turn our system of credit is frozen which is keeping American businesses from financing their daily transactions and creating uncertainty throughout our economy. This uncertainty has led to anxiety among our people."

Yeesss, but no. I agree there is a level of anxiety that is unprecedented in my lifetime. And I believe that the world we live in will never again, in my lifetime, be as predictable and stable as it once was. However, the mortgage crisis and the stock market crash are symptoms of an even deeper "fundamental" issue: greed. Americans now live in a global community. Call it what you will -- karma, justice, judgment -- we are starting to pay for an every increasing appetite for consumption. The western world has become gluttonous. Greed and gluttony are bankrupt (excuse the metaphor) narratives in a postmodern world, and they are chief among the sins listed in the Old and New Testaments. Read 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (you'll find greed in the same list of sins as homosexuality, hmm -- scratch head) . It's interesting that Ezekiel identifies Sodom's sins as "pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door." (Not homosexuality as so many assume, see Ezekiel 16:48-50).

Our collective sin is that we have ignored the poor and needy for the gain of Wall Street and a McMansion in a cul-de-sac.

As usual, U2 was ten years ahead of their time. Here's some lyrics from POP in 1997.

"Last Night on Earth"

She feels the ground is giving way
But she thinks we're better off that way
The more you take the less you feel
The less you know the more you believe
The more you have the more it takes today

You got to give it away / You got to give it away
You got to give it away / You got to give it away
You got to give it away / You got to give it away

Well she don't care what it's worth
   She's living like it's the last night on earth
The last night on earth

She's living, living next week now
You know she's going to pay it back somehow
She hasn't been to bed in a week
She'll be dead soon then she'll sleep

You got to give it away / You got to give it away
You got to give it away / You got to give it away
You got to give it away

"Gone"

You get to feel so guilty, got so much for so little
Then you find that feeling just won't go away
You're holding on to every little thing so tightly
'Til there's nothing left for you anyway

You wanted to get somewhere so badly
You had to lose yourself along the way
You change your name, well that's okay, it's necessary
And what you leave behind you don't miss anyway

You're taking steps that make you feel dizzy / (Gone)
Then you learn to like the way it feels / (Gone)
You hurt yourself you hurt your lover / (Gone)
Then you discover
What you thought was freedom is just greed / (Gone)

"The Playboy Mansion"

The banks feel like cathedrals
I guess casinos took their place

Watch "Last Night on Earth" from the POPMart tour.

Watch "Gone" from the Elevation tour.

Three questions I wish I could have answered

During tonight’s presidential debate there were several very good questions that I thought were answered very poorly. As soon as McCain and Obama started to give their answers I found myself engaged in an internal conversation with them: “No, don’t say that!” or, “Come on, this is your chance to separate yourself from the status quo.” I was left disillusioned again and wondering what I would say if I were asked the same questions.

Question #1 (from the Internet). “Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?”

Tim’s Answer. This is a great question and will probably be overlooked tomorrow by the pundits, news reporters and talk show hosts. This is the primary mistake we made in the ongoing conflict in Iraq. We never asked our country to sacrifice. We have simply hired a band of mercenaries to fight and sacrifice their lives for us. The American dream has been reduced to the notion that we can buy our way out of any problem.

I agree with Sen. Obama that “Go out and shop” is not sound advice for running a war or a country. But, we have a huge problem in America: our fleeting effort to be “the greatest nation in the history of the world,” as both candidates continue to espouse, is inextricably linked to the quest for increased personal wealth and an ever-growing rate of consumption. If elected president I will call for Americans to lay down their greed and sacrifice their gluttonous appetites for the good of the planet. Some of us need to learn to live not just “at our means,” but “below our means.” We ought not to spend just because we can.

Some examples: 1) we, as a country, have the means to end poverty and preventable disease in Africa, but we don’t have the will; 2) we’re willing to spend 700 billion on Wall Street, but we can’t find the 25 billion it would take to put every child on the planet in school; 3) we could end sweat shop practices and see that workers are paid fairly at home and abroad but that means we would have to pay more for our clothes and food. These, and other similar issues of social injustice, will never be made right without sacrifice. Finally, I would ask Americans to sacrifice that which is so holy to them, the American dream itself. In losing our selfish desires we might again find our collective soul.

Question #2 (from the Phil Elliot in the audience). “How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?

Tim’s Answer. Another great question that will likely escape the majority of commentators tomorrow morning. This is a critical issue with regard to foreign policy and I’m stunned at how badly each of the other two candidates botched it. Both of my opponents understand peacemaking to be a role of the military. One focuses on Iraq, the other on Afghanistan. Both of their answers to this question were limited to military options. We don't have to cross too many borders to know that the reason America has such a bad reputation throughout the rest of the world is because of a long history of negatively perceived military actions including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Central America in the 80s, and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

It is time for change -- real change. It is time for the world to see us not as a military superpower, but as a humanitarian superpower. I propose that Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) has an efficient, effective and ethical model for us to learn from. Among other things, MCC has been helping farmers grow tomatoes in the Middle East and has been digging wells in Africa for decades. They have continued to help the poorest of the poor regardless of political ideology. Example: in Israel they have come to the aid of both Palestinians and Israelis. This is peacemaking! For MCC there are no walls, borders or lines, only people in need. Unfortunately, because of the military action in Iraq the mission and outreach efforts of agencies like MCC will be impeded for decades due to the negative view of Americans in the region.

If America wants to be a peacemaker (and a superpower for that matter), let it partner with Muslim Africa, not in the pursuit of more oil reserves, but in an effort to eradicate preventable disease from the continent. Just imagine the positive effect this would have in the worldwide Muslim community. Would that take a large financial commitment? Certainly, but it would not compare to the expense of another protracted war, and, God forbid, the lives that would be lost on either side of a military conflict. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Question #3 (from the Internet). "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"

Tim’s answer. Did I just hear my two worthy opponents completely dodge the question in an effort to give a pointless closing statement? This is a brilliant query and deserves a thoughtful answer. [Big sigh, long pause] Why is it so unthinkable that a political candidate would admit that he doesn’t know something or that he has ever made a mistake? Where is the sanity in implying that one doesn't have anything to learn? When did we start believing that a strong leader never hesitates when asked a question? Why do we think a sign of weakness is not knowing the answer to every problem?

I'm reminded of two ancient proverbs that have been guiding pieces of wisdom for me. “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise person listens to advice.” “He who answers before listening – that is his folly and his shame.”

Hmm, I’d have to answer this question with a lyric from Bono, “The more you see, the less you know; the less you find out as you go; I knew much more then than I do now.” You see (and this is why you’re bound to choose one of the other two over me), I’m here to tell you that I am less and less sure of myself with every year that goes by. And don’t be fooled, the culture is less and less sure of itself with each new year. The culture is in the midst of massive discontinuous change and we’ve only begun to experience the cultural shifts at hand. The next president of the United States must have the capacity to lead not with a five-year strategic plan, but with the ability to ask questions, be transparent, work “on the ground” with real people and real problems, invite creativity and adjust, adapt and flow with the changing culture.

The age of predictability is over -- check the stock market. I am a lifelong learner, a student of my students. I would seek to create, as Parker Palmer suggests, a “learning space” where information is not disseminated, but people meet each other as co-teachers and co-learners, across states, across country, across borders. Is a representative democracy even possible at this level? Probably not, but that’s why I’m sure I can’t count on your vote on Tuesday, November 4.

Click here for an entire transcript of the second presidential debate.

Summary - Ephesians & U2: breaking down dividing walls

Yesterday Jessica Mast (a student at FPU) and I presented the workshop “Ephesians & U2: Breaking Down Dividing Walls” in conjunction with Fresno Pacific University’s Building a Culture of Peace Week. Here are some highlights.

We started with a corporate and silent reading of our anchor text for the week, Ephesians 2:11-22. During open discussion we identified many important themes in this passage: “Gentiles” and “Jews,” “aliens and strangers,” “far off” and “brought near,” “peace” and “hostility,” “one new humanity,” “one body,” “those who were far off” and “those who were near,” “citizens,” and a whole string of building metaphors – household, foundation, cornerstone, structure, holy temple, dwelling place for God.

After an initial reading we began to explore the context of the Ephesian believers. Essential to understanding this church’s situation is the understanding of the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The massive Temple of Artemis was built on 100 columns in the sixth-century B.C. and was the site of worship for the “virgin goddess.” Artemis, the daughter of Zeus and the twin sister to Apollo, was known as the fertility goddess and a huntress. Sculptures from the period show Artemis with multiple breasts, a sign of her creative and fertile power. The Romans knew her by the name Diana. The importance of this site as a social, political and religious framework cannot be underestimated.

The small band of believers known as “The Way” huddled together in a house church virtually under the shadow of the Temple of Artemis. In Acts 19, Paul infuriates the artisans in Ephesus because he is drawing converts to The Way. The consequences are paramount: the disruption of economic and religious patterns. Demetrius rallies a mob against Paul and the city is soon chanting, “Great is Artemis of Ephesus!” Imagine living as strangers and aliens in this context. These believers are truly living on the margins of society.

Now Paul’s language in Ephesians begins to make sense. He is calling the believers, both Jews and Greeks, to unite together through the cross of Jesus Christ. There are many things they disagree on, but it is essential to band together as a “new humanity” in light of the “principalities and powers” they face. This new peace that comes through reconciliation of the cross is not the Pax Romana of the ruling class; this is a new framework for looking at the world. Though they live in the shadow of the Temple of Artemis, they are being brought together on the foundation and cornerstone of Christ, joined together as a “holy temple,” a “dwelling place for God.” This can only happen because Christ has broken down the dividing wall and replaced the hostility with peace.

Next, we made a shift to ask, “What are the dividing walls that continue to separate us?” and, “What is the shadow that we live under today?” After some open discussion we focused specifically on two areas: dividing walls in the Christian family and dividing walls in the global family.

Jessica shared that the Christian family has been divided by politics, especially in this election season. Is one candidate more Christian than the other? That depends on who you talk to. Can a person be considered more Christian than another by voting for a certain candidate? Or, is it possible that Christians across party lines should be united together and concerned with issues that transcend political parties. Example: both parties continue to bolster the ongoing ever-escalating patterns of consumption and debt as a way of American promise and prosperity. We live in the shadow of the temple of consumerism and greed. How might we as believers unite and speak to these “principalities and powers?” Not likely to happen….

Onto to U2. The band grew up in the violence and conflict of an Ireland that was torn apart by theological/political factions. Bono’s father was a Catholic and his mother was a Protestant; this gave him and his band mates a unique vantage point. Growing up in the shadow the temple of religiosity caused them to doubt and question the institution of religion. Bono has often said that in his country religion was used as a hammer to beat one another on the head. The violence was everywhere: Catholics against Protestants; South against North; IRA against Unionists. The 30 year period known as "The Troubles" nearly led to full scale civil war in Ireland. After a quick discussion of this denominational sectarianism we watched the band’s video of “Please.” It’s a passionate plea to come out of a posture of religiosity ("get up off your knees") and join together to stand against violence and segregation. Watch the video and ask, “Who is kneeling and who is standing?” “Who are the people with power and who are the ones without?” “Where does religious imagery show up?” Needed: dividing walls to come down within the Christian family.

We shifted the discussion to understanding the dividing walls within the global family. Jessica presented a case study that hits very close to home: last week in New York City in conjunction with the United Nations summit, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) hosted a dinner conversationwith Iranian President Ahmadenijad. The dinner included Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders and scholars. MCC has taken an enormous amount a criticism for hosting this event. (I’ll do another post on this specifically.) The question in our workshop: Are there lines that should not be crossed with regard to international relations or is this a dividing wall that should come down. (While the two presidential candidates share a remarkably common framework for leading the United States, this is a point of sharp difference between Obama and McCain.)

From there we talked about Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, and the dialog (or lack of it) between Christians, Jews and Muslims. If you are a fan of U2 you probably know where this lead:

We scanned the lyrics of “Love and Peace or Else” and “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” and discussed Bono’s chant, “Jesus, Jew, Muhammad it’s true, all sons of Abraham.”  What would it mean to tear down the walls that separate the global family? What would it mean to proclaim peace to those who are “far off” and those who are “near?” What would it mean to join in peace against a common “principality” or “power?” What would it mean to be a peacemaker and shout “No more! Wipe the tears away!” (He wept….)

Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are those who both weep and wipe.