Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Where is the ability to listen?

The firestorm surrounding the relationship between the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the candidacy of Barack Obama offers a tremendous opportunity to analyze the dynamic of the interaction between the political class, the fourth estate, the electorate and the role of religion in our society.

The electorate is being fed sound bite analysis of a Church and a man of deep faith by the mainstream, electronic media. The political class is assuming that the only dynamic at work is the quest for personal power by a black minister. The electorate is engaging the debate based upon the snippets being fed on cable news and is ignoring the more in-depth analyses that are available in print media and on the web. And the United Church of Christ is trying to use this opportunity to promote a more rational discussion, a sacred discussion, on race in America.

All of this is a result of our desire to have an ever more complex world boiled down for us into a single, simple sentence. Unfortunately, in the worlds of politics and religion, this is not possible.

As a pastor, Rev. Wright is driven by his interpretation of God's agenda for social justice. This agenda is presented in Christian scripture and the writings and teachings of the great monotheisms. This agenda transcends national boundaries and political ideology. This agenda demands the acknowledgement of historical reality and present day public policy. In speaking with Bill Moyers, Rev. White offered this: "When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -a particular government and not to God, then you're in serious trouble because governments fail people. And governments change. And governments lie."

An agenda for social justice assumes that, in God's eyes, the eradication of the Jews by the Nazis is no different than the eradication of the Apache, Arapaho, Iroquois and Sioux by a young America in its quest for Manifest Destiny. It assumes that enslavement of dissidents in the Gulags is no different than banishment of Japanese-Americans to internment camps. It assumes that jump-starting a market-based economy with human slavery is no different than enforcing a state-run economy with the abridgement of freedoms. And it assumes that the heinous, terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a reaction to American sins, real and imagined, and not a spurious, whimsical stunt by a bunch of nut-jobs. While these equations may seem abhorrent to many Americans, to others, they are frighteningly accurate.

Or, in deference to our sound-bite culture, America has a lot of dirty laundry. This acknowledgement of American mistakes, and the attempt to re-write history to be more inclusive of the more distasteful aspects of our past is necessary to elevate our standing in the debate. The first reaction of this writer to the September 11 attacks was: "My God, what have we done to foster this anger?" How many of you, reading this essay, had a similar reaction?

Before we jump to the conclusion that this smack's of a "Blame America First" mentality, ponder the possibility that Rev. Wright is expressing the frustration of a lost opportunity. Chicago's Trinity United Congregational Church is testimony of what is possible in America. From humble beginnings, Rev. Wright has built what President Regan would call a beacon of hope. This beacon feeds the hungry, comforts the afflicted, clothes and houses the needy and provides programs that encourage all to lift themselves out of drugs, poverty and hopelessness. This beacon finds its moral authority in Christian scripture, a paradigm that acknowledges human frailty, the eternal battle between good and evil and provides a "how to" guide for achieving social justice. Consider the possibility that Rev. Wright sees a moment in time when the debate can be elevated in America and real progress in unleashing human potential in the quest for social justice can be made.

Today’s “talking heads” media cannot conceive of a person who is motivated by things other than personal aggrandizement. The questions reverberate from the tube and flat screen: What's in it for him? Is he just intoxicated by the limelight? Why is he torpedoing Obama? Was he dissed by Obama?

These are all logical and relevant questions when discussing Katy Couric's ratings. They have nothing to do with Rev. Wright's agenda.

Rev. Wright is a man of God. He is not without flaws as he is made from flesh, but he is called to a life of service and faith. Though this writer has no particular "inside info" I believe that we can connect the dots and draw some fair conclusions.


  • Dot 1. Through his leadership, the Trinity United Church of Christ has grown from 87 to more than 8,000 members.

  • Dot 2. Rev. Wright has a legacy of service to his country and his God.

  • Dot 3. Rev. Wright uses a confrontational style as a means to call people to action.

Let's connect dots one and two. Go to CBS.com, PBS.org or chicagotribune.com and watch or read a complete sermon or two. You will see a man of faith, a man of passion and a man who is leading his people from the wilderness. You will see a preacher who rattles the rafters with oratory. And you will see a leader who has built a dynamic and talented congregation in a time when most congregations are shrinking.

At the National Press Club conference on April 28th, in fielding a question about his patriotism, Reverend Wright retorted: "I served six years in the military, does that make me patriotic? How many did Cheney serve?"
Is he a patriot? Yes. Does he profess blind allegiance to the United States of America? No, his allegiance is to his God. He has been called to serve, first in the US military, then in the ministry, and has demonstrated time and again that he can mobilize and motivate people to do good things.

During one of the famous debates with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan challenged America to action when he asked a simple, powerful question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Similarly, Rev. Wright challenges his congregation, paraphrasing Psalm 137 as America lusted for revenge following the September 11 terrorist attacks: " Let's kill the baby-let's bash their heads against the stone." He goes on to say: "And that my beloved is a dangerous place to be. Yet, that is where the people of faith are in 551 BC and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge. We want paybacks and we don't care who gets hurt in the process." What was his challenge? If you want to seek revenge, kill the babies. Is this what God wants of you?

We are left with a man who thoroughly confuses the media. We are left with a man who is a patriot that rejects the "My country, right or wrong" dogma. We are left with a leader who has built a Church driven by service, Christian ideals and adherence to God's desire for a more perfect people. And we are left with a gifted orator who asks demanding questions, demanding excellence from the "Shining city on a hill" when mediocrity is the norm.

So, why do we not hear this type of commentary in the media? Perhaps it is because it is misguided. Perhaps it is because we don't want to hear it. More likely, though, because it takes work, it takes reflection, it takes listening. And, when the air is rushing in through your ears and exiting through your mouth, it is very difficult to listen.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Musings

  1. Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are flat?
  2. Why do banks charge a fee on "insufficient funds" when they know there is not enough?
  3. Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
  4. Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
  5. Why do they use sterilised needles for death by lethal injection?
  6. Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
  7. Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a gun at him?
  8. Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
  9. Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
  10. What is the speed of darkness?
  11. Are there specially reserved parking spaces for non-disabled people at The Special Olympics?
  12. If you send someone 'Styrofoam', how do you pack it?
  13. If the temperature is zero outside today and it's going to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold will it be?
  14. If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
  15. If it's true that we are here to help others, what are the others doing here?
  16. Do married people live longer than single ones or does it only seem longer?
  17. If someone with a split personality threatens to commit suicide, is it a hostage situation?
  18. Can you cry under water?
  19. What level of importance must a person have, before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
  20. If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches?
  21. Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
  22. How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on bigger suitcases?
  23. Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up, like, every two hours?
  24. If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
  25. Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
  26. Why do doctors, when they ask you to strip, leave the room or close the cubicle curtain while you change? ............ they're still going to see you naked anyway

It's that time again!

You've seen them, those little black furry things stuck to the road. The black, white and pink mélange is as sure a sign of the coming spring as the robins in the backyard. The pungent odor that can seep through watertight doors. Yes, the skunks are back!

Last night, Lou, our otherwise cute cat, came in the house after a close encounter of the odiferous kind. After abject panic I managed to throw him back outdoors to enjoy his predicament for the remainder of the evening. As I considered my plans for the next morning, I washed my hands in spaghetti sauce (we don't keep an emergency supply of tomato juice handy...maybe we should take this up with Homeland Security), throwing out the meatballs.

When I got up this morning, after lamenting the waste of perfectly good tomatoes and meatballs, I found this recipe for de-skunking pets.

Warning: Try this at home only when absolutely necessary.
Cleaning solution ingredients:

• 1 cup water
• 1/2 cup baking soda
• 1 tsp. dishwasher soap
• 1 qt. 3% hydrogen peroxide solution
• 1 case beer/wine (optional...you shouldn't need to double this ingredient if you double the recipe)

Pet Cleaning Process: Get one bucket for the solution, one for rinse water, and optionally, one more to wash the little beast in. Get a wash rag and several towels.

Change into grungy clothes. Get your significant other to help.
Mix the solution, plop kitty/poochie/pick-a-pet into the wash tub, and scrub him with the wash cloth, being careful not to get the solution into his eyes. Dunk pet into the rinse tub...ignoring the open wounds that have suddenly appeared on your hands and wrists. Rinse well and transfer to towels. Rub dry and lock in the boiler room where h/she can dry off in a warm place, without infecting every piece of upholstered furniture in the house.

Drink heavily, then shower.

Unwillingness to do the hard work


I recently received mail from Senator Sanders (Bernie Buzz, January 31) that alerted me to a congratulatory editorial in the Brattleboro Reformer entitled "Vt. delegation fights an uphill battle in D.C." by Joyce Marcel -- www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=291556 .

In this essay, Ms. Marcel equates some 40 votes for troop withdrawals by the Vermont delegation with "...how hard these guys have worked to end the war."
I thought that the essay should not go unchallenged.

Here in the Mad River Valley we have a field full of flags, one for each of our brave children who has fallen in the cradle of civilization. As I drive past those flags I reflect on my dismay at our commencement of this conflict, our inability to manage it, and my fear for the future of the region and our nation.

The Vermont delegation must be congratulated for resisting the invasion of Iraq, but that's about it.

Warfare is the end point in the continuum of diplomatic activity, not a discrete, tragic happenstance that exists in and of itself. And as part of that continuum, its conclusion must be supported by less deadly diplomatic initiatives.

We are taught this by observation of the slaughter that ensued following our abandonment of South Vietnam and in the mutilation of millions in World War II, where the Third Reich filled the political and military vacuum resulting from the Treaty of Versailles.

That leads me to our congressional delegation and its "hard work" in trying to end the war.

Continued calls to bring our troops home are mere window dressing for the next election cycle, and are as effective as a sandcastle guarding against the tide. And Mssrs. Leahy, Sanders and Welch know it. Wiser men and women understand the folly of a unilateral, time-based abandonment of Iraq. They realize that a 21st century version of the Third Reich will fill the vacuum that will result from a hasty, apolitical withdrawal.

The fact is, no matter how much we hate it, we, America, are in this war. We started this war. And we must end this war. As the spoils of war go to the victor, so does the responsibility to restore the vanquished to political and economic viability.

And that is hard work.

I will congratulate our delegation when they lead a realistic effort to end this conflict in a manner that promotes stability in the region. Until then, my dismay at their willingness to tilt at windmills and unwillingness to do the hard work needed to end this national nightmare will grow.

As will all of our dismay.