In the Tension [UPDATED]

I have a confession make: I've struggled with homosexuality my whole life.

I don't mean I've struggled with same-sex attraction. I think we can all agree that Mark Wahlberg and Brad Pitt are fine specimens of the male gender, but for me, that appreciation turns quickly into envy; I wish I looked like them, though preferably without the effort it takes them.

It's a problem.

No, my struggle is more basic than that; I don't know what to make of homosexuality at all. I struggle to reconcile the people I know with the scriptures I believe, the friendships and relationships and emotions with the principles. When I read the scriptures, I see principles that teach us to love our God and our neighbors, to respect each other, and a way of life that is full of grace and mercy and justice. But I also see a lot of things that show us where the boundaries of sin are, and I find it hard to read scripture in a way that says acting on homosexual urges, regardless of their origin (the nature vs. nurture debate is still far from over), is inside that boundary.

What makes it harder are the names I can put to people I know and care for who have followed those urges. My emotions want me to simply accept their actions, since who am I (a sinner as well) to judge? They seem to love each other, and who am I to say they shouldn't be able to marry who they love? I did, why shouldn't they?

That would be fair.

And frankly, I don't want to lose the friendships and respect of those who so strongly support gay relationships; it seems that these days, if you were to speak out against, or you were to even DOUBT the “ok-ness” of homosexuality, you lose the right to speak at all, about anything.

Apparently, that’s called being "tolerant."

In fact, it’s the very reason I nearly didn’t post this about a thousand times, why I edited it a thousand times, rewrote whole chunks; if somebody misunderstands, misinterprets, or simply is offended, then I lose the right to speak to them.

But then I go back to scripture. Some things in scripture are contextual and others are cross-contextual. Women as leaders, for example, is a contextual issue. The ECC is unashamedly egalitarian because there are actual examples of female leaders in the scriptures, and the two passages we see speaking against this practice are both rooted in the context of their respective situations. However, homosexuality seems, to me, to be cross-contextual, since it's addresses in multiple contexts and multiple authors and multiple cultures, and every time they seem to say the same thing: acting on the impulse is a sin.

I see so many of my peers, particularly in my generation, advocating for homosexual egalitarianism within the church. And I respect their opinions, since they're very smart and well-read and travel to Bolivia to care for orphans. Their character in other areas is so much like Jesus. They make me think hard about the way I read the scriptures, the way I see my neighbors.

And what if they're right?

What if I’ve been reading the scriptures wrong? What if I misunderstood the context? What if this whole thing is wrong in MY head and it’s not actually my peers in the church-world that are crazy? On the other hand, what if they’re reading too much of a 21st-Century perspective on love into the scriptures in a way that was never intended? What if they’ve unintentionally compromised their beliefs in order to sound politically correct or to feel like they fit in or to give themselves a voice where they wouldn’t have one otherwise?

And the argument just goes back and forth,

back and forth,

back

and

forth

back and forth in my head, a pendulum whose near-perpetual motion is starting to make me a bit dizzy.

The fact is that "hate the sin, love the sinner" doesn't help me, since the people who usually say that to me don't seem - to me - to love others that are different from them very well. But I also don't want to compromise the truth contained in the scriptures by trying to make them say something they don't simply to resolve a cognitive dissonance between my culture and my religion.

What seems to keep coming back is the tension within love that you see in the scriptures. The kind of love God has is patient, kind, generous, and trusting. But it also speaks truth into the lives of others, honestly, openly, albeit carefully. Some things are not beneficial, the scriptures say, and you shouldn’t do them no matter how strong the urge, no matter how harmless it seems. And so when someone is wrong, love says so, because the relationship it is based on can handle that tension. Love looks out for others. Love doesn’t seem concerned that you always FEEL love in order TO love.

There's a difference between love and permissiveness. 

It seems to me that the "accept me for who I am" argument doesn't work for several reasons. First, I doubt anyone saying that to me would respond too kindly to being told the same in return; nobody accepts a racist "for who they are" anymore, and the same goes for anyone labeled a "homophobe." Even if we say otherwise, we all BEHAVE as if we believe that our actions - and even our beliefs themselves - are actually choices. We behave as though we are not genetically programmed, but that we can choose to do something, choose to believe something. Which means that we really do believe people can change their actions and beliefs, even if we only believe that only OTHERS should change.

I suppose it raises the question though, who ought to change? That could be the crux of the culture war.

Second, while God always accepts us as we are, for Him that is not an end, that is only a beginning. God is ever-challenging us to grow in faith and holiness, to become closer to His image and character, and that means leaving sin behind, a piece at a time. His love is big enough to be dissatisfied with where we started. God believes we can and should change.

It's part of love.

And so my struggle is, how do I imitate God here, in the tension?  How do I live authentically, true to both the scriptures and my friends, so they can see that God loves them fiercely, but that doesn't always mean He'll just sign off on everything we want or feel?  How do I come out the other side having represented God well to my neighbors? How do I best love God and people in a culture that believes love means encouraging you to do whatever you feel is ok, regardless of the consequences and regardless of how it affects others? In a culture that is passive-aggressive, how do I confront in a healthy way, a way they understand?

How do I live in the tension?

How do I love?

[UPDATE]

Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, responded SO well to the LGBTQ community at the Global Leadership Summit this month, and I thought I'd post the video here.

Worship Connect

The Worship Pastors of the Evangelical Covenant Church have put together a (closed) facebook group where we discuss our calling: leading our people in the worship of our Creator. Out of these discussions, the denomination has asked us to contribute weekly to a public blog so that the denomination as a whole can benefit from the conversation. I was so excited to be asked to contribute!

This week, it's been a very interesting discussion on what to do with national holidays; how does one curate worship gatherings and keep Jesus as the focal point - the subject of the story, as it were - but still honor the cultures in which we find ourselves when they celebrate a holiday (July 4, Memorial Day, etc). There have been many points of view and ideas brought to the table, and we'd love you to contribute your thoughts on the subject. The blog post in question (written by our own Matt Nightingale) can be found here. We'd love to hear from you!

Substance

"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." [The Apostle Paul, in Philippians 2:1-4]

The church these days has been looking pretty fragmented. We find ourselves all over the spectrum on every conceivable issue. Every day it seems there's another scandal of some Christian getting angry at some other Christian over some theological or doctrinal or political or practical issue that they don't quite agree on; like oil and water, parts of what are supposed to be the body of Christ just can't seem to mix. And it begs the question, whatever happened to Jesus' call for unity?

In John 17, Jesus prays that his followers would be, above all, united together as Jesus is united with the Father. The early church had a word for this likeness: homoousios, meaning of the same substance.

I dare you to try and fit that one into conversation today.

God the Father and Jesus are of the same stuff; if you see one, you see the other. But as you read through the Bible, sometimes it seems that on the surface, God the Father (especially in the Old Testament) and God the Son (Jesus, in the New Testament) aren't really that related; one burns Sodom and Gamorah, the other heals beggars and lepers. But if you look more closely, you start to see that God the Father really is generous, loving, and actually likes his creation, and that Jesus sometimes gets upset and turns over tables. The more you read, the more you see that they are united in the same stuff - the stuff of character - and it is most profound to note that God the Father and God the Son are servants. God begins the restoration of His world by rescuing Israel from slavery, something none of the other religions of the day could claim. Jesus, over and over again, heals people physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually in nearly every place He went. It makes me think that unity in our body, as diverse as we are, as seemingly different as we are in our theology, in our expression, in our worship, means that we need to all be of the same character, of the same stuff.

Homoousios.

We need to be united because we take on the character of God, and the best way to do that is to love each other. And the best way to love each other is not at first a head thing, and not even at first a heart thing, but is at first an action thing: to serve. Serving is at the very core of God's character, and is, I think, at the very heart of what it means to be a united body, in the name - in the character - of Jesus.

I've never seen people who serve together angry at one another for very long. When we SERVE others WITH others, we can put our differences aside because it's no longer about us, it's about the mission and the One who gave us that mission, it's about the purpose we've adopted that's outside of ourselves. When we need to, we can still work with others we don't agree with or don't even like much because we're all in on the mission together. And when our self-attention goes out the window and we instead gravitate that attention to the mission, so too does our focus on the differences we see between ourselves and others seem to dissipate. Unity is about our focus; when we are not united it is because we are too focused on loving ourselves instead of on loving others. Disunity, at its heart, is about selfishness.

The heart of unity is selflessness and humility, just like serving.

One substance.

One character.

One mission.

One Church.

"The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" [Jesus, in Matthew 28:16-20]

End Child Politics! (and other Onion videos)

Human Rights Group Campaigns To End Use Of Child Politicians In Africa

New Live Poll Allows Pundits To Pander To Viewers In Real Time

Obama Axes Pentagon Plan To Build Billion Dollar Tank In Shape Of Dragon

Currency Recall

Treasury Department Issues Emergency Recall Of All US Dollars

Socialism is SO 1970's

I thought it was just a lolpundit cartoon, but here's the actual story. Yikes.

Jon Stewart and Brian Williams

Just about the funniest interview I've ever seen. Seriously.

Auto Bailouts, Onion Style

I love The Onion. This was in their news today, and once again I find that I admire the style they bring to telling it like it is. Enjoy.

Economic Stimulus - Addendum

Jon Stewart says the same thing I did.

Economics, part X: Stimulus

I know, I've talked about money a lot lately. It's by far the longest series I've ever written, although I hope I haven't bored anyone. By now, though, I'm sure you've jumped ahead and concluded that I am a capitalist. You'd only be partially right, however, because as I've learned more about anthropology and sociology, I've started to think that perhaps it is as much a cultural issue as any other. For example, socialism seems to be working well enough in China, particularly because Chinese culture lends itself to a more group-oriented approach that will keep itself accountable (the honor-shame dynamic plays a vital role here, but that's another discussion). Sure it has its problems there, but this is true of any economic system in a world where men and women are flawed creatures. Socialism can be a good thing in China if it were always run by honorable, God-loving, others-oriented men and women. Likewise, I believe that capitalism is the best choice for the West, but we have to use it properly.

This brings me to a disturbing trend in our culture: the bailout. I've grown wary of the tendency for our culture to expect "handouts" from its government, precisely because of our culture's views on freedom. We believe we are all entitled as individuals to have a shot at happiness on our own terms. However, as our culture has changed over time, we've also grown a tendency to also want to be free of failure. We've been so successful as a culture in our endeavors that we've grown accustomed to getting our way. It started out innocently enough, the way success should come - hard work, perseverance, and sacrifice. But as the successes started piling up (success is a relative term, by the way), our culture began to expect them. And when something wasn't going according to our view of "success," we began to search for ways other than hard work, perseverance, and sacrifice to make our endeavors fit our ideas on success. One such measure is the stimulus, the theory being "throw money at it and the problem goes away." It's taken many forms over the years; sometimes we throw money at the military, who go and "take care of the problem." Sometimes we throw money at EHMs, who throw money and false promises at those in the way, and then the problem "goes away" (for us). And sometimes, when that doesn't work, we simply try spending money on ourselves make us feel better about not getting our way; enter the 2008 and 2009 economic stimulus packages.

The idea of the stimulus package subverts freedom because it quietly avoids the issue of responsibility. If we are free to choose our own path and insist on doing so, then we must necessarily be free to make mistakes - it's how we learn. The stimulus package is the government's way of pandering to culture, saying "it's ok, you can do whatever you want and we'll be there to hand you money when you fail; don't feel bad about yourself, be happy!" A stimulus package is subversive to freedom because it takes away responsibility of the individual, the family, and even the local and state governments to spend their money responsibly. They are in debt because they made some stupid choices, but being "bailed out" does not force them to re-evaluate their spending or to cut out unnecessary "fat" from budgets (like, why don't they try to skip on the brand-new corporate jet this year when they're laying off 10,000 people?). It simply perpetuates the problems, delays the inevitable, and ultimately makes the problems that much worse for future generations.

Let's face it; do you really want the same people to handle your health care that make you wait in line at the DMV for hours? Or do you want the same people to handle your finances that award themselves a raise when declaring a "financial crisis"?

What is all the bailout money being spent on? Well, Wall-Street executives awarded themselves $18.4 billion for a job well done. But hang on, did they actually do a good job? President Obama doesn't seem to think they deserve it, and I'm inclined to agree; but what did we expect when we handed them free money? And now we want to hand them more? I realize that there are new rules built into the measure to - theoretically - prevent abuses (for example, companies must pay their president less than $500k if they want government aid, which seems a bit high to me - why not $100k?), but it seems that they trust their rules a bit too much; the abuse of the loopholes in the rules is a major part of the problem in the first place.

This is not saying that a stimulus package can't work. However, it IS saying that the way we use it must be responsible, or else it will fail. In some ways, this package is useful(take, for instance, the money being devoted to rebuilding infrastructure such as highways and public transportation - my father, for one, is very happy about that because he sees the state of such things all the time, and they need help). However, perhaps more money ought to be devoted to the businesses that actually need the help, rather than those that are simply being evolved out of the market for building crappy products (ahem, GM) or for spending money irresponsibly (pretty much all of Wall Street). Take, for example, small businesses who are constantly forced to lay off one more worker because they can't afford the taxes on their income (I used to work for such a business), which naturally cuts back the amount of work they can do, which cuts back revenue, which perpetuates a cycle. These small businesses do not generally overspend on things they cannot afford; yet they are suffering because of the large businesses that do.

When it comes down to it, I do think that capitalism can work here in the West, but only when those who are part of the system take responsibility for their financial decisions and factor in others. Asking questions like "how will this purchase impact the people and the world around me?" are a good way to start, and then deciding to spend or not to spend based on the answers in a way that helps others, even if it means sacrifices for you. The most responsible thing we can do is consider the impact of our decisions on the world and act accordingly; that is the responsibility we are endeared with as free citizens of the world, and one we ought not take lightly.

Economics, part IX: Fair

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII

One of my mantras is "when in doubt, question the question." And so I was on my way to pick up some new contacts the other day when a thought struck me: why does it matter whose fault any of this is? The economy, the war, whatever - why does it matter who gets the blame? Then I began asking myself why this particular idea suddenly struck me as odd. I mean, I've lived with it, used it, and been used by it every day of my life; why should the concept of "fair play" strike me as strange?

I think it's because 'fault' or 'blame' makes little difference, practically speaking. Causally, there is no reason to think that there is a connection between the one who causes a problem and the one who fixes (or should fix) it. But in our culture, we use assigned blame as the means to getting a party to enact action - the person who caused the problem should be the one to fix the problem. You probably don't think that's weird, but it's actually somewhat unique to American, or at least Western culture. Let's ask the question - why would we think that a person who screwed something up be any better at fixing it?

For our culture, it's a matter of resources; a person who depleted the resources of another should be the one to deplete some of his or her own resources in compensation. We do this in almost every facet of life: in business, in our judicial system, and even in friendships. How many times have you gotten a gift from somebody and felt like you should get them something in return? It's this weird little quirk of our culture coming back to haunt you.

Back to blame, let's say that a friend comes to my house and, by accident, she knocks an expensive vase off a table. Now, our culture says she ought to replace that; she broke it, or at least, she was the cause of its demise, and so she should be the cause of its restoration. But why ought this be the case? What if she is unable to financially afford this replacement? Our culture tends to dictate that the relationship with this friend will be damaged until she offer some sort of compensation (maybe not over a vase, but let's just overgeneralize to make the point); I will not likely trust my friend as much if I follow this path. But why should this be the case? If my friend cannot afford to rebuild the vase or buy a new one, but I can, does it make sense that I feel as though she owes me?

I think our concept of fairness is built, not just on "she should have to pay for it because that's objectively fair," but on "I don't want to pay for it." We like to pass the blame because it makes us feel better about ourselves - it wasn't OUR fault. I want to restore my sense of self-worth at having lost something; when I blame others, I feel more righteous by comparison. Somebody else has to take care of the problem, and I am freed from any responsibility towards fixing it.

The trouble is, the gospel challenges those assumptions to their very core. If Jesus did in fact die on the cross to take our sin "upon his shoulders" (as they say), and we can do nothing to repay him for it, we are left at an empasse, in an awkward situation. It comes down to this: I can't repay God for what He did, and that bothers me. As an American, I have a hard time accepting a gift unconditionally because I feel like I owe something back. In short, this is a point at which the gospel and American culture part ways, and as a community of Christ-followers living within that culture, then, we have to tread lightly when it comes to addressing this issue in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Ultimately, it's about what we value; if I value the vase, the economics of the situation, then of course "fairness" dictates that I make her replace it, no matter what the subsequent consequences to her; once I get my vase back, the issue is no longer important to me. But if I value the relationship, maybe a whole other set of possibilities rises to the surface. Maybe the vase isn't that important after all and doesn't need to be replaced. Or maybe if it is important to me, I ought to replace it myself instead of holding my friend to something she can't afford. Of course, if she can afford to replace it, she is more than welcome to offer that herself, but it ought to come from a sense of giving rather than a sense of obligation.

The bottom line is, how are we living as an alternate economy? Are we living sacrificially, living in a way that honors and serves our neighbors and values the relationships we have? Are we living in a way that honors Jesus and the way He taught and lived himself? Jesus valued people, he valued relationship; by blaming others instead of assuming responsibility despite cause, we are not enacting the economy of heaven. Taking responsibility for the plight of the Other in spite of who they are, what they did, or why they did it is the mark of a Christian - scripture calls it "love." Life is not and never will be "fair," and anyone who sells visions to the contrary is doing just that: selling something. True good comes when we become servants, when we stop using "fairness" as an excuse not to help others. It means putting aside one's pride and one's sense of "fair play," and instead donning the servant's towel and washing the feet of others.

The best economy only comes when we get our hands dirty in the service of others.

(to be continued ...)

Economics, Part VIII: Freedom

Neo: The Architect told me that if I didn't return to the Source, Zion would be destroyed by midnight tonight.
Oracle: Please ... You and I may not be able to see beyond our own choices, but that man can't see past any choices.
Neo: Why not?
Oracle: He doesn't understand them - he can't. To him they are variables in an equation. One at a time each variable must be solved and countered. That's his purpose: to balance an equation.
Neo: What's your purpose?
Oracle: To unbalance it.

I know, the Matrix trillogy has been done to death, but let's face it, the fact is that freedom is more or less THE theme of the three movies. They also happen to be a personal favorite, and this is my blog. Off we go ...

We have thus far considered the nature and the endgame of economic systems. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages, yet both tend to work to the same ends, through different means. Why is it, then, that the world continues to turn? Why haven't our economic systems fallen so far into disarray that we're all subjects to a single human power? Given our collective memory of the endless cycle of rise and fall from power, why do we bother to cooperate? The answer, I think, lies in one element in this system that we have not yet considered, an element that makes or breaks the very nature of the system itself, put to good use: choice.

Choice is what gives us our ability to go against the flow, to disregard our "fight or flight" instincts, or to do something contrary to the popular opinion of the society. We can choose to go to the store or to make do with what we have; we can throw the subsequent garbage away or recycle it or even just pitch it out the window. We can wear the popular clothing or we can wear something comfortable; regardless of the pressures placed on us from many sides - society, culture, even the laws of nature - we are still able to choose.

It was C.S. Lewis that said that predestination and free will are the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Actually, to be honest, so far he's the ONLY one who I've ever heard say this. We are hybrid beings, he wrote, born into a world of sin through no fault of our own, yet we are asked to begin making choices that will affect the rest of our own lives, even our own salvation. Our choices have consequences - destinies, as it were - and our destiny presents us with choices to be made which will make or break the path we're on. Choice is to causality like yin is to yang; the one must go with the other. Freedom, then, is our capacity to make choices, our ability to weigh the consequences and choose, however consciously or subconsciously, a course of action based upon what we perceive is the best outcome. This includes our ability to choose a couse of action that might not actually be the best outcome.

Put another way, we are not held to one set of actions. The choices we make change, and indeed, shape the very future that is so uncertain. I can choose to eat a hot dog or to eat something else or even to eat nothing at all. Perhaps I choose to wait for a while and THEN eat something. Either way, the choice is still mine; I can choose to follow the law or I can choose not to. I don't even have to eat if I don't want to (though the fact that I usually want to could tell you something about my waistline).

But in the end, there is another sort of freedom which we do not have, and that is freedom from consequences. This is the "yang" to the "yin" of choice. We are not free of causality as popular culture has led us to believe; we will reap what we sow. I cannot jump from a bridge and then expect not to fall into the river below, gravity being what it is. Every choice sets in motion other events, provides new decisions to be made and eliminates others.

For example, a choice was made a long, long time ago, but human history has reflected this decision ever since. We could talk through the story of Eden at great length, but even if the story is merely metaphor, something happened to distance humanity from its Maker. The author of Genesis records that a couple ate "the fruit" of a tree of knowledge. At some point, our species made a choice that blinded us to the consequences of doing things on our own, without the Creator. We began to think - deceived or not - that maybe there were no consequences. We were wrong.

One reason that the Incarnation is such a miracle is that God did (and does) what no one else could: he interrupted us (as a species) somewhere between cause and effect. We sin, and yet he gives us the chance to avoid the ultimate consequences of those choices, taking the penalties upon himself instead. As a missionary, I usually like to look at the incarnation for the way in which it exemplifies God making himself known and making the effort to relate to us on our own terms - in the flesh, face-to-face, sandle-to-sand. But in another way, in the grand scheme of things, this is not enough by itself. It is a lot, for sure, but it is not the whole picture. The Christian story is one in which the One who was not the cause took the effects; He removevd the consequences of the actions of another and took them upon himself. God, in essence, unbalances the equation; he alone understood the consequences of our choice and took it upon himself to give us back our dignity to choose a path, rather than allowing us to reap the ultimate consequence. The Creator found a loophole in the rules; he took the fall for the Created.

And that changed everything.

(to be continued ...)

Economics, Part VII: Politics and the Economy

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

* * *

I'm loathe to discuss the political side of economics mostly because I abhore politics and politicians. But I have to say this.

There was an awful lot of bantering of the word "socialism" in this past election; the lefties wanted us to go socialist, to make a "better" America, where there's no poverty and everybody is healthy and well-educated, all because of our benevolent government's wonderful policies. Please. As if a bunch of laws could do that; "give all your money to the government (because you have to, or we'll just take all of it instead of just most of it) and they'll make sure everyone gets what's 'fair.'" As if a bunch of independently wealthy politicians are the ones to decide what's "fair" for the lower- and middle-class. The righties didn't help either. Instead of advocating socialism, the righties warned of the "dangers" of socialism, that our freedoms will supposely be ripped from our grasp, our way of life "destroyed." No offense guys, but ... what? It doesn't work that way either. First, even if Obama wanted to build the perfect socialist state, he's got 200 years of history and a bipartisan(ish) government against him (not to mention thousands of years of human nature). Second, he can only do so much as President; the Legislative branch (Congress and Senate) and the Judicial branch both are supposed to keep him accountable to the Constitution and other laws. Third, he'll be done in at most, eight years. That's not enough time to become socialist. If the American people don't like it (remember, we are still some semblence of a democracy), we'll just vote in the candidate who is AntiObama (the antiObama ... antibama? whatever), just like we just voted out George W. Bush. Fear mongering by both sides was the issue in this (and past) elections, each side pushing to prove that, while they're obviously not perfect, they're better than "the other guy."

Lastly, and this is my point, why would electing a new president cause our freedom to be "ripped" from our grasp? Some say that it's that we're "surrendering" our freedom, and I'll concede the possibility of that point, because the only way for our freedom to be taken away is for us to give it away (I'm getting ahead of myself here, that'll come in the next post). We, as both individuals and as a community of Americans, are responsible for the maintenance of our freedom. Sarah Palin (of all people) said it well, I think, when she talked about the mortguage crisis:

I think we need to band together and say 'never again.' Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. ... Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card: don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American people's fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.

Later, she mentioned that Americans had been convinced by the banks to buy a $300,000 house when all they could afford was a $100,000 house. This is what I'm talking about: think. Be skeptical and ask hard questions. Use your ability to choose, to make decisions based on information. Question the sources of that information; people are biased just like you, and will phrase their statements in such a way as to favor their opinions (can we say "mainstream media" here without being too accusatory?).

And this brings me to today's news. My friend Greg mentioned a piece of that caught my attention too: Ford has decided (chosen) not to take the Government's bailout money. Instead, they have decided to restructure, figure out how to do their business better. In other words, they are choosing to allow the capitalist system to determine their fate. The government, meanwhile, sees fit to hand out money to companies that obviously haven't produced a superior product (can you say "GM"?). This is not to say that Ford has no other motives; everybody seems to be driven by economics these days, especially large corporations. Ford, though they're "in the hole" compared to companies like Toyota and Honda, must figure that this will not only boost their image (showing their confidence in their product), But perhaps it was also a wake-up call to improve on their methods and means, to spend the time to research better technology and actually produce a car or truck that can compete with foreign companies. They have chosen not to simply accept the status quo, but to actively attempt to change their situation without using the tax dollars of the customers they are attempting to woo. In short, they are being "responsible."

(to be continued ...)

Labels

I think it's funny that people like to label other people. Somebody called a friend of mine "intolerant" once. Another was called "closed-minded." And all because of their attention to another labeling issue: Marriage.

Because that's what marriage is, right? At least, in the eyes of the state, marriage is a label that says you and your partner have a certain set of rights. To the state, which is supposedly separate from religion (yet at the very least subscribes to the religion of politics), marriage is just another label. In other words, it uses the same word to refer to something totally different than what religions use it for. Christianity, for example, uses "marriage" to refer to a very specific set of practices between a very specific sort of people; two people - one guy, one girl - who have committed to live their lives together in (relative) harmony for the rest of their time on earth. So it only makes sense that the Christians and the rest of the world would get upset at each other over its definition at the legal level. It's a conflict that's been brewing since some girl decided another girl was worthy of her sexual attention, since one guy decided another was worthy of prolonged embrace.

What is it, exactly, that makes a couple want to call themselves "married"? Is it the committment to one another? Is it the financial benefits given by the state? Or is it the recognition by the government (and the people who vote for them) of the couple's legitimate, "not weird" status within society? I'd wager it's the third. People want to be accepted, and in the West, people want to be accepted no matter what choices they make. We Americans like to make a choice and have everyone tell us how amazing that choice was. We don't like it when somebody tells us "no, that's wrong," no matter what the choice is! It's just part of American DNA. We don't deal well with relational conflict; we can't take it when another person or group of people condemn us for being or acting in ways we believe are right. We want to do terrible things to those people like hit them or shoot them or call them names like "closed-minded" or "ignorant."

Two things to draw from this. First, for those of you that are gay/lesbian, please read this whole thing before you react - I'm trying very hard to be sensitive to you as I write this, but it's a hard subject to write on without insulting or offending people. I'd ask why you're insistant about the label - do you really need it? I understand wanting it for the rights to visit your partner in the hospital or get counted the same as a heterosexual couple would with their taxes, but ... why does the government telling you that you're "married" change anything about your relationship with one another? Speaking from my own personal experience, I don't really care about the marriage certificate I have from NY for Liz and me; what matters to me is the choice we made, the promises we gave each other in front of God that we would never leave or forsake each other. It's a very high standard, one that a LOT of Christians (and non-Christians, about the same number) these days are breaking, but a standard that no law or rule or declaration or piece of paper from a government - or lack thereof - will change. So why do you actually care that you get "married"? That's not supposed to be a dismissive question, it's supposed to provoke thought; so often we say we are doing things for one reason and never confront our deeper motivations, the ones that really drive everything. Forcing a law allowing marriage for gays and lesbians is just as much based on a belief in the same realm as that which forces a law prohibiting said marriage.

Please forgive all those Christians who are upset at you for wanting this; they don't honestly know any better. Most of them have been taught all their life that your lifestyle is a sin or evil, and whether or not that is true, they don't know how to separate your behavior from your personality, your sexuality from you as a person. In other words, they don't know what it means to love you despite your differences from them. Nobody has ever shown them how to do that. To be fair, it's really hard to do. We should all learn how that works, honestly. But if you think about it, most Christians who condemn homosexuality like this don't actually know any homosexuals. You can remedy this by getting to know the Christians! If you don't spend time getting to know the Christians that you condemn as "intolerant," then you are as much to blame for the disparity between the two groups as the Christians are! If you do not understand their perspective (and reading their articles isn't really the way to do this, sorry), how can you communicate with them in a way they will understand? I know it will be tough, but you should get to know a few Christians, if they'll have you.

Second, for those of you who are Christians, I'd suggest that getting up in arms about homosexual marriage is probably not helpful; you're not supposed to recognize the Government as the ultimate authority anyway - God's the one who legitimates "marriage" as a spiritual union, not the good 'ol USA. You believe that homosexuality is a sin - fine. You've a right to your belief, you may even be right. But that gives you no right to treat gays and lesbians in a manner akin to enemies of the state. They're just like us, trying to make it through life as best they can; and for the record, God asks us to start wherever the people are. There is no "prerequisite" for a person to hear the good news and repent - the change part comes after they've met Jesus, and it's something that God will have to change in their lives. In the meantime, you're speaking two completely different languages; when you say "marriage," you're not saying the same thing as they are - they hear something very different. There's a difference between "state legitimated legal union" and "spiritual covenant," and it's up to you to know the difference and know who is saying what. Let's also remember that if homosexuality is a sin, it's no more a sin than, say, gluttony or lust or coveting.

And we all do those things on a regular basis.

I remember Jesus saying something about specks and planks ... just be careful who you condemn and why, especially when your own life is far from perfect. And as I mentioned above, if you are a Christian who condemns them but you don't actually KNOW any homosexuals (and by "know" I mean "have gotten to know a homosexual in a personal way," like friends or colleagues), you have no right to condemn them, because you cannot possibly understand their perspective. And so you should go get to know some of them, however hard it might be for you. I will say this: homosexuals tend to be more accepting of your perspective than you are of theirs. While you may not accept their perspective, you still ought to understand it in a way that loves them. If you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't be writing articles in newspapers and blogs.

That goes for all of us: the question of "why" needs to be asked.

And honestly answered.

Economics, Part VI: Heuristics

An empire requires that human beings succumb to the illusion of dependence on the system. Without this illusion, the empire as such cannot exist. In a way, it is like this for every culture - the culture as a generalized whole has to buy into its own ideas, otherwise it wouldn't cohere. It is only by making processes unconscious that a culture or society can function; we call them "heuristics" in psychology.

The heuristic is a funny little idea noticed first in biopsychology. Somebody noticed that the human mind is capable of a whole lot of processing, but not enough to deal with every single stimulus that comes from the environment around us. Think about your perception for a moment; when you look at the world, what happens? You tend to focus on certain things, as opposed to others. For example, if you are sitting in class (as I am now), there are many options for your attention - you can focus on the professor, of course, but there are many other sights, sounds, and smells to notice. You can see and hear other students typing on their laptops (often in facebook, not powerpoint or onenote); you can focus on the sound of the air conditioning; you could focus on the feel of the chair beneath you; you could focus on the feel of your clothes sitting on your body; you could focus on the smell of the coffee of the guy a few rows down, or the sound of your laptop fan; you could focus on the constant shifting and sniffling of the guy behind you.

So why don't you focus on those things? Because you have heuristics - mental short-cuts - that tell you those things are not significant in the context of a classroom. Instead, you're supposed to focus on the professor, who is teaching. But ok, how do you know who the professor is? You have a heuristic for that too - it's the person who stands at the front of the classroom and tells you things from a notebook or a powerpoint. Usually the person is older than you, and usually the person is better dressed than you are. If this seems obvious to you, it's because your heuristics are working - they're those little unspoken assumptions that help you make your mental perception more accurate. Over time these heuristics become more and more unconscious, as the evidence in their favor mounts and the contradictions fade (as we get used to their use), and we become "set in our ways." They allow the mind the capacity to process higher functions, such as logic and emotions, because it doesn't need spend as many resources to process raw sensory information.

If heuristics are thus necessary to the human condition, it is their abuse that perpetuates Empire. When people take their heuristics for granted, when heuristics go unquestioned, they leave the heuristics open for someone else to take advantage of them. Heuristics are never perfect, and are meant to be dynamic rather than static; there are always "exceptions to the rule," as it were, but when someone does not allow those exceptions, he or she does not allow for the limited nature of perception in his or her tiny little corner of the world. However, if someone else were to convince a person that his or her heuristics were static (solidifying them into "stereotypes"), the person would then become trapped in an illusion of simplicity. For example, instead of allowing the category "professor" to include somebody wearing jeans and a sweater (which is less traditional), one might stubbornly maintain that professors ONLY wear suits and ties. It's too simple of a category that doesn't allow for diversity; "professors" (or whatever) become a closed system, incapable of change or addition. Amplify this to a large number of heuristics and add a dose of ethnocentrism ("our heuristics are better", as any human being does with his or her own perceptions, which is then amplified in community), and suddenly you are on the path towards Empire. When this large group of people believe the world to be starkly simple, they have given up their ability to critique themselves, and thus the ability to change for the better.

Since the heuristic element is an intrapersonal element, within the individual (although there are such things as "collective heuristics"), it is with individual heuristics that the problem of empire begins - and must end. Massive cultural shifts do not happen because of a movement that begins with the masses, with the collective, but rather at the level of the individual, with a few people that move beyond established traditions, heuristics, or cultural assumptions. Empire is thwarted primarily by individuals that then become a collective movement.

In other words, Empire is thwarted by choice.

(to be continued ...)

* * *

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Economics, Part V: Empire

It's been a little while since I posted to my economics series. But that's because it's a very hard series to write; the ideas are tough to wade through, the conclusions not easy to stomach. I'm going to keep working through this, and have a few more posts in mind already; here's the links back to the first few if you're just joining the conversation:

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

* * *

We have seen that the inevitable result of both capitalist societies and socialized societies is the same thing: societies that, despite their philosophical differences, produce the same sort of fruit. Pure socialism, like pure capitalism, is impossible because of human nature; both evolve into a culture of oppression, created through the outworking of human greed in which some hoard the power, the wealth, and the resources. In both capitalist and socialist societies, poverty abounds, whether in its material form (lack of resources, the more common of the two) or in its social form. Social poverty is nothing to trifle with; the more disconnected a culture gets, when individuals gradually isolate themselves from one another (to maintain an illusion of independence), psychological and social tragedy is the result. If such a society is to maintain itself, it must isolate its constituents from one of two things: from the resources, or from each other.

If those few in power choose to isolate the many from material resources (which usually requires physical force, and thus requires a large military), the citizens tend to bond together out of necessity. In sociology we call this a "liminal state," where hard times (oppressive government, harsh environment, enemy tribes or nations, etc.) force a group of people to cooperate for their very survival. An interesting thing happens as a result, what Victor Turner calls "Communitas": communitas is a word that has an obvious relationship to "community" (a group of people cooperating towards a common goal), but it is far stronger than that. The community that results from this "liminality" is bonded for life. It's not that they happen to share common traits or feelings or hobbies, it's that they cannot easily undo the bond they share from overcoming an immense trauma or ordeal together. It is the thing they have in common - a shared experience upon which to base their relationships that will last through trial and tribulation.

Everyone has experienced liminality in some form. I have, several times. My wife and I moved to Australia for a while, a new place for us where we knew almost nobody, with which neither of us was familiar. The year we spent "confronting the odds" grew us together as a couple in a way that living in a place with which we were comfortable could never have done. We were far closer after a month in Australia than we were after a year and a half in New York. Another time, I went to India with some colleagues from the seminary. Every time I see them, we still laugh and joke over the experience - it happened nearly a year ago, and it was merely two short weeks, but great power for relational bonding was contained within those very difficult cross-cultural situations. This is one of the reasons that so many Americans who visit impoverished countries are amazed at the smiles on the faces of the poor; they are "happy" despite oppression. We must be careful not to mistake the amazement of the Westerner as unrelated to their own material wealth; he or she can afford to travel, which often indicates a dependence on material wealth for "happiness." Such people (myself often included) often equate material wealth (and good circumstances) with happiness, and its absence with misery; he or she cannot believe that one can be happy without material possessions or in the midst of hardship. Meanwhile, those in poverty are united by their suffering; but they still suffer. Communitas does not alleviate the material poverty, it provides an emotional and social outlet. Yet such societies take advantage of this as a justification for hoarding the wealth. The Socialized Empire decrees that it knows how to distribute the resources, who needs what, etc. Naturally, the government is "more equal" because they have the trying hardship of having to spend their time determining who gets what, so naturally they deserve a larger portion. Or something to that effect. Regardless, the government ends up keeping the collected resources for itself while allowing its people to remain "happy" in their suffering.

The (potentially) more dangerous of the two options happens when the society decides to isolate its "citizens" from one another. Now, I say "decides" (as if the society were its own entity apart from the people), but a society is both a cause of and a product of the culture - these are interrelated ideas. In some cultures (such as our own Western culture), individualism is a very strong value. The communitas of socially impoverished cultures does not come in a vacuum - these cultures are often communal in nature to begin with. Western cultures, however, are strongly individualistic. The individual is the endgame; he or she can handle things on his or her own.

The society can take advantage of this as well. By encouraging competition between the isolated units as a means of getting "better" ideas, technologies, products, etc. (and there is little doubt that competition DOES produce more enduring creative expressions), it can cause its constituents to self-motivate to work harder and harder. This works to the advantage of a priviledged few - those who have an initial edge or discover an edge in the course of their struggle - at the expense of the many. This, of course, is not really divisible into two groups, but rather is stratified into a continuum of advantage. However, the two largest groups are those who are considered in "material poverty" (those who work themselves "to the bone" to sustain themselves) and a lower-middle class that, though they have enough material wealth to live comfortably, STILL work themselve to the bone in order to achieve what the society begins to tell them is the society's dream - independence from financial burden.

And so the society is suddenly full of people working very hard to produce an awful lot, and yet none of them are a) happy, or b) helping one another. Instead, the competition gets increasingly more fierce. The few that can afford it go into politics (both Barack AND John are wealthy - don't think for a minute that either of them understand the concerns of the poor or even of the middle-class), and thus the leadership of the country becomes increasingly wealthy. What happens then? The same thing that happened in the socialist state - decisions are made based on the security of those in politics. [sidenote: yes, that goes for both parties - democrat and republican - who just approach it differently; the republicans supposedly give tax breaks to other wealthy power magnates and thus get elected by others in power, whereas the democrats make promises they can't keep to the poor, who elect them out of desperation]

Once again, how do the wealthy, now in power, maintain their lifestyle? By building up a defense network. This, of course, is where we get our military. The two parties in America rely on different means for this; the republicans want to maintain the right to bear arms, and so allow each citizen to defend his hunk of dirt (forgetting that the same armament is used to take said possessions by those in desperation or who don't adhere to societal rules), while the democrats want to ban armament (except from the hands of those they choose, which is suspiciously like a socialist military) so that nobody HAS to defend their stuff, it's just always safe (which is naiive as well; the criminals still keep the weapons - they didn't respect the law in the first place). The cycle thus circles around and around, the wealthy getting richer (now through legislation), the poor getting poorer. For sure, it does tend to take more time in this type of economy, but as we have seen, the inevitable result is a socialist state anyway, and thus as time progresses, the cycle begins to increase its speed.

This cycle of the maintenance of injustice has a name. Two flavors of society, both progressing forward in a cycle of dualism, end up in the same place: Empire. The poor are slowly pushed to the margins, and slowly made into the largest class, yet the most powerless; the wealthy, meanwhile, grow ever more wealthy at the expense of others. And nobody notices it happen until it's too late.

(to be continued ...)

Rainbow Politics

It's no secret that Howard Stern can be modestly troubling in his best of times, but this worried me for other reasons ... although I don't know that I can vouch for its legitimacy ...

Fiscal Policy

But is it a partisan money hole?

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

The (Relatively) Magic Number

I'm not sure I understand the difference between these two numbers. Apparently, everything changes at 52% ...

via Anchoress

Yes, You CAN Stop ...

End Of Election Causes Obsessive Obama Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are