Sunday, June 29, 2008

Two Faces of Patriotism: McCain & Obama


The 7.07.08 edition of Time Magazine has devoted a whole section to the subject of "The Real Meaning of Patriotism," including short statements by McCain and Obama. A short introductory article, "The New Patriotism," reminds us that Americans honor their country and express their patriotism in dramatically different ways--and those differences make us stronger as a nation. But the article also reminds us that,

Patriotism has always been the most abstract of American virtues--which may be why we fight so ferociously over the symbols that help us define it. Too often those symbols--flags, anthems, slogans--which are meant to unite us, end up dividing us.

The main article, "The State of Patriotism," explores the two dominant faces of American patriotism, and proposes there might be a more respectful, more balanced and constructive third approach. Today's two faces of patriotism, they note, reflect directly the conservative and liberal traditions in America. The conservative view has always stressed identity with and reverence for the past--they are conservative, after all. They see the best of what has been, and the sacrifices and achievements resulting. The liberal view has always stressed the issues of the present and possibilities for the future. They see the things that need to change and be done better; they seek a better vision for the future--they are progressive, after all.

Both are important to who we've been, who we are, and who we will be. Both represent deeply held, very patriotic views and concerns that reflect pride and identity in our country. A better, more constructive third way would be to honor both. For, in whatever way and on whichever side of the conservative/liberal divide our own patriotism is most often expressed, we must understand and acknowledge that only the combination of both these expressions of patriotism fully honors and pays due attention to our country's history of sacrifice and achievement, and its commitment to advancement, reform and a greater future.

***The Patriotism section is capped off by short, readable personal essays on patriotism by John McCain, "A Cause Greater Than Self," and by Barack Obama, "A Faith in Simple Dreams."

Freelance Political Hit Men

A good article in today's New York Times is both revealing and confirming of the role of freelance political hit men in the internet presidential campaign wars. It reveals examples of who some of these people are and how they operate. In my 6.21.08 post regarding Obama's anti-rumor plan, I talked about his new website for responding to and debunking fabrications and distortions about him placed on the internet. I noted that,


The sources are most often anonymous political operatives--the dark forces operatives, I call them--who work out of the dark, unaccountable corners of the internet. It is not always clear to what extent they are formally commissioned by candidates or campaigns, or to what extent it is the work of freelancing political
zealots.


Well, with the work of journalists like Jim Rutenberg at the NYT, and Obama's internet warriors and others like them, we are learning a lot more about these shady, unprincipled political players and the damage they do all candidates, including yours.

So, before we are tempted to be cheerleaders for our favorite over-the-top attack on our least favorite candidate, we need to recognize that these people are really just internet terrorists. Their purpose is the frustration of the effective functioning of the democratic process itself.

By fabricating lies and distortions that appeal to people's prejudices or naivete, they take the focus off the policy issues and make the contest one of ad hominem personal attacks--i.e. who can do the most damage to the candidates' personal reputation and public perception. And when the substantive issues are addressed, the attacks continue with more lies or misleading simplifications that impede the voters ability to accurately compare the candidates and make informed voting decisions. These dark forces operatives are people with real issues; they are not your friends, regardless of your political persuasion-- unless political anarchy is your idea of a democratic process.

Whoever your preferred candidate may be, whatever your political affiliation, your candidate's public credibility and respect are best served by reporting and passing on information that stays reasonably close to the facts and fair representations. We all recognize the hit man's simple, sound-bite format, the unqualified quote and/or picture out of context. Don't read them and don't pass them on. That's what the delete key is for. Consult reputable, public, full-disclosure sources--and also consult multiple sources sympathetic to each of the candidates. Be well informed. All candidates and voters--and our democracy--will in that way be better served.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25433456/

Army History Study: No Post-Invasion Plan for Iraq

The title says it all. And it's not as though most of this hasn't already been revealed by one source after another. But according to a New York Times article, reported on msnbc.com, a new army history of the Iraq War confirms that the Bush administration and the army had no real plans for next steps after Baghdad was initially taken--and had failed to seriously address the question. And General Tommy Franks is faulted for a lack of consultative planning and uninformed short-term thinking in the haphazard decisions that were made. Read and weep--again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25433504/

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Evangelical Reform, At Last

May 7, 2008; Washington, D.C.


A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment

Perhaps there is still hope, but I am not that optimistic. I had just about given the Evangelical Christian identity up for an irreparably co-opted and corrupted lost cause. In fact, I had ceased some years ago to openly identify with what has become a pejorative qualifying adjective, preferring to be known simply as a Christian or follower after Jesus, a seeker after God. And then I read on my pastor's blog about a new Evangelical declaration by some of the most respected Evangelical writers and thought leaders. Better late than never, I suppose, for this is a wonderful and welcome declaration of evangelical Christian identity--or Christian identity, period, I'd say.

It proclaims and embraces the historical "evangelical" identity based on the Jesus of the Gospels: His identity, teaching and example revealed there. And it decries those self-anointed and unrepresentative public voices and their contentious conduct and divisive public politics, which too often have muted the teaching and obviated the example of Jesus--and alienated far too many non-Christians that God would have us better relate to and serve. The statement is also clear in asserting that the evangelical Christian is not antagonistic to the work and findings of science, but embraces all knowledge that better informs us of the world God is continually creating, and of His people who are in it. But it says much more that is important, so much more that all Christians would or should embrace joyfully, gratefully, and with relief.

Self-identified Evangelicals are such a fragmented, disorderly, infiltrated and co-opted lot. The truth is they represent a considerable range of Christian theological, cultural, and political views. And there is no functioning Evangelical Christian hierarchy, no overseeing or governing organization that passes on the soundness of theology or the appropriateness of public conduct based on the identity and teaching of Jesus. Whoever claims the identity gets to share it with all others who do, regardless of what they really believe, what their priorities are, or how they conduct themselves in the public arena.

Some denominations call themselves Evangelicals, some arms or factions of other denominations do, too, and so do some individual churches, both denominational and nondenominational. There are also many individuals who consider themselves Evangelicals within denominations or churches that decidedly do not. But given the identity portrayed by those most visible and vocal spokespersons for Evangelical Christianity--and the public perception most often created--it's a wonder that very many Christian people would still want to claim the identity at all.

As the signatories of the "manifesto" suggest, those self-proclaimed spokespersons have created a clearly distorted perception of the evangelical identity. That perception now held by a great many in the general public--non-Christians and many Christians, too--is that Evangelicals are legalistic, judgmental, witless Fundamentalists and, more often, political operatives and culture warriors who claim Christianity as cover for their political agendas. They have indeed expropriated the good name and hijacked the identity of evangelical Christians, providing that cover and legitimacy for their real agendas--but they have corrupted that good name in the process, as it has now become most associated with them.

Although it was announced in Washington DC, and carried by some outlets, on the whole there has been spare and muted coverage of this pronouncement. And so far, I have heard of little from the Evangelical or broader Christian world in support of it. This kind of clarification statement for the Christian world and the public at large is decades overdue. And unfortunately, its support and authority appear to stand only on the signatures of a handful of honorable and responsible Christian reformers. It requires broad support by Evangelicals and their churches. Their voices must be heard and their signatures must testify to their support. This will be a difficult job and an improbable result in the fragmented world of evangelical Christians.

And therefore, I fear that the public perception and definition of Evangelicals cannot be changed. Allow me to share these two points of pragmatic realism:

(1) Words and language take on the meaning that people say they do, simply by the prevalence of their everyday usage. That's how the best dictionaries are compiled, and where they find their direction. The word "Fundamentalism" did not always mean to Christians and the public at large what it means today. In its origins and early usage it was much like the earlier use of Evangelicalism, at least so far as its adherents aspired to live in faithful adherence to the fundamental truth of the Scriptures. But it has long had an unfortunate, unchanging meaning and irredeemable identity to the world at large. And my sense is that the word Evangelical has already been relegated to the same place in the perceptions of the general public and most other Christians. In each case, it is the portrayed public identity and conduct of the adherents' most vocal spokespersons--their de facto leaders--that defined their identity for the public at large.

(2) Another noteworthy point: without a credible and broadly supported authoritative body to publicize, clarify, and defend this statement's view of the evangelical identity, it remains just one view among others. The prevailing public view will therefore remain intact and the further public failure of the Evangelical identity becomes inevitable. But because Evangelicals are such a varied, fragmented, and disorganized group, the probability of finding this broad agreement and support is unlikely. And those who agree and support it will be a smaller group who will eventually have to qualify their identifying name and distinguish their evangelical identity in Christ.


But isn't it clear that no matter what other name might ever be chosen, if the behavior of Christians and their perception by the world brings discredit upon them, theirs too will become an unwelcome and shunned identity. And then a faithful remnant will have to re-establish that identity again. That's a significant, predictable strand that runs through the history of protestant and reformed Christian churches: renewing, falling short, disagreeing, dividing or re-identifying, reforming, and renewing again. But thank God that there is the freedom to reform and refocus ourselves on Jesus, to "Keep the Main Thing the main thing," as my pastor so often says.

My pragmatism and human disappointments aside, Christians are called always to be God's people of Hope, to continually seek and live in Christ and God's Love, and to be His forgiving resurrection people. Evangelical pastors and church leaders need to take ownership of this fledgling movement and its statement of authentic evangelical Christian identity--or, Christian identity, period, I'd say--and publicly approve it, publish it, preach it, teach it, defend it and--most importantly--live it!

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Conway Morris: Evolutionary "Convergences"--with a Purpose?

"An immensely stimulating book. It draws you in with bold hypotheses and original perspectives. I was inspired to take a fresh look at my work and see if could apply some of the ideas in my lab."
--Ard Louis, Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, UK

Simon Conway Morris has delivered the next installment of his and others' work and thinking on the subject of evolutionary convergences. It is titled, The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal? This volume is a compendium of articles addressing the question of whether the phenomenon of convergence of form and function plays a more universal and central role in the evolution of life forms on Earth--and whether evolutionary "direction" or "purpose," by some definition, can be inferred from it.

Authors representing interests as varied as micro-biology and botany to human evolution and metaphysics offer a range of views on these basic questions and whether there results a "deeper structure," even lawfulness, in the world of biology. These propositions were more comprehensively presented and defended by Conway Morris in his 2003 book, audaciously titled, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

Dr. Conway Morris is Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, UK. His pioneering work on the Cambrian fauna and "explosion" (of life and species, that is) based on the Burgess Shale fossils was the subject of his 1998 book, The Crucible of Creation. It earned him world-wide professional recognition and respect. He is a member of the Royal Society and has been the recipient of many professional awards and medals. (And I look forward to his next book, Darwin's Compass.)

But his work on evolutionary convergences has been more controversial, running against the established orthodoxy of evolutionary science's mainstream--from the random-process proponents such as the late Stephen Jay Gould (Wonderful Life and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory), to the anti-theists led by Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene; The Blind Watchmaker; and The God Delusion) and Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Breaking the Spell). While most all evolutionary scientists recognize the operation of evolutionary convergences to some extent, relatively few as yet appear willing to entertain the notion that it is as central and directing of evolutionary processes as Conway Morris proposes.

By "convergences" is meant the tendency of evolving forms to find the same or very similar evolutionary solutions or advancements regardless of when or on what branch of the evolutionary tree the life form evolves. Overworked examples would include camera eyes and various types of limbs for mobility and manipulation, among many others. Convergences are, for the most part, a function of the constraints and contingencies of Earth's environment and the creative aspects of the genetic transmission process. And Conway Morris, a versatile, multi-disciplinary scientist, explores in Life's Solution the role of genetics, but also just how limiting the universe and the Earth are: the limited types of elements in the universe, the probable limitation of life to carbon-based forms, the narrow tolerances for supporting life on Earth or anywhere else in the universe, and the many evolving, shaping determinants of survival and function. Most controversial, perhaps, is his proposition that sentience and cognition are also convergent solutions, and that something like intelligent humans would evolve regardless of how many times you rerun the evolutionary process of life.

Some of the skepticism or resistance is likely just the normal and reasonable process of the scientific ship turning slowly, the need for more evidence and more time for greater numbers of respected voices to recognize the merit of such a significant change in evolutionary thinking. Of course, some of those voices also have vested professional interests in research and publications based on the current orthodoxy. But others, primarily the anti-theists, are fearful that any move toward the notion of "direction" or "purpose" greases a slippery slope into broader acceptance of theistic evolution, a new refuge for the "intelligent design" proponents, and into the embrace of the great unwashed throngs of religious folks. And to make Conway Morris' task more sensitive, he is a confessing Christian and member of the Anglican church.

Regardless, the skeptics and anti-theists will still take a measure of comfort in the fact that however provocative this research and thinking, however appealing its more deterministic mechanisms to people of faith, it still takes us no closer to proving or disproving the existence of God. Yet, it nonetheless reflects more how we faithful might envision how a creative Author Spirit or God might order, direct, and carry out His purposes for creation. I conclude on this point as I did in my essay, What God?:

“And so I am left with my epiphanies, still asking, what could be more miraculous and awe-inspiring, more beautiful, more humbling, than the complexities and unfathomable realities of evolutionary mechanisms and the progress of life? How else than through these evolving biochemical, genetic, social and psychological processes might all of creation have moved continually upward toward sentience and cognition, curiosity and questioning, the pursuit of truth and identity? For what other purpose might we be brought face to face with the history of the development of creation, and those transcendent apprehensions that lead us, than to seek the sensed Author and understandings of why we are now here?"

Physics for Poets, and Non-Poets, Too

New Naples FL friend, Dr. Kerson Huang, is seeing to my basic education in physics. Kerson is Emeritus Professor of Physics at MIT and way overqualified for the task. But among his many publications, he authored a readable, basic review of the history, people and ideas of physics: Fundamental Forces of Nature: The Story of Gauge Fields, which is just what I needed. If like me, you have read through some of Stephen Hawking's well-illustrated books for common consumption (e.g., A Short History of Time and The Theory of Everything), and felt you really needed a better grounding in the basics, this might be just the right background book for you, too.

A native of China, but a long-time resident of the US, Kerson is another versatile and multi-talented academic. As a young man, he rendered the first translation of Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat into Chinese--a translation still used in China today--and also authored an authoritative version of the I Ching, based on its original, pre-Confucian historical form. All Kerson's many textbooks and the I Ching are available through Amazon.com.

(It's okay to pitch good stuff from good people, isn't it?)

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Washington Post - ABC News Poll: Unacknowledged Racial Bias?


MSNBC reports on a recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll: On the one hand, respondents indicated that,

  • 70% of whites denied racial bias, and

  • Nearly 90% of whites say they would be "comfortable" with a Black president, 67% "entirely comfortable," and

  • Only about 32% of all adults say they would be entirely comfortable with someone becoming president at age 72.
On the other hand, the same respondents indicated that,

  • Just over 50% of whites called Obama a "risky" choice for president, and

  • 67% of whites called McCain a "safe" choice!
So let's understand this: While 70% of white Americans deny racial bias, and 90% say they would be comfortable with a Black president, over 50% of those white people say Obama is a "risky" choice for president. Obama, as well educated, accomplished and able a presidential candidate of any race that could be hoped for, risky. And while only 32% of all adults would be entirely comfortable with a 72-year old president-elect, 67% of whites consider 72-year old McCain a "safe" choice. McCain, 72, running against a Black-American, multi-racial man, safe.

Any questions?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25310337/

Saturday, June 21, 2008

2008: Shaped by the Internet Odyssey

"My mind isn't going—so far as I can tell—but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I'm reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages." ---Nicholas Carr

When my latest edition of the Atlantic arrived recently, bold, multi-colored print announced the cover article: "Is Google Making Us Stoopid? What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains," by Nicholas Carr. A possible piece for a blog post, I thought, but such a hackneyed notion. My son and daughter would clearly dismiss it as overreacting or not seeing the whole picture and progressive time line. I put the idea aside for more pressing topics. Then I received a group e-mail from old friend Bob N highlighting the same article. I looked at it again.

The piece is not so much another example of yesterday's education and technology railing, crying wolf, or resentfully pouting about what is new and now embraced by a successor generation--as has often been the case. Rather, the article explores what has always been true and false about these generation-to-generation progressions and what the changes mean, pluses and minuses. But after he pleads his mea culpa, and recognizes that he may also fall into that grousing last-generation role, he nonetheless stands by his concerns.

He makes the following points, among many others:
  • Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that's been written about the Net, there's been little consideration of how, exactly, it's reprogramming us. The Net's intellectual ethic remains obscure.

  • "The media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains."

  • Univerity College London study report: It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of "reading" are emerging as users "power browse" horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

  • The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition.

  • Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. "I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader," he wrote. "What happened?" He speculates on the answer: "What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I'm just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?"

  • In Google's world, the world we enter when we go online, there's little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive...The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It's in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

  • The Net's influence doesn't end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people's minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience's new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, TheNew York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts...

  • As we are drained of our "inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance," Foreman concluded, we risk turning into "'pancake people'—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button."

  • Yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism [, but...]

  • In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.

And as I find myself further and further emersed in the internet machinery, technology and methodology, I sense some of this happening to me, too.


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Fight-the-Smears.com: Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan

Accordingto this Time article, "Can Obama Shred the Rumors," the Obama campaign has set up a new website, fightthesmears.com, to respond to and set straight the unending, unfounded internet rumors denying or disparaging his personal and family history, his mixed racial background, his faith, his personal and professional accomplishments, his wife's views, and his patriotism. It has all gotten too personal and too far out of hand (and it has often succeeded in avoiding discussion of real policy issues). And, according to the "Shred the Rumors" article, Obama will also enlist his millions of internet warriors to help track down the sources of the rumors and make them public, too. Perhaps there will result some deterrence in this aggressive appoach--for the candidates, if not the sources.

The sources are most often anonymous political operatives--the dark forces operatives, I call them--who work out of the dark, unaccountable corners of the internet. It is not always clear to what extent they are formally commissioned by candidates or campaigns, or to what extent it is the work of freelancing political zealots. But political insiders suggest that the candidates or campaigns often approve these attacks, if they do not actually initiate them, and they could always stop them if they really wanted to.

It has been reported that many of these fabrications and distortions about Obama have come out of sources related to or supporting the Hillary Clinton primary campaign. But both Republican and racist interests are suspected, as well. And their efforts will likely continue. But John McCain has always been an honorable, straight-up man, as has Barack Obama. And they have apparently agreed not to employ or approve these dark tactics. Lets hope that's true. But for many, it is hard to resist when so much is at stake--and besides, who knows if you can trust your opponents integrity or word, right? Another Time article, "To Swift-Boat or Not," explores these questions and the attractions, successes and dangers of these various tactics or "swift-boating"--and the question of whether McCain and Obama are, or can be, above it all.

I guess it had to come to this. And I'm pleased that it did. It's time for accountability. While smear tactics have always been part of hard-ball politics, I guess, the boldness of the lies, misrepresentations and propaganda have ratcheted up noticeably from the time of Richard Nixon's Dirty Tricks cadre to Bush/Rove's agents in the despicable "swift-boating" of the military service of John Kerry. And in between, Bill and Hillary Clinton & Company set some new all-time lows of their own. But with Obama, it's all been more ugly, and more purposefully distracting from the real issues of the campaign. It probably has something to do with the fact that he is the first Black-American, multiracial presidential candidate in American history. Maybe? And that he is an extraordinarily accomplished candidate who has a very good chance of winning.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Gentile American Zionism? Yes, It's True

Why has America so predictably, consistently and substantially supported Israel since its creation in 1948? So often we read or hear from certain quarters that it is because our politics and policy are so disproportionately influenced by Jewish interests, the so-called "Israel Lobby." It is surely true that such interests have always been afoot, and wielding as much political influence as they can, no doubt. But this article in Foreign Affairs, "The New Israel and the Old," by Walter Russell Mead, affirms that the broader American gentile public has always deeply sympathized with, related to, and supported Israel and its interests.

Widespread gentile support for Israel is one of the most potent political forces in U.S. foreign policy...Over time, moreover, the pro-Israel sentiment in the United States has increased, especially among non-Jews. ...The increase has occurred even as the demographic importance of Jews has diminished. In 1948, Jews constituted an estimated 3.8 percent of the U.S. population. Assuming that almost every American Jew favored a pro-Israel foreign policy that year, a little more than ten percent of U.S. supporters of Israel were of Jewish origin. By 2007, Jews were only 1.8 percent of the population of the United States, accounting at most for three percent of Israel's supporters in the United States...These figures, dramatic as they are, also probably underestimate the true level of public support for Israel.


This article explores the history and reasons for this unique relationship--and the references go all the way back to founding father John Adams. There is the shared Judeo-Christian religious foundations in the Bible's Old Testament, the shared sense of coming to America and it's "promised land" experience, the importance of Israel's future to certain Christian groups and their prophetic biblical interpretations related to the second coming of Christ--and more!

Monday, June 16, 2008

We Christians & The Poor

Why is it that so many of us—Christians, that is—don't understand our relationship and obligations to the poor? And then there are those old friends on the Christian Right who indulge the notion that being against government social programs and against paying taxes—especially, taxes for programs to help the poor—is somehow consistent with the teaching of Jesus or living the Christian life. I do understand, in part, for there was a time when I lived half in and half out of that faith-life contradiction. But I now believe there is no reconciling those views with the example, teaching and life of Jesus.

So, now that I have your attention, allow me to expand on and substantiate these purposeful provocations. Jesus in the Gospels, like Moses in the Pentateuch, makes clear that the Christian's most important relationship and obligation is to love God with all their being and then to let that love overflow to all mankind—even their enemies. And, arguably, the Christian's second most important is to provide for and serve the poor. This is not works theology, but rather recognizable fruit and a measure of selfless faith and love of God. Do you doubt this? Then, let's look deeper at some Scriptural guidance.

A central teaching is in the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew at verse 31, a section my NAS Bible informally titles, "The Judgment." And it is in the context of final judgment that Jesus offers the teaching on the separating of the sheep from the goats—and that the "sheep" are to "inherit the kingdom prepared for [them] from the foundation of the world." Why? Because the "sheep" are those who serve Him by serving the poor: giving them food and drink and clothing, visiting and helping the sick, and visiting the prisoner. The "goats" are those who do not serve the poor, and therefore do not serve Jesus. They will be judged "accursed" and sent "into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." However a faithful and thoughtful Christian may relate to the hellfire and brimstone imagery or metaphor, there can be little doubt of how high a personal and community priority Jesus' teaching places on providing for the poor. If we do not follow this teaching, we do not follow him.

And the Gospels and Epistles offer many other everyday examples and events that make clear the special relationship of the poor with Jesus and God, and highlight the attention and healing directed by Jesus and the Apostles to them. It is hard to miss the point, yet somehow so many of us do.

But there are also those who would cavalierly invoke Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 10, saying, ".. if [I] confess with [my] mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in [my] heart that God raised him from the dead, [I] shall be saved." "So, I'm covered," they would say. For those folks, I would only note that Jesus is not Lord if they do not endeavor to follow his example and teaching, especially a teaching with such important implications as this one. They appear as those who would say, "Lord, Lord," but follow Him only when it is convenient.

Yet, it is still so easy for some to take out of context and embrace Jesus' statement in Chapter 26 of Matthew's Gospel, that "... the poor will always be with us." It is easy to allow that phrase to serve as a rationale for diverting the bounty provided us to first acquire our finer things in life—and to pursue that consumption with a shrug of the shoulder that suggests there is no helping the poor anyway because, after all, they will always be with us. But it is clear, isn't it, that this phrase uttered by Jesus, and His broader teaching, is not a dismissal of the poor at all, but rather addresses a more important point about the exception that proves and affirms the rule?

In that unique circumstance, Jesus reminds the disciples that they are there and then dealing with that most important obligation and relationship: the love, reverence and adoration of Jesus and God. Implicitly, in other circumstances, providing for the poor would take priority. And this is affirmed by the instinctive response of Jesus' disciples that a thing of value—especially costly perfume or oil like that being being applied to Jesus' hair—would be sold and the proceeds given to the poor. And that was so even when they were living largely on the charity of others. Surely the old adage, "We are called [by God] to serve, not to succeed," would find appropriate context and application for us today to the extent we wring our hands over whether or not we can make a difference in the lives of the poor.

And what of the inclination of some to be distrustful of government or disinclined to give or increase their taxes owing, however understandable that may sometimes seem? Aren't we admonished in Paul's Epistle to the Romans,

...to be subject to the governing authorities...For there is no authority except from God...[And] because of this [and for "conscience' sake"] you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due [government], custom to whom custom...

And when confronted about paying the Roman poll tax, didn’t Jesus simply, tersely, admonish the duplicitous Pharisees and the secular Herodians to "...render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's”? When these two teachings of Paul and Jesus are taken together, isn’t it hard not to conclude that we are to honor government and play a supportive role because it is God’s means of assuring civil order, public protection and supportive community? And when the taxes “rendered unto Caesar" so clearly serve the purposes of God, including providing for the poor, shouldn't there at least be a comfortable, affirmed sense of acceptance in the giving?

Further, isn't it clear that, however innovative and important their contribution, all the faith-based ministries and private charities together cannot come close to meeting the needs of the poor? Isn't it clear that only the scope, resources and authority of our government can meet that need? Don't we then have to view our taxes—in part, at least—as a tithe-like contribution to serving the poor and those in need and, in the process, serving our Lord?

Now, if only I could live this teaching as well as I understand it, and as passionately as I share it with you.

[ See also my two essays "The Limits of Merit and Choice" and "See Me, Help Me" in my Cassandra's Tears series. They provide a more comprehensive, secular and societal treatment of issues related to the poor and those in need. As important as biblical guidance is to the Christian community, reflections on how science, social science, economics, and the view from the human community may inform us on these issues are also important.]



Sunday, June 8, 2008

Tony Blair's Redemption

Tony Blair wants to build bridges. Figurative bridges, that is. Bridges among people of various religions, and between them and the secular world. He thinks that is essential for the so-called globalization process to proceed well and end well for the diverse peoples of the world. "Faith is part of our future," says Blair. And his platform from which to approach his new mission, however quixotic, is his newly established Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

The article in Time, linked below, offers that,

For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance—the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history—and extremism. [Adds Ruth Turner, who will head the foundation,] 'You can't hope to understand what's happening in the world if you don't know that religion is a very important force in people's lives...You can't make the world work properly unless you understand that, while not everyone will believe in God or have a spiritual life, a lot of people will.'

But the article caused me to consider anew the non sequitur apparent, the conundrum posed by a man of such considerable and substantive Christian faith and convictions as Prime Minister Tony Blair: how could he so readily, so unquestioningly, get on board the Bush-Cheney Baghdad Express? Regardless, the article suggests, that legacy will pose a barrier to his vision and mission:

For many Britons, the fact that Blair led them into a deeply unpopular war in Iraq is reason enough to question his sincerity. And the supposed 'God is on our side' messianism of George W. Bush—Blair's geopolitical partner—is widely loathed in Britain.

And anyone who reads the news magazines and newspapers, or listens to the nightly television news, knows this view is not limited to Britain. It is shared widely in Europe and the Middle East, and by large numbers of people in North America and Asia, too. And the Christian religion itself, combined with Blair's role in the Iraq war, is a controversial foundation from which to approach healing and relationship building among today's estranged or unfriendly peoples, especially in the Middle East. As Time puts it,

...in many nations, the legacy of the 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq—both of which Blair is deeply associated with—have soured the environment for anything that looks even remotely like Western Christian proselytizing...[and] Blair's history as a partner of Bush—and hence the skepticism with which his good faith is held—means he has high hurdles to leap if he is to turn his fine words into action.

But perhaps, as much as anything else, it all has to do with pursuing his personal sense of redemption for those political decisions and actions taken, the causes of the widespread skepticism about his good faith. Perhaps when it all mattered most, he did not consult the heart of his faith, the teaching and heart of Christ. But there is an old adage among the faithful that says, "We are not called [by God] to succeed, but to serve." And there is redemption in that service as well, especially when it follows a period of placing highly questionable secular considerations ahead of more discerning and selfless public leadership and service.

Many of us shared some of his errors of judgment about early decisions to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraq—but we did so without clear understandings of the existence or credibility of available intelligence, without the wiser counsel of regional experts on the cultural realities, sectarian history, and fragmented politics of the place. We were denied the experienced voices of regional diplomats. And some of us also failed to appropriately consult our faith in those decisions. But regardless, as soon as the truth began to leak out through credible voices and found its way to print, many of us quickly pleaded our mea culpa, did our penance, and changed our position on the war.

Some of us even felt the need to go back and consult our guiding faith principles—as well as we could discern them for such cases—and work them through the filter of faith-based realism and defense of community. My personal essay on this matter, When War?, can be accessed by clicking on Cassandra's Tears in the right hand margin of my blogsite under Personal Essays Series. Perhaps Tony Blair's sense of redemption would also be more satisfying, more complete—and his credibility more likely restored—if he were to sit down and write his own cathartic essay on the subject, and then share it with the rest of us.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810020,00.html

Saturday, June 7, 2008

China's High-Stakes "SAT"

It's called the gao kao (pronounced "gow cow"). It means the "high test." And your scores on it must be high, indeed, to secure a place at one of China's first-tier universities. To harbor hope of any manner of professional life makes admission to some university essential—and the gao kao score is the sole criterion for university admission. So everything depends on it.

China now appears to be reflecting an understanding of the importance of developing its human capital, which means providing higher education to its substantial population of higher potential students. But the number of universities and the opportunities are relatively fewer in China, and the competition for seats at the best of them is as competitive as any universities in the world.

This article in Slate describes the perpetual stress of preparing year after year for the gao kao. It is a two-day test that measures everything students have learned in their entire academic lives and, in a most real sense, determines their academic and professional future. And as is the case with some of their Asian neighbors, they appear to believe it acceptable, even necessary to their competitive success, to sacrifice a more flexible and nurthuring childhood education and development process. That's high-stakes testing—and high-stakes education, too.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192732/?GT1=38001

Friday, June 6, 2008

Obama, Trinity Church, Pastor Wright & More

I have avoided addressing this issue because it is complicated—and because your conclusions about it depend very much on what you personally bring to it, and how you feel about the man Barack Obama, all things considered. But I recently received this query from a thoughtful and respected friend:

"Hi Greg:
...On a separate political issue, I'd be interested in your views on Obama's church and any implications you take from the positions of the pastors. I find the issue somewhat troubling."

So, now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, now that he has resigned his membership at Trinity Church, now that emotions have settled a little about the whole issue—but since it still matters—I share here an edited version of my response to my friend.

  • . . . . . . . . .

Like you, I found the whole business with Trinity Church and Pastor Wright unsettling and potentially troubling. Certainly it has hurt Obama with a lot of white voters—and it caused me to take a harder look at the issue. And I must admit I am relieved he resigned his membership in Trinity Church yesterday.


But my first question about Obama has always been this: Do I trust the best of what I read and hear about him, and what I hear from him? Can I take seriously his core message of seeking more unity and working across barriers: political, cultural, racial, and yes, religious barriers. And then, do I trust his apparent honesty and transparency—reasonably, that is, within the context and limitations of political life and realities? Do I trust what he represents his identity and values to be? Do I trust him on the issues?


Here are the most important considerations for me about his Trinity Church experience, and about Obama the man:


  • First, many people, white and Black, who have been an active part of church congregations for many years don't identify as much with the pastor as they do with their life and friends in the larger congregation. It is their community. They may disagree strongly with a pastor or dislike him or her strongly, but it is still their church, and pastors come and go. My parents have been part of a church for over 60 years, and that's just the way they've felt about it and its pastors who have come and gone. (Still, there are limits for us all, somewhere.)

  • Second, most of us in white America, including white church-going America, really have no idea of the culture and politics of Black inner-city churches. Many, apparently, are very much like Trinity Church. They are committed to their faith and it's teaching, to charity, kindness and love in their church and community. They have extensive helping and compassion ministries in the inner cities (which is what originally attracted Obama). But they sometimes do not hesitate to describe—just as they see it—the place of inner-city Black life within the larger white society and body politick. And their pastors sometimes take their social issues and politics to the pulpit. It is not nuanced; it is their complaint about the life and circumstances historically dealt them. (And it can sound racist or unpatriotic, even frightening to many white folks.)

  • Still, many in such churches do not share those views, or the circumstances that produced them. But they understand and sympathize with the unique facets, contours and history of Black inner city life and church community. Martin E. Marty, emeritus professor of theology and former dean of the University of Chicago School of Divinity recently wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (4.11.08) explaining such Black churches and pastors within the context of their place, and praising them for the powerful, constructive force for good they are in those places. Interestingly, Professor Marty is also a long-term member of Trinity Church, the same church as Obama. And he was writing principally to provide understanding of Trinity Church and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

  • But Professor Marty too denounced Wright's more socially offensive views, ascribing them to the scar tissue remaining from Wright's generation's social activism working against racial discrimination and segregation. And he clearly implied, I thought, that it was error to ascribe Wright's more offensive views to him or Obama just because they understood and sympathized with the social context and history of their development, and because within that context they still respected their pastor.

  • Obama is not a product of the inner city Black culture. He grew up in a white American family, but in diverse places among diverse peoples (Hawaii, for most of his upbringing, but with a stay in Indonesia, age 6-10). He was parented in the early years by his white mother and later, significantly perhaps, by his white grandparents. His story is well known (if often misrepresented).

  • And after graduating from college at Columbia, he looked in the mirror and saw a multi-racial man, more Black in appearance, who lacked any real sense of his Black identity. And although his father was African, Obama lived in America, and he would have to find his sense of Black identity within Black America. That, combined with his mother's example and encouragement to community service, brought him to Chicago's South Side and Trinity Church—by all accounts, the biggest, most respected and effective Black church in the area. And there he poured himself into community organizing and serving his church. There he built an understanding of being a Black American serving others in the Black community through a Black church.

  • Of course, Obama later distinguished himself further, proving he was among the very brightest and most able as he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he also earned singular recognition as President of the Harvard Law Review. But, after a few years of law practice, and despite all the opportunities available for a distinguished and lucrative law career, he chose the more selfless direction of public service through the adjunct teaching of law and politics. He was seven years an Illinois state senator and is now a U.S. senator from Illinois. And the clear strength of his ability and his potential has again quickly propelled him to greater political prominence, now as a serious candidate with a serious chance to be elected President of the United States.

  • He now has a clear and mature sense of who he is, and who he is not. He is not a white man, although he has much of a white man's cultural relationships, experiences and values. It's part of who he is. He is not a Black man, although he looks more like one, and has committed a significant part of his life to understanding and serving Black American people in the most challenging of community settings. That too is part of his identity. He is, at the least, a very special person with very unique experience.

  • Barack Obama is a Christian man, but respects people of all faiths. He is a humanitarian, and his starting point is to respect all people and their differences. As a Christian and humanitarian, he cares about the poor and would provide better for them. He also knows the teaching of his faith: that after loving God and loving mankind, our next most important responsibility is to provide for the poor. And Jesus' goats-and-sheep example makes clear that we are to be measured on how well we follow that teaching. And the poor desperately need health care. So do lots of other people, too—47 million in 2005, and many more now. Obama will accountably address the needs of the poor and the need of all people for health care.

  • Barack Obama is a man who understands that the prudent exercise of reason and Christ's teaching, too, provide but narrow circumstances where war is acceptable. It is to be avoided—like all anger and aggression—except in the case of defense of community. He knows—as most everyone does now—that prosecuting the Iraq War was an error, and it certainly wasn't defensive. As became the case in Vietnam, it will be unbearably heartbreaking to count a son, daughter, wife or husband among the last to die for a mistaken war that must soon end. I served six years in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. And it took me eight more years to read enough and be open enough to recognize that many good friends died there for nothing. It breaks my heart profoundly to know that so many of my brother Marines are now dying for nothing in Iraq. Obama will bring them out—responsibly, prudently, but he will bring them out.
I recognize in Barack Obama the best of all those experiences and influences in both his uniquely American identity and his gifted leadership potential. I can see how his family and life experiences fashioned an insightful, discerning, and self-assured multi-racial identity. And I can understand how that inspired him to hope and work for a greater sense of shared American identity and unity among all American people. That would be a welcome change in direction. I can see how he would earnestly make that a core value of his campaign identity.

At worst, he has been naive, but his transparency, his honesty (more than most politicians, at least) and his superior intellect and strength of character always win back the day for me. He is on the right side of issues most important to me, and I trust him on those issues. He still has a lot to learn, but he is a fast study, and how many presidents take office without a lot to learn, regardless of their political background?

And I have no questions about his patriotism. He is an American original, and he loves this country. And I believe he will defend it staunchly whenever the circumstances require it. But it troubles me that some would paint him unpatriotic because of his position against a misguided and debilitating Iraq War, or the misguided comments of his old pastor, or because he would open or broaden needed dialogue with threatening or unpredictable world powers (to keep potential enemies closer to us). And then there is the tactic of ascribing patriotic significance to whether one wears a flag pin or not, calling us back, dangerously, to the worst brand of McCarthy-era political intimidation, fear mongering and propaganda. What's next, loyalty oaths? Regrettably, we are likely to hear and see more of these sorts of campaign tactics.

But in the end, looking through all the campaign misinformation and misdirection tactics, I find an extraordinarily talented person I respect and trust. I could be wrong, of course. I make no guarantees. Nor do I expect others to be persuaded by my views; few have been. We are on new ground, traveling nervously on an unknown path. It has both exhilarating and dispiriting twists and turns to it. And, regardless of the result, it is social and cultural progress; it is civilization's progress. But in the end, I do believe this is the right person to lead our increasingly racially diverse and challenged country, and address an increasingly racially complex and challenged world.

Greg

Monday, June 2, 2008

Gender Parity in Math? It's All About Culture (But What of Geometry & Reading?)

The Economist this week reports this conclusion from a new study published in Science: culture explains most of the difference in the gender gap in math. But what of geometry scores and the gender gap in reading?

Yes, on average, across all data, girls math scores were lower than boys, reflective of the gender gap so often reported. But they also found that the gap in math scores was greatest in countries where there was the least equality between males and females. And in countries where males and females enjoyed gender equity, more or less, girls' math scores increased notably and the gender gap mostly disappeared (except, that is, for geometry scores, where the boys consistently retained their performance advantage, regardless of cultural backdrop).

But the other big surprise was that in countries with gender equality, where girls achieved competitive equality in math, they not only retained their competitive advantage over boys in reading and verbal skills, they increased the gender reading gap.

The authors note that girls' competitive advantage in reading vs. a competitive disadvantage in math had long been viewed as explaining why women so often gravitated to career areas other than math or hard sciences. And my recent (1.19.08) post on this site, The Freedom to say 'No,' reported that other researchers had found that girls with math scores and performance ability equal to those of boys still most often chose other careers, but "because they would simply rather do something else."

But these new, more extensive findings better explain why women remain more likely to gravitate to those other career areas, regardless of math scores. (And, as in the case of geometry scores, don't we have to conclude that the reading performance gap is apparently not a function of culture?) Regardless, the bottom line, say the researchers, is all about women's competitive advantage. And the upshot of all this could be unsettling or even threatening for men:

"In other words," they surmise, "girls may acquire an absolute advantage over boys as a result of equal treatment."

Hmmm. Go girl?

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449804