Thursday, April 30, 2009

Finding or Not Finding Spiritual Growth

The reasons behind the swap depend greatly on whether one grows up kneeling at Roman Catholic Mass, praying in a Protestant pew or occupied with nonreligious pursuits, according to a report issued Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

While Catholics are more likely to leave the church because they stopped believing its teachings, many Protestants are driven to trade one Protestant denomination or affiliation for another because of changed life circumstances, the survey found....

The report estimates that between 47 percent and 59 percent of U.S. adults have changed affiliation at least once. Most described just gradually drifting away from their childhood faith.

"This shows a sort of religion a la carte and how pervasive it is," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "In some ways, it's an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there's a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving.

--"Survey: Americans switch faiths often," Associated Press, msnbc


Seekers are what all Christians--and all spiritual folk, for that matter--should be. We are invited by our reverenced Scriptures, and the Spirit that speaks to us in our quiet time with God, to be constantly evolving, changing, becoming that "new person in Christ," even "lost with Christ in God." So why should we be at all surprised that people feel called to set out anew in search of that spiritual place and identity best suited to lead them on the next steps of their spiritual journey?

Certainly it is understandable for those leaving the spiritual nest of their early faith life, and those who have moved to a new geographical location. And it is the necessary next step, of course, for those who are for the first time responding to a spiritual disposition to find God or are returning to relationship with Him. But it is also necessary for those who have been in some religious communities too long, so long that spiritual growth and change are now limited by the identity and lack of openness of that faith community. These are the more difficult, painful situations for all involved, but it is equally important for the seeker to move on from there, too.

From my essay "Getting Out," in the Beyond Life's Boxes series:

But to entertain change, to qualify or broaden your perspective, is not often encouraged or even abided. The limits and rigidities of most people’s emotional need for others’ unchanging identity, the need to define prevailing orthodoxy, those conforming and nonconforming, creates an ideological, philosophical and theological firewall which excludes truly open-minded inquiry, analysis and exchange.

And so, most cannot comfortably abide change in others—not without a sense of breach of faith or broken trust, that is. To grow further always seems to require a change in identity, an element of abandonment, pure and simple. That’s just life in those boxes. Change brings marginalization, and notable change, alienation. There is nowhere to go but out and away. And the relationships, at least anything enduring about them, often ends there, too.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30438969/

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Specter Moves to Democratic Party

"This is a painful decision," said Specter at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. "I know that I'm disappointing a lot of my friends and colleagues...[but] the disappointment runs in both directions."

Specter, 79, a veteran of 29 years in the Senate, has found his [Republican] party dominated by conservatives and himself becoming one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining among the 535 members of Congress.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to politics in his home state, Pennsylvania, and confirmed by his office.

--"Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties," NBC News

And so say many of us who have been philosophically moved to claim independent voter status or affiliate with the Democratic Party over the last eight years. Welcome, Senator Specter. And we welcome the prospect of a 60th vote, if needed, on important legislation such as healthcare access and reform.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Articles, Opinions: China's Way Forward, The US Response

Idle factories, moored container ships, widespread bankruptcies, massive migration back to the hinterlands, strangely clean air—the signs of depression are everywhere in China. Because it makes so many of the goods the world isn't buying now, China stands to be worse hit than the rest of the world —just as America was during the Depression, when it was the world's sweatshop. But like America then, China will use tough times to design innovative products that will get it the high profits and the high-value jobs Americans kept to themselves for decades. And that is very bad news for the United States, unless it uses tough times to reinvent itself, too....

Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government if it tries to sneak in new export subsidies or push the RMB's value back down. But no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people's work. Many Chinese companies will fail or make mistakes under today's intense pressure. But many are using the moment to prepare for their next advance. The question for Americans to think about is how we are using the same moment.

---"Interesting Times," by James Fallows, The Atlantic (April 2009)


A very good article. This Atlantic cover piece provides a broad, realistic perspective on China's struggle with this deep, global recession: suffering the deepest unemployment impact, protecting its sizable, favorable trade balance, and using this time of national stress and international weakness as an opportunity to strengthen its relative economic place and role in the world. James Fallows, a long-time China observer, visitor, and correspondent for The Atlantic, brings his substantial experience and understanding of China to this matter-of-fact treatment of China's unique challenges and opportunities.

A recent Washington Post article, "
China Uses Global Crisis to Assert Its Influence," looks from the outside at China's emboldened international posture. Rather than defensively drawing within itself during this time of extraordinary economic challenge, it is now openly and confidently exercising a critical voice on issues of self-interest, and increasingly, opportunisticly claiming a place of financial leadership in a struggling world. From the Post article:

Overseas aid and loans are just one way China is asserting itself in its new role as a world financial leader. While polishing China's own image, Premier Wen Jiabao and other top leaders have blamed the West for the global economic crisis. Chinese officials increasingly are challenging the primacy of the dollar, warning other countries about the danger of keeping reserves in just one or two currencies, such as dollars and euros. And as the global economic crisis has eroded faith in U.S.-style capitalism, there's growing talk that a new "Beijing Consensus" will replace the long-dominant Washington Consensus on how developing countries should manage their economies.

The current edition of Foreign Affairs also leads with two interesting opinion pieces written under the heading, "The China Challenge." The first is "The G-2 Mirage: Why the United States and China Are Not Ready to Upgrade Ties," by Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal. It argues that the opportunities for a stronger China-US bilateral relationship are limited by their different circumstantial interests and dictates, and that only inviting broader multilateral relationships can move China and the US forward together. From the article:

Calling on the United States and China to do more together has an undeniable logic. Both Washington and Beijing are destined to fail if they attempt to confront the world's problems alone, and the current bilateral relationship is not getting the job done. Real coordination on trade and currency reform remains stunted, both sides lag behind the rest of the world in addressing climate change, and meaningful partnership on global challenges -- from food safety to nuclear proliferation -- is limited.

But elevating the bilateral relationship is not the solution. It will raise expectations for a level of partnership that cannot be met and exacerbate the very real differences that still exist between Washington and Beijing. The current lack of U.S.-Chinese cooperation does not stem from a failure on Washington's part to recognize how much China matters, nor is it the result of leaders ignoring the bilateral relationship. It derives from mismatched interests, values, and capabilities.

The United States must accordingly resist the temptation to initiate a high-profile, high-stakes bilateral dialogue and instead embrace a far more flexible, multilateral approach to China. In other words, Obama should continue to work with China in order to address global problems, but he also needs to enlist the world to deal with the problems created by the rise of China.

The second Foreign Affairs piece is, "Deng Undone: The Cost of Halting Market Reform in China," by Derek Scissors. It takes a different tack. Staying with a bilateral model, Scissors argues for dialing back the unworkable scope of the US agenda for further reforming China's market economy, and focusing on a few important issues and pressing them aggressively. From Mr. Scissors:

The Chinese Communist Party no longer sees the pursuit of further genuine market-oriented reform as being in its interest. The burst of growth that the economy exhibited after the initial state-directed stimulus convinced the CCP that true liberalization is now unnecessary as well as sometimes painful. Whatever the objectives of the Obama administration, it must realize that it will be difficult to change Beijing's views quickly. True broad-based market-oriented reform in China should remain a long-term goal of U.S. economic policy. But for now, the Obama administration would do better to focus its economic diplomacy on evaluating and responding to the Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting state-led growth. It should not presume that Beijing will return to market reform anytime soon.

The U.S. government cannot afford to get this wrong. Because of the increasing pressure of the global economic crisis, some have called for a policy of partial disengagement. But the U.S.-Chinese relationship is the most important bilateral economic relationship in the world....Even incremental improvement in a relationship of this magnitude would have a large economic payoff, all the more so given the recent collapse of the global financial system.

And so he must engage China--only he [Obama] must do so while reorienting U.S.-Chinese trade policy in light of Beijing's lack of interest in discussing issues such as its subsidization of state enterprises and its apparent decision to halt market-oriented reform. Washington should encourage the Chinese to focus on a narrow range of feasible measures. Energy, the environment, and bilateral investment are fine topics for bilateral negotiations, but the agenda should be restructured to emphasize a series of meaningful reforms designed to, for example, liberalize prices, curb state dominance in corporations, shield U.S. companies from mercantilist measures, and allow money to move freely in and out of China.

So, despite their suffering at this time, China continues to assert itself, plan its continuing growth, and reach for international leadership. The Atlantic's Fallows dispassionately provides the more clear-eyed view of China, as it is, and where it is likely headed. While the Foreign Affairs article by Scissors acknowledges US failure to influence further market reforms in China, it presumes that market reform should continue to be our principal goal, and that we should pursue it aggressively. Although, he counsels, any near-term success will require paring significantly our economic reform agenda.

Understandably, but unrealistically, Scissors appears to presume that it is China's place to be more accomodating of US interests, geopolitically and economicly. After all, shouldn't China understand that that is the order of things? He does not appear moved by the reality that China understands full well where it's economic policy interests lie, and what the changes or reforms advocated by the US will mean for them, plus and minus, now and later. China's leadership is very astute about such things. And they do take the long view: politically, geopolitically and economically--and that means decades, not just the next economic or business cycle.

China will proceed in advancing their markets, businesses and higher-value employment, but only as fast and as far as it serves the evolving interest and preserves the advantage of China and its people--as they see it. More respect, patience and resilience might serve the US better at this point, more balanced realpolitik. Economy's and Segal's multilateral approach to working with China reflects the wisdom of practical reality. Only a multilateral approach will likely be effective with many issues; although, we will necessarily have to work some mutual issues on a bilateral basis. And that real-world approach would also encorporate Scissors' practical observation about a short list of issues for economic diplomacy.

But, whatever our agenda and tactics, we must approach those issues with Fallows' respect for China as it is today: their abundant strengths, considerable needs, their ascendant future--and their soverign sense of destiny in plotting their future in accordance with their view of their best interests. And then there's Fallow's question: is the US using this period of both weakness and opportunity to prepare and strengthen us for a changing international economy and geopolitical landscape, and our role in it? Embracing significant change will be, must be, our future, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/chinese-innovation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203823.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64946/elizabeth-c-economy-and-adam-segal/the-g-2-mirage

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64947/derek-scissors/deng-undone

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Perspective, Finally: The End of Excess


This is an article worth reading. All of it.

It is a Time article, "The End of Excess: Is This Crisis Good for America?" (The print version is titled, "That Was Then...and This is Now.") And it is worth the read, whatever your politics or views.

I've selected some excerpts, but there is just no way I can do justice to the scope of this article that way. And I've doubtless selected ones that appeal most to me. But there is much more. This is a big-picture piece, a perspective piece, that really helps readers see the broader, historical context and evolving social and economic factors behind it all--how we got where we are, and where we are likely headed.

We saw what was happening for years, for decades, but we ignored it or shrugged it off, preferring to imagine that we weren't really headed over the falls. The U.S. auto industry has been in deep trouble for more than a quarter-century. The median household income has been steadily declining this century ... but, but, but our houses and our 401(k)s were ballooning in value, right? Even smart, proudly rational people engaged in magical thinking, acting as if the new power of the Internet and its New Economy would miraculously make everything copacetic again. We all clapped our hands and believed in fairies.

...We knew, in our heart of hearts, that something had to give. Remember when each decade, not long after it finished, assumed a distinct character? ...But in all salient respects, "the '80s" — Reaganism's reshaping of the political economy, the thrall of the PC, the vertiginous rise in the stock market — did not end. The '80s spirit endured through the '90s and the 2000s, all the way until the fall of 2008, like an awesome winning streak in Vegas that went on and on and on....Even if deep down everyone knew that the spiral of overleveraging and overspending and the prices of stocks and houses were unsustainable, no one wanted to be a buzz kill.

But now everything really has changed....The party is finally, definitely over....Those of us old enough to remember life before the 26-year-long spree began will probably spend the rest of our lives dealing with its consequences — in economics, foreign policy, culture, politics, the warp and woof of our daily lives...

All that conventional wisdom about 2008 being a "change" year? We had no idea. Recently Rush Limbaugh appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, panicking not so much about the economy but about how the political winds are blowing as a result. If we finally manage to achieve something like universal health care, Limbaugh warned, it would mean "the end of America as we know it." He's right, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is the end of the world as we've known it. But it isn't the end of the world....

We'll see soon enough how well President Barack Obama copes, but long before the collapse, he clearly sensed the nature of the historical moment. His Democratic opponents were all over him a year ago when he gave the Reagan Revolution its due, but he was exactly right: "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America ... He tapped into what people were already feeling ... [He] transformed American politics and set the agenda for a long time ... In political terms, we may be in one of those moments where we can get a seismic shift in how the country views itself and our future. And we have to take advantage of that."

...A big reason for Obama's election and high approval ratings is his privileging of the empirical and pragmatic ahead of ideological reflex. We have not, of course, arrived in a golden age of fair-minded, intellectually honest postpartisanship, as proved by the congressional votes on the stimulus package and the redoubled ferocity of brain-dead partisans. But a majority of Americans out in America are dialing back or turning off their ideological autopilots, thanks to the economic crises, Obama's approach and the post–Cold War realities...But with the economy in uncharted territory, we'll come to recognize that party-line adherence to old political convictions won't provide any easy way out....

If you want to feel encouraged about our economic near future...ignore the stock traders and go talk to some venture capitalists.... [T]hey are optimistic about an imminent tide of innovations in technology, energy and transportation.... The next transformative, moneymaking technologies and businesses are no doubt coming soon to a garage near you....This is the moment for business to think different and think big. The great dying off of quintessentially 20th century businesses presents vast opportunity for entrepreneurs....[T]hey will have a clearer field in which to grow....

In fact, we surely will have to adjust the ways we think of ourselves. Still an exceptional country, absolutely, but not a magical one exempt from the laws of economic and geopolitical gravity. A nation with plenty of mojo left, sure, but in our 3rd century, informed by the wisdom of middle age a little more than the pedal-to-the-metal madness of youth....

But do read the whole article. It is worth the time.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887728,00.html

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

And Immigration, Too

AMERICA receives more immigrants than any other country. But its system for dealing with them is a model of dysfunctionality, with 11.9m illegally present in 2008, up 42% since 2000. Past efforts at reform have failed dismally. In 2006 protesters filled city streets after the House of Representatives passed a bill making illegal immigration a felony; but the proposal failed to pass muster in the Senate. The Senate's own effort in 2007 fared even worse. Police clashed with a crowd in Los Angeles. Opponents of reform barraged senators with so many calls that their phone system crashed. The Senate's bill, designed to please all sides, ended up pleasing no one.

Now Washington may try again.

--"All together now," The Economist (April 18, 2009)


You wouldn't think that President Obama's agenda or calendar could possibly accomodate another critical issue any time soon. Yet, his staff say that later this year Obama will address immigration reform and a process for legalizing illegal immigrants. Some advocacy groups expect to hear from Obama on the subject as early as next month, May. Major unions like the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition of unions have changed course and now are active advocates for the reform process. Business, too, although their agenda and that of the unions reflect notably differing interests.

It is time for intelligent, principled and pragmatic reform of our immigration policies and processes. We are after all, the great nation of immigrants: immigrants are who we are, and immigration is a foundation stone of our greatness. We should be able to manage this process a lot better than we do. It is also time for a fair and reasonable process for allowing illegal immigrants to achieve legal status as guest workers or legal immigrants.

But let's not press the issue precipitously or unwisely. The president is already up to his eyes in alligators with the economy and international issues and relationships. Rather, let's be patient enough to allow Obama and his team to get their timing right, be sure their allies are aligned and prepared, that a strong set of policies and plans are crafted, and that the necesssary time and effort has been devoted to informing and preparing the public. I do expect that he will get it right. From The Economist article:

When Mr Obama may dip his toe in these choppy waters, let alone dive in, remains unclear. "The president has consistently said that he wants to start the discussion later this year," says Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the White House. "But the economy comes first."

Sounds about right to me.

[For my reflections on these subjects, see my 2007 essay "Strangers, Different Folk,'" one of my Cassandra's Tears essays. And if you view yourself as a Christian, you may also be interested in my recent blog post, "Reminders for Christians," below.]


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496202

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Reminders for Christians

  • What is the first and greatest commandment?

    Love God with all that your are, and lose your identity in Him. Abide in Him and let His words abide in you. Then let that love flow over to your neighbors; love them as God loves you. (Matt. 22: 36-40; Matt. 16: 24-27; John 15; Gal.2: 19-20)

  • Who is my neighbor?

    Yes, even the foreigner and stranger, especially the foreigner in distress in a strange and threatening land. Yes, even your enemy. (Luke 10: 25-37; Matt. 5: 43-47; Col. 3: 10-17)

  • What does the New Testament make troublingly clear to us about how in the end God will judge us?

    Have you served Christ by serving and clothing the poor, feeding the hungry and and giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming with hospitality the stranger/foreigner, attending to and visiting the sick and the prisoner? If yes, you are the ones that Christ will claim for eternity. If no, then Christ will say to you, "Depart from me..." (Matt. 25: 31-46)

  • How should we judge others?

    We shouldn't. Jesus was particularly intolerant of legalistic people, the self-righteous, and the judgmental. We are called to see others through His eyes and love them with His heart--and leave the judgment to God. The lost people that God would have us serve are not drawn to us or Him by self-righteous, legalistic judgement toward them. (Matt. 7: 1-5; Matt. 9: 10-13; Matt. 23; 1 Cor 5:9-13; Col. 3)

  • What are the characteristics we should bring to our relationships with all people if we would be disciples and ambassadors of Christ?

    Unqualified love of all God's people and creation (1 Cor. 13; 1 John 4: 16-21; 1 John 2: 15-17; John 15; John 13: 34-35); unqualified, unlimited forgiveness (Matt. 6: 12, 14-15; Matt. 18: 21-35; Luke 7: 36-50); compassion (Matt. 5:7, 12-13; Matt. 9: 12-13; Matt.12: 7; John 8: 1-12); humility and gentleness (Matt. 5: 5; Matt. 11: 28-30; Matt. 21: 5; Eph. 4: 1-3; Col. 3: 12-15)

Real Tab for Bailout? A Lot Less Than You Think

Announced efforts top $7 trillion, but cost to taxpayers will be far lower.

Exact figures remain elusive, like most of the way the government handles and accounts for money, and it's complicated by a simmering alphabet soup of programs aimed at revving up the economy. The bottom line also depends on whom you ask....

So far, cash commitments made by various bailout efforts — including the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout and various lending programs by the Federal Reserve — are just shy of $3 trillion, Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for TARP, told the Senate Finance Committee March 31.

But the net cost to taxpayers will be much lower — more like $356 billion in direct spending — according to an analysis published last month by the Congressional Budget Office.

--"What's the real tab for the bailout? Take your pick " by John W. Shoen, msnbc.com


It's amazing how apparently ignorant or slyly disingenuous political players can act--particularly those who would have us believe that Obama's team has cavalierly, irresponsibly, spent $7-10 trillion for no good reason at all. It's as though they're saying that is just what Democrats do, or if you are a conservative Democrat, that is what liberal Democrats do. No one is pushing back very hard to make clear that these programs--most all of them--are completely consistent with the best macro-economic research and the views of the vast majority of the best economists today, whether Democrat or Republican. They may divide along party or ideological lines about how the money should be spent, but they all agree that the banking system bailout and the economic stimulus packages are essential.

And another fact that seems repeatedly and conveniently omitted is that most of the government support is not in the nature of unconditional spending of gifts. The msnbc.com article:

An analysis by msnbc.com concludes that Congress, the Fed and government agencies have announced plans to spend $7.2 trillion to fight the economic downturn, with the vast majority of that coming in the form of loans and loan guarantees.

So, this article is as welcome in it's clarifications as it is interesting. And it helps us put the Obama administration's various remedial and stimulus plans in better perspective. It also offers an entertaining and interactive "bailout breakdown" chart that allows you to add one separately identified spending program after another to an enlarging circle that keeps a cumulative total. It's fun. And if you want more of a discription of each of the programs, you can jump over to another article: "Bailout acronym soup: A handy guide," msnbc.com.

And now, Obama has appointed a Chief Performance Officer and a Chief Technology Officer to oversee a budget review process with the stated purpose to "trim the fat and waste from the budget." Good idea, and a first for presidential budget oversight. Many items have already been identified and, if we are to take the President seriously, many more will follow. The president:

"In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same.

"As surely as our future depends on building a new energy economy, controlling healthcare costs and ensuring that our kids are once again the best educated in the world, it also depends on restoring a sense of responsibility and accountability to our federal budget," Obama said. "Without significant change to steer away from ever-expanding deficits and debt, we are on an unsustainable course."


He has praised the efforts of Defense Secretary Gates in this area, and others in the congress--both Republicans and Democrats. Could it be that when the dust clears, Obama's presidency will not only have boldly saved us from a depression and restored us to economic health, but also brought more responsibility and accountability to the federal budgeting process than any Democrat or Republican in the last half century? So far, so good? You bet it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30115091/

Friday, April 10, 2009

Paul Krugman

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are.... Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

... But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

It's possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn't seem all that sorry....

Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. "He doesn't suffer fools. He doesn't like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn't like to be f––ked with," says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. "He's not a Jim Baker; he's not that kind of Princeton," says Wilentz... Krugman's fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren't true, just to see him get riled up. "He fell for it every time," said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. "You'd think that eventually, he would say, 'Oh, come on, you're just jerking my chain'." Krugman says he doesn't recall the incident, but says it's "possible."

---"
Obama's Nobel Headache," by Evan Thomas, Newsweek (3/28/09)


I find Paul Krugman very interesting, and often very provocative. He's is both fun and useful that way. But he seems to me too cavalier in advocating for more extensive or complete government take over of the private banking system, even if it's just until things turn around. It's a difficult balance, and it's messy to be sure, but I think Bernanke's approach of being wary of too much government control and adjusting the government role one step at a time is more prudent.

Also, Krugman leaves the impression that his disrespect toward Obama's economic team may, in part, be just the latest engagement in a career-long competitive relationship with Lawrence Summers--a competition in which Summers has previously, clearly emerged as more publicly and academically successful (even if often very controversial). But now the newly minted Nobel laureate has found his public voice, his forum, and his cause: undermining establish figures and establishment thinking. First the Bush administration, now Obama's. Sometimes, it seems, I can almost hear the axe grinding.

And I don't know why he is also so outspoken and uncollegial toward Bernanke, his colleague and department head at Princeton. Perhaps there are issues there, too. But like Bernanke, he is said to have always been a shy-ish person, and a careful researcher and commentator. But with his column in the NYT and now the Nobel prize, he appears to be letting it all out--publicly, brashly, with professional abandon--as if on a mid-career spring break where all the bridled emotions and constrained personal expression can be let out to play. His Nobel, his NYT column, the public demand, have given him permission for his cathartic season. And he really seems to be enjoying it.

But his could be a much more useful and influential voice--if he could only approach issues, institutions and people in a more tempered, constructive way. Too often his temperament, his chosen platform, and his style undermine his credibility. Publicly and in print, he is too often the impish mid-life intellectual entertainer cavorting in the limelight, enjoying his season of demand as an anti-establishment economic and political provocateur. He could and should be more.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Who is My Spiritual Brother?

Who is my brother or sister on my spiritual journey? How do I recognize such people? Is it their profession of faith, their claim of identity or outward appearance? Is it everyone who says, Lord, Lord? More and more, as my prayer relationship with God has deepened, there has emerged another understanding for me. The New Testament’s first letter of John challenges us saying,

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love….God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”

This teaching finds added authority and inspiration in the many similar and challenging teachings on love by Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of John.

Another challenging teaching of Jesus is on the disowning final judgment of those who do not help or serve “the least of our brethren”—those who therefore do not serve Him. These two teachings would cause me to be much more humble and generous in my recognition of who may know and walk with God—both in the many Christian communities and in other faith traditions as well. At the very least, I should be ready to share God’s love toward all of them, and be open to receiving God’s love from any of them.

And for those who would hasten to point out that another person has not accepted Jesus as Lord, I would only suggest that we carry enough humility to inform us that we may not know all things about God, or Jesus, or the Spirit of God, or how He works with the people He loves—which includes all people, everywhere. An evident love of God and all humanity, and unselfish service or help to those most in need, brings one so close to Christ’s identity and teaching, so close to the heart of God, that I would feel uncontrollably moved to call him brother—and leave the working out of our differences and their importance to God.

But beware of those who profess faith in God and identity with His people, who maintain the outward appearance and language of faith community, but reflect no love for the larger family of humanity, or do not serve the needs of the poor and unable. Avoid the angry, cultural and political warriors, and the fundamentalists of all faiths who appear unable to receive or convey God’s unqualified love. They too often serve only themselves and their cultural, political or cultish interests, and are too often in the process of condemning or discriminating against one group or another that God would have them love. They also appear unable to receive God’s Spirit, His forgiveness, compassion and humility. For if they could, they would more often reflect it and share it with others in the lives they live within and without their communities.

First written: November 2006 – January 2007 ("Who is My Brother," in my What God series of essays ), updated November 2007 - March 2008
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007