An Intuition, A Way and Understanding

Psalm 23 

The Lord is my shepherd,

I shall not want. 

He makes me lie down

in green pastures;

He leads me beside

quiet waters.

He restores my soul. 

He guides me

on the paths of righteousness

for His name's sake. 

And even though I walk through the

valley of deep darkness,

I fear no harm;

for You are with me.

Your rod and Your staff,

they comfort me. 

You prepare a table before me

in the presence of my enemies.

You have annointed my head with oil.

My cup runs over. 

Surely goodness and lovingkindness

will follow me

all the days of my life,

and I will dwell

in the house of the Lord,

forever.

The Bible Is Dead; Long Live the Bible--And Other Provocations

First, from Timothy Beal in The Chronicle Review:

For many potential Bible readers, the expectation that the Bible is univocal is paralyzing. You notice what seem to be contradictions or tensions between different voices in the text. You can't find an obvious way to reconcile them. You figure that it must be your problem. You don't know how to read it correctly, or you're missing something. If the Bible is God's perfect, infallible Word, then any misunderstanding or ambiguity must be the result of our own [failings]. So you either give up or let someone holier than thou tell you "what it really says." I think that's tragic. You're letting someone else impoverish it for you, when in fact you have just brushed up against the rich polyvocality of biblical literature. 

The Bible is anything but univocal about anything. It is a cacopho­ny of voices and perspectives, often in conflict with one another. In many ways, those dedicated to removing all potential biblical contradictions, to making the Bible entirely consistent with itself, are no different from irreligious debunkers of the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general. Many from both camps seem to believe that simply demonstrating that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions is enough to discredit any religious tradition that embraces it as Scripture.  

But you can't fail at something you're not trying to do. To ask whether the Bible fails to give consistent answers or be of one voice with itself presumes that it was built to do so. That's a false presumption, rooted no doubt in thinking of it as the book that God wrote. On the contrary, biblical literature is constantly interpreting, interrogating, and disagreeing with itself. Virtually nothing is asserted someplace that is not called into question or undermined elsewhere. Ultimately it resists conclusion and explodes any desire we might have for univocality. 

We don't know, and will never know, many details about the history of the development of biblical literature. No doubt there have been countless hands, scribal and editorial, involved in writing, editing, copying, and circulating the various versions of various texts that eventually were brought together into a canonical collection. Nor do we know very much for certain about the ancient life situations—ritu­al practices, oral traditions, legal systems—in which these texts had their beginnings. Nor do we know everything about the complex process by which the canons of Jewish and Christian Scriptures took form. What we do know for certain is that the literature now in our Bibles was thousands of years in the making. 

Given how many hands have been involved in so many contexts over such a long time in the history of this literature, can we honestly imagine that no one noticed such glaring discrepancies? Can we believe, for example, that the seam between the first and second creation stories in Genesis, as well as the many other seams found throughout the Torah, were not obvious? That if agreement and univocality were the goal, such discrepancies would not have been fixed and such rough seams mended long ago? That creation stories would have been made to conform or be removed? That Job would've been allowed to stand against Moses? That Gospel mix-ups concerning who saw what after Jesus's resurrection would have been left to stand? That Judas would have died twice, once by suicide and once by divine disgorge? And so on. Could all those many, many people involved in the development of biblical literature and the canon of Scriptures have been so blind, so stupid? It's modern arrogance to imagine so. 

The Bible canonizes contradiction. It holds together a tense diversity of perspectives and voices, difference and argument—even, and especially, when it comes to the profoundest questions of faith, questions that inevitably outlive all their answers. The Bible interprets itself, argues with itself, and perpetually frustrates any desire to reduce it to univocality. 

---"The Bible is Dead; Long Live the Bible," by Timothy Beal , professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, The Chronicle Review (4.17.11)

 I sent a link to the article excerpted above to several friends and acquaintences, including a few friends who have neither read the Bible nor have any desire to do so. One, a very able, good and selfless civic contributor, a person I like, allowed that she would read the article on my recommendation. This would not likely have been something she gravitated to unprodded.

It's just that so many good folks won't read the Bible because of the types of expectations and limitations impliedly placed on the experience by very "religious" people on the one hand, and very "athiestic" anti-Diests on the other. But there is a more intelligent middle ground for reading and understanding the history of the Bible and what it has to say, both for spiritual seekers and the merely interested or curious. It can be a fertile ground for open-minded exploration in faith, but also a wonderful experience in fascinating literature and cultural history. For some of us--a fair number of us, actually--it is both.

The article shares a refreshing understanding of the unencumbered, open-minded and challenging venture into the rich, but often ambiguous experience it can offer. Like all good educational processes, it raises as many questions as it answers, and the answers as often as not reveal different understandings when seen through different perspectives, contexts and times. Like the life experience it addresses, it is often complex and confounding, and defies simple answers or understandings. It is anything but what many people want it to be.

I sent the article to some who have no interest in reading the Bible, not to entice them to read it--although I think they could be enriched by the experience. (And it is a notoriously difficult book to make sense of by just picking it up and randomly reading.) Rather, it was my hope just to share this third perspective on reading and understanding the Bible, an open-minded, open-hearted exploration of either spirituality, faith, literature or cultural history. And as much, to make clear that some of us who claim some variation of a faith journey read it with the same accountability and intellectual honesty with which we pursue other experiences and aspects of our lives that challenge understanding.

But at the risk of wandering off the reservation, I also must share that I have always been a student of human behavior. And a walk in spiritual exploration or faith--an accountable walk--must also be taken with eyes and mind wide open for what existential life and scientific research tell us about who we are, what we do, and why. My studies in psychology, genetics, brain, neural and endocrine systems as an undergraduate (and through a graduate fellowship) have remained active areas of interest for me throughout my life-- and for some years, evolutionary science, as well. And I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that our personalities and temperaments have a lot to do with our orientation to spirituality and faith. We can see those personality types reflected in the range of both political and faith expressions.

And the likely level of determinism involved can be unsettling--more so to some than others, but to some extent to all. For our genetic prescriptions and predispositions appear to govern far more of who we are and what we do than we are comfortable acknowledging. And the deterministic power of our family, educational and cultural conditioning is also greatly at odds with our preferred understandings and sense of freedom, choice, and self-determination. Very uncomfortable, ambiguous stuff for most people--just as uncomfortable as Mr.Beal's shared understandings and approaches to experiencing the Bible are to most believers.

Such ambiguity and challenges to identity are so much of what life offers. I too think it a shame if the discomfort of wrestling with them keeps us from exploring and better understanding the determinants and possibilities of our identity. And to ignore those invitations and challenges may also be to fall short of our potential.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Bible-Is-Dead-Long-Live/127099/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

Just Right: Obama's Budget Speech

President Obama's response to the Republican budget--and all it's draconian implications--was for me just right. Yes, it was as much a policy speech and campaign speech as a budget speech. It had to be as he effectively articulated the differences in his approach from that of the Republican's plan--a plan that had more an ideological agenda than a budget agenda. He made it clear he is ready to fight for the healthier socio-economic balance our country expects and needs, and our people deserve.

While we must move quickly and effectively toward a balanced budget, we must also protect and invest in America's people and future. Social programs--including social security, Medicaid and Medicare--will have to be reformed to make them both effective and cost-efficient. Health care policy will have to be more realistic, and provided more cost-efficiently. Defense spending will have to be rethought, reined in, and right-sized. And tax code reform will also be necessary, including restoring higher effective tax levels, especially on higher-income Americans. Obama will not be a party to placing a heavier, unworkable retirement and healthcare cost burden on our next generation of seniors.

This excerpt from NBC's First Read on-line sums up well the audiences the President was addressing and the messages he delivered:

*** Obama's three audiences: President Obama's deficit/debt/entitlement speech yesterday appeared to have three audiences. Those elusive independent voters were his first audience, and he told them he would cut the budget but with balance and sacrifice for all.     

Democratic liberals upset by Friday's spending-cut deal and December's tax-cut deal made up a second audience. To them, Obama gave a full-throated defense of the safety-net programs and vowed he would sunset the tax cuts for the wealthy. 

Republicans were his final audience. To them, he skewered their proposal to phase out Medicare and to keep those tax cuts for the wealthy. And Obama delivered another message to the GOP: It was under their party's previous president and GOP-controlled Congress that began racking up the deficits. In short, the speech was as much about defining the GOP budget plan -- coming before the House votes on the Ryan proposal on Friday -- as it was checking the box on addressing the deficit and debt.  

---"First Thoughts: Off and running," First Read from NBC News (msnbc.com), NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg (4.14.11)

Going into the speech, I thought that the President had to give us more detail on the budget, but I was wrong. I underestimated the need and his ability to deliver a strong, effective speech that builds his policy statement as he touches all the important bases, a speech that gives enough detail to make his points, but does not lose sight of policy essentials and the big picture. A strong and important speech, a good beginning. Now let the budget debate and the presidential campaign begin in earnest.

...and now Libya.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. Let your mind and heart and emotions speak to you; let the realities of our experience and history inform you; let your highest hopes and worst fears have their say, too. And whether all that offers up joy, despair, bewilderment, or a confusion of all three, let's at least hope for an end sooner rather than later, a more representative government, a better society for Libya resulting--and at the lowest possible cost of life and resources.

And may we learn whatever there is to learn from it all. Our collective sense of national discernment can use all the insight, wisdom and refinement our experience and history offers.

As for me, I share the humanitarian values and goals that motivate President Obama. But the experience and lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan cast a long, cautioning shadow over the best intentions and hopefulness that animate this intervention in Libya. I am not optimistic; I expect a longer, more painful and expensive process than NATO plans. Still, we are there, and I join everyone else who hopes and prays those best intentions are realized.

America's Decline: Too Inflexible to Readapt and Reinvest?

Throughout my career in corporate America, I was always dismayed and discouraged by the cyclical narrowness and myopia of the corporate cost-cutters. Not that periodic efficiency measures weren't called for, they were. But it was too often done in frantic, thoughtless and irresponsible ways. The worst were the unthinking, across-the-board, percentage cuts. Too often it was not about "best practices" that gave primacy of place to considerations of quality and customer; it was about short-term earnings and financial statements. But the best companies appear to have gotten much better at that over the decades, and they are better off for it. 

The next lessons learned involved understanding who they were as companies, what their particular, even unique compentencies and strengths were. You can't plan and grow if you don't understand who you are and why. Next, and very important, were they investing in the success of tomorrow by investing in the next generations of today's technologies and what may be tomorrow's? And most important, perhaps, were they investing in their people, in their training and advancement? For the future is increasingly about intellectual capital, competence, and leadership. A company's value, its service to its shareholders, constituencies and the economy, is as much about the value being created for the future as the value being reaped today. And tough decisions about critical trade-offs require leaders to act responsibly for future generations as much as they provide for today's.

I find it hard to look dispassionately at our greatest nation of the 20th century, America, without looking through the same lens, without being attentive to the same issues and dynamics. For surely the same principles, questions and concerns are appropriate in how we view America today and how we contemplate her future, our grandchildren's future.

One of the best articles I've read on this subject, one that best captures and reflects some of my concerns, is Are America's Best Days Behind Us? in the 3.14.11 issue of Time magazine. It is written by the ever-insightful Fareed Zakaria, who recently moved from Newsweek to Time and brought with him his considerable depth of knowledge and talent. I have chosen to reproduce almost the entire article here simply because almost all of it bears reading--and he says it better, more efficiently than I can paraphrase it. Mr. Zakaria:

I am an American, not by accident of birth but by choice. I voted with my feet and became an American because I love this country and think it is exceptional. But when I look at the world today and the strong winds of technological change and global competition, it makes me nervous. Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that while these forces gather strength, Americans seem unable to grasp the magnitude of the challenges that face us. Despite the hyped talk of China's rise, most Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is still No. 1.

But is it? Yes, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy, and we have the largest military by far, the most dynamic technology companies and a highly entrepreneurial climate. But these are snapshots of where we are right now. The decisions that created today's growth — decisions about education, infrastructure and the like — were made decades ago. What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies. Look at some underlying measures today, and you will wonder about the future.

The following rankings come from various lists, but they all tell the same story. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), our 15-year-olds rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. We rank 12th among developed countries in college graduation (down from No. 1 for decades). We come in 79th in elementary-school enrollment. Our infrastructure is ranked 23rd in the world, well behind that of every other major advanced economy. American health numbers are stunning for a rich country: based on studies by the OECD and the World Health Organization, we're 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity. Only a few decades ago, the U.S. stood tall in such rankings. No more. There are some areas in which we are still clearly No. 1, but they're not ones we usually brag about. We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries. And, of course, we have by far the largest amount of debt in the world.

The Rise of the Rest

Many of these changes have taken place not because of America's missteps but because other countries are now playing the same game we are — and playing to win. There is a familiar refrain offered when these concerns are raised: "We heard all this in the 1980s. Japan was going to dominate the globe. It didn't happen, and America ended up back on top." It's a fair point as far as it goes. Japan did not manage to become the world's richest country — though for three decades it had the second largest economy and even now has the third largest. It is also a relatively small country. To become the largest economy in the world, it would have to have a per capita GDP twice that of the U.S. China would need to have an average income only one-fourth that of the U.S. to develop an economy that would surpass ours.

But this misses the broader point. The Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, who has just written a book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, puts things in historical context: "For 500 years the West patented six killer applications that set it apart. The first to download them was Japan. Over the last century, one Asian country after another has downloaded these killer apps — competition, modern science, the rule of law and private property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic. Those six things are the secret sauce of Western civilization."

To this historical challenge from nations that have figured out how the West won, add a technological revolution. It is now possible to produce more goods and services with fewer and fewer people, to shift work almost anywhere in the world and to do all this at warp speed. That is the world the U.S. now faces. Yet the country seems unready for the kind of radical adaptation it needs. The changes we are currently debating amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Sure, the political system seems to be engaged in big debates about the budget, pensions and the nation's future. But this is mostly a sideshow. The battles in state capitals over public-employee pensions are real — the states are required to balance their budgets — but the larger discussion in Washington is about everything except what's important. The debate between Democrats and Republicans on the budget excludes the largest drivers of the long-term deficit — Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — to say nothing of the biggest nonentitlement costs, like the tax break for interest on mortgages. [And let us not forget the DOD, one of the most distended budgets of them all.] Only four months ago, the Simpson-Bowles commission presented a series of highly intelligent solutions to our fiscal problems, proposing $4 trillion in savings, mostly through cuts in programs but also through some tax increases. They have been forgotten by both parties, in particular the Republicans, whose leading budgetary spokesman, Paul Ryan, praises the commission in the abstract even though he voted against its recommendations. Democrats, for their part, became apoplectic about a proposal to raise the retirement age for Social Security by one year — in 2050.

Instead, Washington is likely to make across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending, where there is much less money and considerably less waste. President Obama's efforts to preserve and even increase resources for core programs appear to be failing in a Congress determined to demonstrate its clout. But reducing funds for things like education, scientific research, air-traffic control, NASA, infrastructure and alternative energy will not produce much in savings, and it will hurt the economy's long-term growth. It would happen at the very moment that countries from Germany to South Korea to China are making large investments in education, science, technology and infrastructure. We are cutting investments and subsidizing consumption — exactly the opposite of what are the main drivers of economic growth.

So why are we tackling our economic problems in a manner that is shortsighted and wrong-footed? Because it is politically easy. The key to understanding the moves by both parties is that, for the most part, they are targeting programs that have neither a wide base of support nor influential interest groups behind them. (And that's precisely why they're not where the money is. The American political system is actually quite efficient. It distributes the big bucks to popular programs and powerful special interests.) And neither side will even talk about tax increases, though it is impossible to achieve long-term fiscal stability without them. Certain taxes — such as ones on carbon or gas — would have huge benefits beyond revenue, like energy efficiency.

It's not that our democracy doesn't work; it's that it works only too well. American politics is now hyperresponsive to constituents' interests. And all those interests are dedicated to preserving the past rather than investing for the future. There are no lobbying groups for the next generation of industries, only for those companies that are here now with cash to spend. There are no special-interest groups for our children's economic well-being, only for people who get government benefits right now. The whole system is geared to preserve current subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes. That is why the federal government spends $4 on elderly people for every $1 it spends on those under 18. And when the time comes to make cuts, guess whose programs are first on the chopping board. That is a terrible sign of a society's priorities and outlook.

The Perils of Success

...America's success has made it sclerotic. We have sat on top of the world for almost a century, and our repeated economic, political and military victories have made us quite sure that we are destined to be No. 1 forever. We have some advantages. Size matters: when crises come, they do not overwhelm a country as big as the U.S. When the financial crisis hit nations such as Greece and Ireland, it dwarfed them. In the U.S., the problems occurred within the context of a $15 trillion economy and in a country that still has the trust of the world. Over the past three years, in the wake of the financial crisis, U.S. borrowing costs have gone down, not up.

This is a powerful affirmation of America's strengths, but the problem is that they ensure that the U.S. will not really face up to its challenges. We adjust to the crisis of the moment and move on, but the underlying cancer continues to grow, eating away at the system.

A crucial aspect of beginning to turn things around would be for the U.S. to make an honest accounting of where it stands and what it can learn from other countries. This kind of benchmarking is common among businesses but is sacrilege for the country as a whole. Any politician who dares suggest that the U.S. can learn from — let alone copy — other countries is likely to be denounced instantly. If someone points out that Europe gets better health care at half the cost, that's dangerously socialist thinking. If a business leader notes that tax rates in much of the industrialized world are lower and that there are far fewer loopholes than in the U.S., he is brushed aside as trying to impoverish American workers. If a commentator says — correctly — that social mobility from one generation to the next is greater in many European nations than in the U.S., he is laughed at. Yet several studies, the most recent from the OECD last year, have found that the average American has a much lower chance of moving out of his parents' income bracket than do people in places like Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Canada.

And it's not just politicians and business leaders. It's all of us. Americans simply don't care much, know much or want to learn much about the outside world. We think of America as a globalized society because it has been at the center of the forces of globalization. But actually, the American economy is quite insular; exports account for only about 10% of it. Compare that with the many European countries where half the economy is trade-related, and you can understand why those societies seem more geared to international standards and competition. And that's the key to a competitive future for the U.S. If Olson is right in saying successful societies get sclerotic, the solution is to stay flexible. That means being able to start and shut down companies and hire and fire people. But it also means having a government that can help build out new technologies and infrastructure, that invests in the future and that can eliminate programs that stop working. When Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal, he spoke of the need for "bold, persistent experimentation," and he shut down programs when it was clear they didn't work. Today, every government program and subsidy seems eternal.

What the Founding Fathers Knew

Is any of this possible in a rich, democratic country? In fact it is. The countries of Northern Europe — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland — have created a fascinating and mixed model of political economy. Their economies are extremely open and market-based. Most of them score very high on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. But they also have generous welfare states and make major investments for future growth. Over the past 20 years, these countries have grown nearly as fast as, or in some cases faster than, the U.S. Germany has managed to retain its position as the world's export engine despite high wages and generous benefits.

Now, America should not and cannot simply copy the Nordic model or any other. Americans would rebel at the high taxes that Northern Europeans pay — and those taxes are proving uncompetitive in a world where many other European countries have much lower rates and Singapore has a maximum personal rate of 20%. The American system is more dynamic, entrepreneurial and unequal than that of Europe and will remain so. But the example of Northern Europe shows that rich countries can stay competitive if they remain flexible, benchmark rigorously and embrace efficiency.

American companies are, of course, highly efficient, but American government is not. By this I don't mean to echo the usual complaints about waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, there is less of those things than Americans think, except in the Pentagon with its $700 billion budget. The problem with the U.S. government is that its allocation of resources is highly inefficient. We spend vast amounts of money on subsidies for housing, agriculture and health, many of which distort the economy and do little for long-term growth. We spend too little on science, technology, innovation and infrastructure, which will produce growth and jobs in the future. For the past few decades, we have been able to be wasteful and get by. But we will not be able to do it much longer. The money is running out, and we will have to marshal funds and target spending far more strategically. This is not a question of too much or too little government, too much or too little spending. We need more government and more spending in some places and less in others.

The tragedy is that Washington knows this. For all the partisan polarization there, most Republicans know that we have to invest in some key areas, and most Democrats know that we have to cut entitlement spending. But we have a political system that has become allergic to compromise and practical solutions. This may be our greatest blind spot. At the very moment that our political system has broken down, one hears only encomiums to it, the Constitution and the perfect Republic that it created. Now, as an immigrant, I love the special and, yes, exceptional nature of American democracy. I believe that the Constitution was one of the wonders of the world — in the 18th century. But today we face the reality of a system that has become creaky. We have an Electoral College that no one understands and a Senate that doesn't work, with rules and traditions that allow a single Senator to obstruct democracy without even explaining why. We have a crazy-quilt patchwork of towns, municipalities and states with overlapping authority, bureaucracies and resulting waste. We have a political system geared toward ceaseless fundraising and pandering to the interests of the present with no ability to plan, invest or build for the future. And if one mentions any of this, why, one is being unpatriotic, because we have the perfect system of government, handed down to us by demigods who walked the earth in the late 18th century and who serve as models for us today and forever.

America's founders would have been profoundly annoyed by this kind of unreflective ancestor worship. They were global, cosmopolitan figures who learned and copied a great deal from the past and from other countries and were constantly adapting their views. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, after all, was a massive failure, and the founders learned from that failure. The decision to have the Supreme Court sit in judgment over acts of the legislature was a later invention. America's founders were modern men who wanted a modern country that broke with its past to create a more perfect union.

And they thought a great deal about decline. Indeed, it was only a few years after the Revolution that the worrying began in earnest. The letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, as the two men watched America in the early 19th century, are filled with foreboding and gloom; you could almost say they began a great American tradition, that of contemplating decay. Americans have been concerned about the health of their country for much of its existence. In the 1950s and '60s, we worried about the Soviet Union and its march toward modernization. In the 1980s, we worried about Japan. This did us no harm; on the contrary, all these fears helped us make changes that allowed us to revive our strength and forge ahead. Dwight Eisenhower took advantage of the fears about the Soviet Union to build the interstate-highway system. John Kennedy used the Soviet challenge in space to set us on a path toward the goal of getting to the moon.

What is really depressing is the tone of our debate. In place of the thoughtful concern of Jefferson and Adams, we have its opposite in tone and temperament — the shallow triumphalism purveyed by politicians now. The founders loved America, but they also understood that it was a work in progress, an unfinished enterprise that would constantly be in need of change, adjustment and repair. For most of our history, we have become rich while remaining restless. Rather than resting on our laurels, we have feared getting fat and lazy. And that has been our greatest strength. In the past, worrying about decline has helped us avert that very condition. Let's hope it does so today.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610-1,00.html

Humility & Respect on the Spiritual Continuum

The truth is that many folks--very good folks, in fact--never share in the spiritual or faith experiences I sometimes describe, whether they are open to it or not: they sense no God; they are disinclined toward faith; they reflect no spiritual intuition. To borrow context from my reflection, Being Found, they do not and never have sensed that

"...the One who calls us may be trying to get their attention." They have in no way perceived Him "waving His arms at them in the press of daily relationships and responsibilities, flashing His light in the soft, smiling eyes that pause and pass by, speaking in the voices of those who love and care, whispering to the heart that sighs, stirring in their very soul. They have not heard Him calling from all creation, the cycles of birth and death, change and renewal, nudging them to the questions of what is passing, what transcends, and what endures."

Perhaps they are too lost, too isolated or without, too much in pain or emotional suffering to lift their eyes or hearts in faith or even hope. People are wont to say that, even to believe it. Perhaps they are too much involved with self-indulgence or self-aggrandizement to consider a more disciplined, behavior-changing alternative. We hear that as well. Or perhaps they are just insensitive or unresponsive to spiritual invitations or cues for reasons unclear to us. And perhaps that is an expression of their personality or temperament, perhaps it is just the way they are genetically wired--for there is, apparently, a correlation between a group of genes and faith or spirituality.

But the inescapable corollary must be a call for humility and respect from each of us to all of us. And we must be aware that those of us who do reflect a spiritual intuition, who do sense God, hear the invitations, and have a personal experience of connectedness with something we call God, may also be reflecting something of our personalities and temperaments, our genetic predispositions or prescriptions. That does not mean there is no God--although some would consider it evidence--or, for we Christians, that Jesus is not still the same Jesus.* But it continues to challenge us all about the reasons some people are drawn to spiritual understandings and experience, and some are not. 

For the faithful, it also continues to challenge us about what God is doing in our lives, wherever we fall on the spiritual or faith continuum. Orthodox Christianity has no satisfactory answers for these questions, at least not for me--other than the notions of predestination and election, and the call to trust in God's perfect love and justice, notions that do not share comfortably the same intellectual or emotional space. Mystery or misunderstanding? Destiny or delusion? How about humility about the unknown and unknowable? Yes, humility, that at least. And respect, that too--for all people wherever they are, or are not, on that spiritual or faith continuum.

[*For those interested in my understandings of my faith and connectedness with God and Christ, see my essays "What God?", "Being Found" and others in my What God? series.]

No More Leaving

At some point

Your relationship with God

Will become like this:

Next time you meet Him

In the forest

Or on a crowded city street,

There won't be anymore

"Leaving."

That is,

God will climb into

Your pocket.

And you will simply

Take yourself

Along.

*from The Gift (1999), poetry ascribed to Hafez, as freely interpreted by Daniel Ladinsky.

A Faith Understanding

There is a faith understanding reached by some, including some Christians, that the seeming paradoxes of determinism and free will, predestination and choice--and the related issues of justice and equity that we are sometimes inclined to prosecute with God--are reconciled in the assurance and trust that is ours when we more fully apprehend God's Love and Forgiveness. Then, more often, there is only gratitude and peace.

       

The Dark and Light of Faith and Love

The Heart is Right*

The heart is right

To cry

Even when the smallest drop of light,

Of love,

Is taken away.

Perhaps you may kick, moan, scream

In dignified

Silence.

But you are so right

To do so in any fashion

Until God returns

To you.

Brave in That Holy War*

You have done well

In the contest of madness.

You were brave in that holy war.

You have all the honorable wounds

of one who has tried to find love

Where the beautiful bird does not drink...

Come morning

I will kneel by your side and feed you.

I will so gently

Spread open your mouth

And let you taste something of the

Sacred mind and life.

Surely

there is something wrong

With your ideas of

God

If you think

If you think our beloved would not be so

Tender.

Just You and Me*

The closer

I get to You, Beloved,

The more I can see

It is just You and me alone

In this

World.

I hear

A knock at my door,

Who else could it be,

So I rush without brushing

My hair.

For too many nights

I have begged for Your

Return.

And what

Is the use of vanity

At this late hour, at this divine season,

That has now come to my folded

Knees.

If your love letters are true dear God,

I will surrender myself to

Who you keep saying

I am.

*from The Gift (1999), poetry ascribed to Hafez, as freely interpreted by Daniel Ladinsky.

The PRC's Ascendancy: More on Reasons Why

I have a long and earnest interest in China. I have my reasons, good reasons, I believe. Part of it goes way back to my days of military service during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, when I was trained and worked as a Chinese crytologic linguist under one of our national intelligence services. Part of it is my general interest in Chinese art and history which I explore through a group I belong to in Naples. China has a long, fascinating, and impressive history of unique achievement. But most important is the ascendant, global economic and geopolitical profile of a country that is already a force to be reckoned with in the world, the trajectory of which is toward greater, possibly dominating global influence.

I often don't understand why others don't share my depth of interest and concern. The result is that I sometimes find myself in passing conversations in which I am eagerly trying to relate my understandings. But in trying to share them in a short discussion, I can err on the side of passion, and fail to convey a properly qualified and measured summary explanation. In these situations, I can be a poor emissary for those understandings and concerns. Allow me to try to do better here.

As I have said, I am something of a student of China, or at least a China junkie. I read everything I can in both the Chinese and Western press, and in the most respected journals I can find. And in recent years I have had and spent more time indulging that interest. But now, my more recent and continuing readings on China's dynastic history have given me a new perspective on their most recent "lost century," followed by their stunning ascendency of the last 30 years. I now understand that China has many times reshaped or restructured itself over periods of at least a century--or much longer--in the 4800-year history of a continuing Chinese polity and culture. In the long view, I've come to see China's newest ascendency as just China recreating itself again, a view also shared by some China analysts and historians. And the substantial, increasing number of educated Chinese in the PRC, and there leaders, are well aware of their illustrious dynastic history and, like their forbears, are by temperament or discipline given to taking the long view.

If this assessment is at all true and fair, the prospects for China--and for America in a world with China so dramatically ascendant--should be sobering to us. We can continue to be a successful, powerful, and respected world player, but only if we understand the new game we are now playing and the new and changing contours of the field we are playing on. It is a world of evolving multilateralism and increasing collaboration--a world of more shared global decision-making and accountability. And China will be offered its place among the leaders, or it will ascend to it by virtue and authority of its increasing global economic strength and the mutual dependency of the US, the West and China upon each other. It appears an inevitability; its just a matter of how constructively, how wisely we move more toward that relationship. 

The best informed analysts and commentators I have read suggest that we must understand China well, and also understand our well-considered goals and related needs for the future. Then we must devote the best of our creative, industrious capability and work effort to collaborate, partner with China wherever common national and international interests are found and allow. Their consensus view is that to compete with China from a zero-sum posture for command of environmental technology or global natural resources, for example, will prove a costly miscalculation and mistake, one which will cause all to lose. In both those areas, but particularly in environmental technology, China is already well ahead of us both in investment and progress--and they have extended to us the invitation to join them in sharing information and working collaboratively in the future. But our response has been tepid, and those who have reponded meaningfully at all appear to be a few companies, a think tank or two and NGOs, but not the government.

And then there is my respectful view of the Chinese people. That view holds that they have substantial capacity and potential to continue their evolving and quickly advancing societal and economic ascendency. This is often an unwelcome view; it can sound too strong, too unqualified, and carry too much the ring of destiny for most American tastes. Some people are uncomfortable with the notion of genetic determinism, with its inherited prescriptions and predispositions; they like even less cultural or conditioned determinism, that we are to some extent also a product of our environment. Yet there is a strong measure of scientific reality to both. And the question is usually, rightly posited in terms of whether nature or nurture is more dominant in explaining individual, societal or cultural behavioral--not whether either is an invalid or inoperative factor in explaining that behavior. One would have a hard time challenging the tested conclusion that the Chinese people as a whole, the dominant Han people, are an intrinsically intelligent people. And they have millenia of continually layered culture, successful culture in governance, bureaucracy, the arts, military arts and conquest, and yes, inventiveness, even creativity.

It is also important to observe that there were occasions when failed Chinese leadership, financial mismanagement, or social instability so weakened them that they were "conquered"--by Western tribal powers, by nomads of the Mongolian steppes (Genghis Khan), and the last dynasty, the Qing, was led by the Manchus from the far Northeast. So, what did that mean for the coninuity of Chinese civilization, identity and potential?

The most interesting thing is that, in each instance, dynastic China continued on with the conquerors taking the throne as Chinese emperors, and continuing the Chinese civilization! The Chinese scholar-leader-bureaucrats most often continued to be employed in shared or supporting leadership roles. The military was rebuilt and reshaped to serve the new merged dynasty. They took a Chinese dynastic name to designate the period of their reign. And they eventually became de facto Chinese!

So the Mongols ruled over the Yuan dynasty, and the Manchus over the Qing. It is a fair observation, with the course of history to substantiate it, that China absorbed all people, ideas, religions and philosophies that entered into Chinese civilization--even those who entered by invasion--and made them Chinese. They accepted them, but changed them, and absorbed them into what is Chinese. Buddhism brought from India was merged with Taoist ideas and produced Chan Buddhism, which when exported to Japan was called Zen. Only Confucianism--really more a philosophy and ethic for personal and leadership behavior--and Daoism are indigenous philosophy/spiritualities in China. The Chinese civilization is really the long-term amalgamation of many peoples and ideas.

I would also suggest that in the same way China has taken all that comes into its civilization and made it Chinese, it is also internalizing and fashioning its own Chinese approach to an internal market economy and competing in global markets--it's market socialism or state capitalism, as it is called. We'll just have to see how effective their uniquely Chinese approach will prove. But so far they appear to have gotten the world's attention, and their economic progress has been impressive.

Yet, we have not seen as much of that inventiveness and creativity out of China in the last century or so--but that likely had more to do with the repressive, increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-mercantile, anti-modernity climate moving from the Nationalist Revolution to the Communist Revolution and to the Cultural Revolution. For the last 30 years, they have been lifting themselves out of that cultural, intellectual, economic and geopolitical abyss. And now, they have emerged again on the world stage. I expect their historical inventiveness and creativity will continue to emerge as well.

Of course, as some observe, each new generation, each new era is...well, new. And a new Chinese generation in a new era, especially a new and advancing technological era, a more global, multilateral era, would arguably be cutting more from whole cloth, beginning anew, especially coming out of their "lost century." That would also imply a steep, daunting learning curve. Fair point, and doubtless valid in many respects and effects, as far as it goes. But there is something important to be recognized and appreciated about the power and contribution of a deep and long cultural history, especially a history that experienced many amazing expansions and contractions, ascending again and again to the heights of global culture. It must be observed that the current situation falls consistently on China's multimillenial trend line, one which reflects the many times China has come out of a failed political or economical situation, followed by a warring and fragmenting century or longer, only to restructure and reinvent itself, and ascend still higher ground of societal, military and economic advancement.

This time may be different. China surely has many daunting challenges. It is possible they may be too great to overcome. But I wouldn't look at those challenges as welcome or calming justifications to discount China's potential, for failing to take them seriously enough, for not understanding and respecting their history. The US has the potential to do that. There is a certain amount of American arrogance and triumphalism--sometimes just rank demogoguery and jingoism--that does not recognize shifting sands and the realities of a new environment. And our fledgling experience with democracy, a relative newcomer by historical standards, is as vulnerable as it is resilient. And it sometimes can prove near dysfunctional--or at the least very slow to act, and then to act only incrementally. Now appears to be such a time. Of course, historically we have always risen to the occasion in the face of threats to our people and way of life. But international economic competition and geopolitical maneuvering seldom appear as overtly and immediately threatening to us, not to the public, not in the same way as the military aggression of Germany and Japan before WWII, or of al Qaida on 9/11. And with the PRC, China, that is where the game is being played: global economic strength and power, and geopolitical influence.

Our government agencies (certainly the State Department and CIA) and the think tankers understand all this well enough, and likely much more. But most Americans do not. It would appear that many of our politicians do not either--or at least what we hear from them or their cable media proxies (and that's often all some people hear) appears filtered through the distorting prism of their ideological bias and/or their true lack of knowledge or understanding. For China's is a more responsive, effective and efficient governmental process than ours. Totalitarian governments can move more decisively, more quickly. It may or may not be as "good," depending on your definitions, your social values and goals. For it is unapologetically undemocratic, and its people are clearly less free; I wouldn't want to live there. But it is nonetheless very efficient, very effective. And their 30-year success in venturing into competitive, global markets is impressive--and their trajectory continues ascendant.

My concern is simply this: we should not underestimate the Chinese people or the Chinese government--and likewise we should not overestimate ourselves, especially in a weakened and confused time. Rather, let China's ascendancy be as a wake-up call for America, a challenge to claim and move to new, higher ground ourselves. Let us invite China to more meaningfully join in shared global leadership, responsibility and accountability. And if we would claim democracy as the high ground of social and economic advancement and potential, now is our time to bring out our best and prove it.

I just wanted you to understand.

Army Targeted U.S. Senators With "Psychological Operations"

The U.S. army reportedly deployed a specialized "psychological operations" team to help convince American legislators to boost funding and troop numbers for the war in Afghanistan.

Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops, ordered the operation, Rolling Stone Magazine reported in a story published late on Wednesday. An officer in charge of the unit objected when he was ordered to pressure the visiting senators and was harshly reprimanded by superiors, according to the magazine.

"My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," the officer, Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, told Rolling Stone. "I'm prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line," he added.

---"Report: Army targeted U.S. senators with psy-ops," msnbc.com (2.21.11)

You just can't make up stuff like this! I want to wax indignant about how unbelievable this is--but if you really think about it, it's not unbelievable at all. This is the military establishment we had already been given good reason to distrust over the last half century, the authors of a lot of unscrupulous, unjustifiable secret "research," testing on human subjects, questionable secret ops, and misleading reports on the progress of some of our military misadventures. They had often taken liberties beyond their charter, and then lied to us about it. This episode just confirms that that is still part of who they are, part of what they do. 

We had come to think that the military of Petraeus, Mullin and Gates was credible, straight up, whether we supported their view on Iraq or Afghanistan, or not--or at least some of us had. But if this report is at all credible--and it reads like we have reason to expect that it is--the Pentagon and military trustworthiness and credibility are now back in the dumper, and now with one of the most troubling, unnerving indictments in their history hanging over them. 

Yes, you could argue or spin this as just the military making its case, just old-fashioned jaw-boning, making sure legislators--especially those most friendly to their case--understand it and how to present it in the most convincing terms. But that would be spin indeed. This appears clearly over the line into wilfull manipulation without any pretense of balance or respect for their role and the role of our government. The Lt. Colonel whose job it was to do carry out authorized psyops was so troubled by what he was asked to do that he was willing to deliver a fatal blow to his career to go public with it. You've got to sense that the actions ordered were well over the line.

To say they have squandered any trust or good will they may have established in the last decade doesn't even begin to approach the seriousness, the presumption, the threatening disregard of their role relative to the civilian government that is implied by all this--threatening to our government and to us. Questions have been raised in the past about Petraeus' apparent overwillingness to be aggressive in his advocacy of the war, and whether he had served the president well and fairly in that posture. Gates has also been accused of indulging or supporting that posturing, or at least not reining it in. Is this more evidence of that? It's more than a little frightened that a second rogue flag officer--Gen. Stanley McChrystal being the first--was so willing and felt so justified to go so far off the reservation. One is arguably an exception, two suggests a leadership climate that allows it to operate, perhaps even encourages it.

Read it and weep.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41753749/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223?page=1

Today's PRC: Not Your Father's Communist China

[In a recent discussion in my Chinese Art & History Group, I made a poorly framed statement that appeared to puzzle some. The simple, but unqualified statement was that, "China is not so much a communist country anymore, at least not in the way we used to think about them." A tangential comment, there was not time to expand upon it; so once again I addressed the comment in a follow-up e-mail, which here follows.]


The People's Republic of China (PRC) is still ruled by a self-determining, autocratic leadership organization that calls itself the Chinese Communist Party. But things have changed, a lot of things. By any other name, it is still totalitarian, but a careful, thoughtful totalitarianism that knows it must continue to improve the quality of life and opportunity for it's people--and as more of its people become more worldly, the quality of life will be measured more against global standards. They continue to move themselves upward toward global technological and economic strength and, in many respects, toward global leadership. 

But it is rightly pointed out that, to a considerable extent, the PRC still has its hands deeply in national and international economic analysis and planning--but more and more from a macroeconomic and policy position, much less from an international markets perspective--over which it has limited influence--and less from a local or regional markets perspective, as well. China believes this larger, overarching role played by the state allows better management of the cycles and excesses of markets for capital, goods and services. And many emerging countries looking at the "Beijing model" are more and more impressed with it. The rest of us are watching and assessing, trying to sort out how to make more effective and efficient a frustratingly slow or unresponsive democratic governing and legislative processes.

Ownership of property and businesses is now widespread in China, and growing. Entrepreneurship is not only allowed, but encouraged, and promising ventures are assisted by the state. And yes, the state directs the development of those areas it wants to treat as national priorities, providing favorable financing and such other help as it can arrange to advance their success. And the state often takes substantial minority ownership in the most promising and successful companies. As to local and regional businesses, most area providers of products and services are privately owned businesses. And they are most often thriving, at least in the eastern and central urban centers; but they have a long way to go in the countryside where people are still poor, and where delivery of both market and public goods and services are inadequate.

So the PRC is not your father's communist country anymore. It is not the "people's republic" in the same way it once was in the times of the communist and cultural revolutions. The state does not own or control the factors of production in the way it once did (although it regulates them, and directly or indirectly strongly influences most of them); and it no longer plans or manages supply chain or production processes, as it so ineptly once tried to do. (The early Leninist-inspired "Great Leap Forward" was an unqualified state-planning and economic failure.) But now, for their large and international companies, those processes are driven largely by the standards and dictates of international markets, their customers and suppliers--and yes, their own internal regulatory processes. 

China now also approves and encourages the risk-reward, performance compensation approach that is essential to market economies, providing that companies' and individual's success should command market-based profits and wealth; and more, they track and measure those companies by their growth in profitability. There are a lot of wealthy entrepreneurs in China today. There is also a well-compensated management and professional class. Yes, the "bourgeoisie" too now ascends with an ascendant China. And the PRC has increasingly become a formidable competitor in international markets--complaints or charges of unfair tactics notwithstanding. It cannot be surprising, then, that thousands of educated American Chinese--and those Chinese nationals educated and working in the U.S.--have returned to China to be part of it's cultural, economic and geopolitical ascendency. However one may characterize the societal and professional experience in China, it appears to be an acceptable, even exciting experience for them.

But it is not a democracy, to be sure--although some democratic features are recognized as essential to effective business practices, and even included in some local government. They do strive to include those practices that make their economy and society operate more effectively and efficiently. But if democratic practices or voices threaten their standards of social, political and economic stability, they are deemed no longer useful and disallowed. It's all very utilitarian.

Yet, one still might acknowledge that there has evolved a considerable degree of relative freedom allowed most Chinese people--even for the politically-critical modern artists who have found a home in Beijing's 798 warehouse district, it would seem. And more, it is reported that a 2008 poll by the independent Pew Research Center found 86% of Chinese people satisfied with their country, their leadership and economy, and the direction they are going. Still, it is also important to observe that their history of disregard for human rights, abuse of the rule of law, and the uneven delivery of justice, leaves one understandably concerned for the security, the durability, of their social progress.

In an earlier stage of the PRC's venture into market economics, they had referred to their new direction as "market socialism." In less political or ideological terms, one could simply and fairly characterize it as a "mixed economy," a term often pressed into use to refer to a range of economies characterized to some extent by both market economics and social program agendas, both democratic and nondemocratic. Of course, that could cover everything from the modern PRC to Western social democracies--and yes, even the U.S.

But now, more and more, one hears or reads of the PRC's evolving economic model described as "state capitalism." This is a term that has been variously defined across the twentieth century, starting with Engles and then others of various politcal persuasions through the decades. But China understands what it is doing, and if we want to call it state capitalism, the PRC has defined their version of it for us. An excerpt from an article by Ian Bremmer:

In September 2008, just as the Western financial crisis was beginning to dominate the world's attention, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao sat down for an extraordinary interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. During their conversation, Wen provided what amounts to a precisely worded definition of Chinese state capitalism: "The complete formulation of our economic policy is to give full play to the basic role of market forces in allocating resources under the macroeconomic guidance and regulation of the government. We have one important piece of experience of the past thirty years, that is to ensure that both the visible hand and invisible hand are given full play in regulating the market forces."

---"The Rise of State Capitalism, " by Ian Bremmer, which was excerpted from his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations (2010).

Whatever you call it, and however you define it, The PRC's government and economic development has so far proved more efficient and effective than many would have projected, even if they still have many challenges ahead of them. If it is not anyone's idea of a democratic republic, if we look at them warily with a measure of distrust, even fear--and we do--we still have to be in awe of what they have accomplished, how far they have so quickly come, and how resiliently they continue to shape or evolve their country and their economy.

And I can't help but consider that the foundation of their identity and potential is their cumulative historical cultural identity: the creativity, strength and cultural resilience of the Zhou, the Han, the Tang, the Ming--likely the most resilient and successful continuous culture in the history of the world. So, one might be excused for taking the long view, and seeing their most recent lost century as merely another historical restructuring blip in the near five-millenia-long history of China successfully remaking itself.

[If you are interested in a more ordered and comprehensive look at today's PRC, Wikipedia offers a competent, readable and continually-updated account of it's evolving changes and what it is like today, both the good and bad. Just Google The People's Republic of China, Wikipedia.]