Theoblogical

A good juxtaposition of two disasters in Ron Suskind’s book on the Obama economic team, Confidence Men.

Like so many other disasters in this period, the spill was the result of executives pushing themselves to the very edge of legal limits, and then beyond, in the name of short-term profit.
—Suskind, Ron (2011-09-20). Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President (p. 427). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Very fitting parallel here.  Suskind hits the nail on the head.  “Beyond the very edge of legal limits”,  and for me (and probably for Suskind as well)  WAY beyond the moral limits, on both counts (BP AND Wall Street).

Suskind ,  author of three previous books that I’ve read (and also of others I haven’t)  is a great storyteller  (not in the sense of fibs,  but in the sense of letting us in on the conversations,  gleaned from many accounts and interviews).  I knew back in 04 whenI read “The Price Of Loyalty” (about Bush’s Sec of Treaury Paul O’Neill)  that I would be coming back to future Suskind works.  Suskind also has this style of taking us back into the relevant past experiences of the players in the story he tells.  And in the case of the financial disaster,  he takes a highly appreciated amount of time to fill us in on all the most important elements of the disaster.

Big time recommendation.

If Matt Taibi sees a possibility of some real hope here,  then that itself is a reason for hope.  Taibbi lays it out, and concludes with this:

Obama’s decision to tap Schneiderman publicly, and dump Geithner, and whisper about a millionaire’s tax, signals a shift in its public attitude toward the Wall Street corruption issue. The administration is clearly listening to the Occupy movement. Whether it’s now acting on their complaints, or just trying to look like it’s doing something, is another question. It’s way too early to tell. But it’s certainly very interesting.

via Is Obama’s ‘Economic Populism’ for Real? | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone.

Rather disturbing to see this ,  especially in light of Obama’s SOTU speech claiming to be “setting up financial fraud enforcement unit”.

Civil immunity would be granted to the banks for any role in foreclosure fraud, and there would be no investigations.

via Obama Is on the Brink of a Settlement With the Big Banks—and Progressives Are Furious | The Nation.

Don’t get me started on why the hell Obama made no mention whatsoever of #OWS,  when the relevancy of the movement is CLEARLY  in lock step with multiple themes of his speech.   WHY?  Until I see otherwise,  it’s very hard not to agree with Ralph Nader ‘s reaction to this glaring omission from the SOTU speech:  “Obama is a political coward”.  I hate to hear that.  I hate to admit that there is mounting evidence to support that.  So disappointing.  What’s even worse is that there is no viable alternative.  And if people stay home on election day (which they should not,  since a GOP victory would only worsen the problem),   it’s because Obama keeps showing by his actions (or  lack thereof)  that he is in no way shape or form a liberal,  radical,  or socialist,  becuase none of these groups support him.

My favorite writer, Elizabeth O’Connor,  who wrote accounts of the journey and history of The Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC,  wrote about envisioning a new world in this selection from the Inward Outward blog (this blog posts daily selections from a host of great theological writings).  I thought it very relevant to how interested I have been in the OWS movement.

Martin Luther King was not killed because he had a dream. Dreamers are easily dismissed. He was killed because he sought to introduce into the political arena what he saw with his heart and mind. The same was true of Gandhi and of our Lord.

As Jesus made clear his solidarity with the poor and his vocation to engage them in a liberating process, he came into confrontation with entrenched political and religious powers. As suspicion of him turned to resistance and then to hatred and fury, he began to prepare his disciples for what he would have to suffer. Peter immediately took Jesus aside to protest his continuing on what was surely a collision course….

via Imagining a New Reality | Inward/Outward.

It is often heard at Occupy gatherings:  “A New World is possible”.  When the Occupy movement people gather in public,  and march to particular locations in an act of confronting the injustices of various power structure entrenchments that testify to the disparity in income in this country,  the power structure often reacts.  They pushed people off the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States this past week,  as they gathered ,  shouting dissent with the “Citizens United” ruling with its idea that “corporations are people”.

MLK, Gandhi,  and even Jesus were not a threat because they had these “spiritual visions”  (if you define “spiritual”  in the way that the power structures prefer,  which is “internal, private, pious”….these things are not a threat.  They often serve as “opiate” which keep the masses pacified).  No,  these men sought to ENACT the vision of a just society,  and the ones who benefitted most from the inequities fought them.  They employed the “law” to “keep order”.  When these injustices reach a tipping point,  resistance begins to take shape,  and a “New World” beckons.

While OWS may not be motivated by Christians’ vision of the Kingdom of God,  we can understand the movement,  and can also identify with many of the particular expressions of dissent,  and add our voices to the addressing of the power structures concerning those points of dissent.  It aligns with what I see as a calling of the church to proclaim a “Year of Jubilee”.

Continuing my reading in Davide Weinbberger’s Too Big To Know,  the BOOK has lost its dominance as the bestower of authority.  The conversations it initiates,  and the test of feedback and author reply and recirculating or restaing or rethinking has brought about a challenge to the traditional means of authority.  This is already having impact on the notions we have regarding theological authority.

Weinberger writes:

the authority of a work of  knowledge is no longer a badge granted by its publication, but is continuously negotiated within the systems of editing, reading, reviewing, discussing, and revising that are now all aspects of one continuous and continual system.
—-Weinberger, David (2012-01-03). Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room is the Room (Kindle Locations 2040-2042). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

In Judaism,  the work of scholars has long been recognized and afforded a deeper level of respect than I have noticed in most Christian conversations.  The “Midrash” is generally known as a set of “supplemental” or “expository” writings meant to expound upon the Torah.  So the Midrash seems to be an attempt to deal with the “Too Big To Know”-ness of the sacred texts.  It comes closest to the idea of the conversation that takes place around the study of the Scriptures.   This brings this question to mind:  Would the Net,  were it available as the Torah was written and distributed,  serve the function of Midrash?  I think the answer is yes.  And it seems that it also allows the collection of not only the scholars,  but of the theological and life conversations that take place within the study of the Torah.

I often bring this sense of the conversational Scriptures into my experiences in being educated about New Testament scholarship, interpretation,  and exegesis (which leads to the exposition or proclamation).  What happens to exposition when it becomes conversational.  And what happens to the authority of the originating writer in a world where the conversation becomes incarnate in the presentation?  Would Paul’s letters,  now in the New Testament canon,  have become the authoritative writings they are now as a result of their having gone through ancient vetting processes for distributing written texts?  They were delivered to congregations via travelers of journeys that took weeks or months.  What would the instantaneous conversational ability we now possess in the Net do to this traditional process of bestowing authority?