Theoblogical

Ever since #OWS began,  I have grown particularly attracted to Chris Hedges’ columns ,  often peppered with scathing observations about the professsionals who run and enable and tweak the systems that have led to the increasing inequalities and insane denials of the effects of “human progress” on all of our ecosystems.   In our present day media environment,  such scathing indictments are often looked upon as “inappropriate”, or “radical” . For me,  however,  this is an often neccessary attribute of the prophetic to which the church is constantly called.  In this week’s column on TruthDig,  Hedges takes aim at “The Careerists” whose job it is to “do the bidding” and provide the cover and justification and mythology to prop up and enable the systems of exploitation being increasingly hoisted upon our world by the overlords of the oligarchy:

The god of profit and exploitation. The most dangerous force in the industrialized world does not come from those who wield radical creeds, whether Islamic radicalism or Christian fundamentalism, but from legions of faceless bureaucrats who claw their way up layered corporate and governmental machines.

[These] Political and military careerists, backed by war profiteers, have led us into useless wars, including World War I, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And millions followed them. Duty. Honor. Country. Carnivals of death. They sacrifice us all.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_careerists_20120723/

Another deeply cutting observaiton in the article:

Facts that interfered with plans were impertinencies.

We see this in  the almost complete disregard and even outright hotility to the introduction of facts into the equation.  Our media have  become lifeless drones in the face of the exploitation of audio and video in the service of a narrative that bears no resemblance to facts on the ground.  The GOP and Fox News glibly circulate known hatchet jobs that edit out entire contexts of speeches to artificially support the persona they wish to use to mark their opponents,  and the mainstream media say hardly anything,  as if this is not an outright assault on the very core of their calling.  And in the face of such neglect to call the Right on their deliberate deception,   the Right carries on with more  of the same.  The mainstream media bows to the pressure of the fundamentalist mind set that sees nothing wrong or amiss with lifting sentences completely out of context and meaning and placing them in an echo chamber as more proof text.  It seems that this is a clear indication of the close relationship between religious/theological fundamentalism (and their proclivity to proof text by lifting “verses” out of complete narratives)  and the political right wing.

But the more serious matter here is not with deliberate misinterpretations of speeches,  but with the system of propaganda that strive to “reinterpret” what is happening to our economy and to our ecosystems.  They display a dangerous hostility to the science’s finding s that the scientists INTEND as a warning and treat it as a political game.  And the denial;  the hubris,  of continuing to persist in the ultimately doomed assumption that  we can never irreparably harm the very systems we depend upon for life itself! Hedges, again:

They [the ruling  elites] cannot intellectually or emotionally recognize that the system might implode. And so they do what Napoleon warned was the worst mistake a general could make—paint an imaginary picture of a situation and accept it as real. But we blithely ignore reality along with them. The mania for a happy ending blinds us. We do not want to believe what we see. It is too depressing. So we all retreat into collective self-delusion.

Blaise Pascal wrote in “Pensées,” “We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us from seeing it.”

Ross Douthat’s  (@DouthatNYT)  response to Bass’ response to his article on “Liberal Decline” sounds much like an “IS NOT”.  The final paragraph could be construed by the outside observer as a good example of the  “self-satisfied, self-regarding, all-too-American faith “ judgment he applies to the “Progressive”, “Christianity after the institutional church” he ascribes to Bass:

But I feel like we already know what that Christianity looks like: It’s the self-satisfied, self-regarding, all-too-American faith that Christian Smith and others have encountered when they survey today’s teenagers and young adults, which conceives of God as part divine butler, part cosmic therapist, and which jettisons the more challenging aspects of Christianity that the traditional churches and denominations, for all their many sins and follies, at least tried to hand down to us intact.

via Is Liberal Christianity Actually The Future? – NYTimes.com.

I am appalled  at the “we already know what that Chrisitainity looks like”.  That sounds like the underlying problem that people have with Chritianity in general.  The judgment that “we already know what THAT looks like” sounds like the self-assured smugness of an Al Mohler or (insert smug spokesperson for “Christian Right” issue).  And this:  “the more challenging aspects of Christianity that the traditional churches and denominations, for all their many sins and follies, at least tried to hand down to us intact.” sounds so much like the kind of propositional dogmatism and/or fundamentalism that have driven so many people away from “that kind of Christianity” into the folds of these “Progressive covens” of honest, soul searching questioning of the shallow , pietistic, and thus largely unattractive rigidity of “conservative Christianity”.  You should have left it at “decline is happening in both camps”, Ross.  Your final paragraph really reveals what choir you’re preaching to.  And “all-too American”?  The conservative church’s outright adoption of the Republican party dogmas,  and the strident nationalism displayed,  makes that an inane observation.  There are many who would say that cultural accomodation has simultaneously led to “Success”  (in terms of numbers)  and to decline (in terms of faithfulness).  This whole assesment seems to be equating ultimate fidelity to increasing numbers,  which is theologically questionable at best.  How well did those preaching racial equality do in terms of “numbers” in southern churches in the 40′s?

And “at least tried to hand down to us intact”   seems to be trying to claim that whatever it is that the Progressive churches have “jettisoned” have been “preserved” by the conservative churches and “for all their many sins and follies” are PRIMARILY doing the kind of faith transmission that churches are called to do (irregardless of how deeply the faith so communicated is diluted/contaminated by culture, politics,  and economics)  ,  as long as “the core” gets “handed down” without all that “Progressive” baggage/distortion.

You do a good job of making the case for the backlash against dogmatic, legalistic, proposition-laden theology.

in this video, Chris Hayes talks about the way elites and their clubs stick together vs even the people they ostensibly are there to serve  (priests in Catholic Church vs their parishoners,  or the government and corporations vs thier constituents and/or customers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaFVjaZr7w&feature=plcp

This is a good angle also for the financial system,  and for a headlong dive into many of the messages of the Occupy movement.  When Joseph Stiglitz wrote his “Of the 1% by the 1% and for the 1%” article in the early summer of 2011,  I knew that something had taken hold.  America was fixated on the Arab Spring,  and it was more than just international curiosity.  It was longing.  It was a deep-seated question about our  dreams for this country.  And it was bubbling,  ready to start boiling over come September.  And the 1% have come to be identified as those who have been using their position to keep siphoning the rewards upward,  to the extent that we now live in one of the least balanced Western developed nations.  Less equal = Less “American”,  not only in my definition,  but in most people’s sense as to what is often couched as “What makes America great”.  Because of that,  “great” is blown away as an option.  “Great” can remain only on the lips of the people who resist the facts of American economics,  or with people who stubbornly hold to a notion that “we’ve always righted the ship”,  and instead of actually working to root out the wrongs,  use their optimism as a shield against seeing the extent of the problem in the first place.

The 1%  (and yes,  we can increase the accuracy of our claims that something is afoul in the 1% by sharpening the focus to the 1% of the 1%,  but for the sake of brevity,  we’ll stipulate that and use simply 1% as shorthand)…..the 1% have isolated themselves from the 99.  (And I have listened to people in the upper regions of the 99,  postulating that since they don’t know anybody actually being foreclosed  upon,  or homeless,  that “it really isn’t all that bad”…..as if “that bad” is some far off designation against which we can compare ourselves and conclude “we’re not there yet”,  and from “where I sit,  we probably never will.  Markets correct themselves.  Banks recover.  Governments adjust.  It’ll all blow  over.  I actually heard that argument rather recently.  It’s almost as if there is a resistance to “dire language” or “apocalyptic language”,  and therefore its not serious enough to justify mass movements calling for radical change in our  processes.  The status quo has done a number on them.  And this is just the kind of  message the 1% want them to be getting and keeping them from being radicalized.  There seems to be little awareness of how this will continue to wear us down almost imperceptibly like ocean tide which grabs just a little more shoreline debris and washes it out to sea (as more people fall beneath the poverty  line, and more people in the upper regions find themselves perceiving more of those foreclosures,  mounting medical costs that are still out of control (and STILL not being affected by ACA measures not  slated to take  effect until 2014).   So this new alignment is teaching the “virtues” of this new system,  training us to see the  world immediately around us as the  only one worth perpetuating.

This has been a 30 year process.  Shares of GDP have increasingly been realized disproportionately at  the top,  while  the rest of  the country is left  to fend with smaller  and smaller chunks.   It’s not felt at the top at all.  Why would it?  They’re experiencing record prosperity.  This is the way things were meant  to be (from their  perspective)  They find motivation in keeping the system going in just that direction.  They have the money to pour into the think tanks and and the educational institutions,  which in turn communicate a message that the system runs best when the smartest, brightest people (like them,  backed up by their “success” at doing  so) are the people in whose hands this system works best (which works well for them as well,  since its the system they designed to send the production benefits disproportionately to the top). Citizens United is the Coup d’état for this meritocracy,  for it provides for the unlimited, unaccountable domination of the communications systems by the financial elite,  to allow them essentially free reign to propogate yet further into the American pysche the contaminated notions about American democracy that make the system ,  as Stiglitz so aptly put it : “Of the One Percent, By The One Percent, FOR the One Percent”.

I asked Lisa Sharon Harper of Sojourners about her thoughts on the Occupy Movement,  and she said something we don’t hear much amidst all the uproar about the “middle class” being under assault.  While the economic figures about the shrinkage and stagnation of wages in the middle class make for a wider audience from which to garner movement support,  what we Christians need to remember is that for the poor,  this has been a constant struggle against systems that seek to make things easier for the sake of spending in order to “grow the economy”.  It’s easy to “stand up for the middle class”.  And if you look at the definiton of “the middle class” in our politics (as Lisa writes about it here) ,  it’s focus tends to be on the upper end,  where there’s debate about whether the Bush tax cuts should be extended for those making over 250,000 a year vs One million dollars a year.  Lisa Sharon Harper illustrates these efforts to widen that middle class definition in order to include a lot of people whose lives are a far cry from a “struggling middle class”.

In an article in Sojo last week,  Lisa writes:

While Jesus loves everybody, there is no Christian tradition of teaching God’s “preferential option for the middle class.”

http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/07/12/will-real-ms-middle-class-please-stand

So,  yeah,  we in the Christian tradition who have been encouraged by the emergence of the Occupy Movement,  need to keep this in mind as we (as I myself ) consider the theological implications and “Vinn Diagram” commonalities with the Occupy Movement and the Church.  While there is a definite deterioration of actual middle class income (much more so in the lower portions)  ,  and this has brought about a critical mass that has coalesced into a movement,  it should be a particular hope for Christians that this push back and awareness building will bring about a clearer focus on the more serious problems at the lower end,  and especially beyond (in this case,  below the poverty line).

In this video,  which I shot at the Wild Goose Festival back in late June,  Lisa talks about this a bit as she says “While the 99% have certainly gotten a bad deal,  in that bottom 10%,  it’s really bad”

I will vote for Barak Obama,  but I have trouble these days calling myself a “supporter”.  I explicitly deny that designation when it is suggested that I am.  But I find it hard now because of the way he handled the banks,  the way he has extended and built upon the “security” measures undertaken in the Patriot Act,  and the way he has “held back” on a full-throated , tireless advocacy for a Works Program which is so obviously needed.  I recognize that their are political barriers.  I recognize that “reaching across the aisle” can (or should)  build some common ground that will result in ,progress being made.  But the outcomes and the politics of the great recesssion have made it disturbingly clear that the financial elites are calling the shots.

I read “Confidence Men”,  Ron Suskind’s account of the economic team around Obama,  and the numerous conversations with advisors with Obama and other members of the  economic team,  and it painted a not-so-impressive picture of the weakness of Obama’s economic policy moves and efforts,  up to a point where it was widely known and expected that the bankers were expecting the hammer to fall on them when Obama called them to a meeting early on, just after the crisis hit.  They were all in a state of “bracing for the hammer”.  What they got instead was an assurance of support from Obama.  I already had my doubts,  given the lack of significant steps to hold the banks or SOME of them accountable.  This account had the effect of sinking my remaining threads of confidence  or hope that remained afloat.

And the GOP that is fighting anything and everything Obama does or tries to do (whether it be piecemeal or more substantive) ,  they have long ago crossed the line of any sign of integrity or showing any intent  to actually serve the people.  They have shown they are willing to go to any length to “defeat Obama” rather  than to do anything which would help Obama improve the economy.  It’s the politics of destruction ,  “our way or the highway”.   But Obama has not been strong in the face of this.  I keep hoping he would,  in the very least,  make us of the bully pulpit to lay out what he believes is needed.  In the wake of what I learned about Obama and his economic team,  and their refusal to lower the hammer  on  the banks when he had a clear mandate to do so,  I am now doubtful of just what those desires really are;  whether he really does desire to do what it takes to help us defeat the stranglehold the elite have over this economy.  Or is he himself now IN that stranglehold?

This is not the Obama I voted for.  The one who promised a severe challenge to the “way of  Washington”;  an end to the stranglehold of special interests,  and even that Obama that seemed to be coming straight down a road of a social justice Christian tradition.  I find it difficult if not impossible to see that Obama anymore.  I’ve had some friends tell me that although they intend to vote for Obama this time (usually always because the alternative would be much worse,  and bad things would come of it much quicker)  , they will no longer support the Democratic party  if the next term didn’t bring a very different Obama.  It’ll be third  party time.  It’ll be serious challenges to the present system of  representation,  and the safeguards needed to protect it from being blown away by financial interests.

I’m thinking that’s where I am too.  If nothing can get done in 8 years to make a dent in what has been wrought on our economy by the corporate take over of our politics,  then its time for a new process.  With Citizens United allowing unlimited propaganda to be dumped on the American psyche  (and don’t be naive, people.  Advertising WORKS, no matter how you may insist you;re not swayed by it,  it  works,else they wouldn’t be continuing to pour money into it.  The  effects are subtle,  and largely imperceptible. And somehow the Supreme Court has overlooked this ; or,  more accurately and/or likely,  they HAVEN’T overlooked it;  they are in cahoots with the aims of Citizens United),  given all this,  our “process” is truly screwed.  It no longer sounds  convincing to say “vote and make your voice heard”.  It all comes off sounding like false piety.