Prognostications on politics

Here's how I see things going -- for the long haul:

-- The "tea-party" movement will be history by 2013, if not sooner. I say that for one reason: It's really a religious movement masquerading as a political one, which is why you have so many evangelical Christians involved. Of course, "religious" movements by their very nature reject outside counsel, so even if you try to "talk some sense" into such people no matter how nicely they will cry persecution; on top of that, tea-partiers don't talk or listen to anyone else or participate in the actual political process of give-and-take with those not with them. The result is that they will eventually turn people against them because they simply can't deliver what they promise.

-- The anti-abortion movement will finally gain steam when, and only when, the modern conservative movement collapses. Since the latter's inception it has hypocritically split abortion from other legitimate issues of the sanctity of human life, which leads directly to its general ineffectiveness in reaching folks who might be allies, specifically African-Americans disproportionately affected by abortion.

-- I'm somewhat surprised at the showing of Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania, my state. The races for governor and senator, in which the Republicans once held commanding leads, have shrunk to dead heats, with Democrat Joe Sestak even slightly ahead of Republican Pat Toomey in one poll in the Senate race. But that points to a basic weakness in the GOP platform that the Democrats have exploited: Lower taxes on businesses don't necessarily or automatically create jobs, so the Democrats have been hammering the Republicans on "derivatives" and outsourcing. It's working.

-- For some of the same reasons I've mentioned above, should Barack Obama decide to run for president in 2012 he will walk to victory. The Republicans will again try to catch lightning in a bottle by conjuring up the spirit of Ronald Reagan and trying to find his doppelganger; the trouble is that they still haven't figured out that people voted for him, not necessarily them. Every candidate the GOP can come up with right now is either insufficiently conservative for its base or revolting to the rest of the country; however, because of its insularity and unwillingness to consider other viewpoints it can only drive people away.

-- If you oppose the health-care insurance bill passed in March, tough luck because it's not going to be repealed. Ever. A number of things to be considered: First, even if a bill were up for a vote and passed it will never survive a veto. Second, by the time some of its provisions kick in folks won't want it repealed anyway. Leading to the third point: As I mentioned, Obama will be a shoo-in for reelection anyway.

-- Lately the conservative movement has promoted Alveda King, niece of the late civil-rights movement leader Martin Luther King Jr., as his rightful heir, even having her speak at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. They often ask the question: Why don't people support her? Well, let me give you two things to think about: Her uncle was very, very critical of "Northern right-wing whites" in general and, after the 1964 presidential election, called defeated GOP candidate Barry Goldwater "the most dangerous man in the country" at the time. (That should put the lie to the statement that he was actually a Republican being persecuted by Democrats.) Furthermore, I met his son Martin III, then a commissioner in Fulton County, Georgia, which incorporates much of Atlanta, in 1992 -- when he was stumping for Bill Clinton.

Creating conditions, taking responsibility and double standards

An episode of the classic television situation comedy "All in the Family" featured Edith slapping Archie over his playing the horses and Archie demanding an apology in the process. She gave him one, all right -- one that he had written to her years previously repenting of a gambling habit that cost them their car that he ended up signing again.

I was reminded of that when the news broke that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence, had left a message for Anita Hill, who had testified during his confirmation hearings that Thomas has sexually harassed her when he was her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, demanding an apology for giving him the business. (Hill, who said that one would not be forthcoming, called the Federal Bureau of Investigation.)

It's a mystery why Mrs. Thomas even made that call, after his 19 years on the bench -- because it turns out that Hill wasn't the only person who made that accusation. A segment of ABC News "Nightline" identified three other women to whom he had made lewd comments. Recently, a woman Mr. Thomas had previously dated came forward with additional information. Going further, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page article, "Strange Justice," that was so detailed that, according to David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," it caused Ricky Silberman, one of his patrons and wife of right-wing activist judge Laurence Silberman, to freak out, roaring, "He did it, didn't he?"

Contrast that to Bill Clinton, whose sexual peccadilloes while president caused his enemies to impeach him. What was the difference? Well, for openers, Clinton knew that no meant no; when Paula Jones turned down his request for oral sex, she said no and -- as far as he was concerned -- that was the end of it. (In fact, it later came out that she was possibly interested in being his paramour.) Let's also remember that his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was consensual. Anyway, for what it's worth, Clinton apparently sought counseling for his inappropriate actions and hasn't been in trouble since.

Don't you find it interesting that Clarence Thomas complained about a "high-tech lynching" while never addressing the allegations against him? Perhaps he was trying to rally folks, especially the African-American community that he basically had abandoned, to his side; as it was, he was confirmed as an associate justice by what I think was the closest vote ever. But his wife's action, just like Archie's, spoke of entitlement, that there's a different set of rules for her side of the political fence. That won't fly.

A culture of hoarding

As per usual, political campaigns make a lot of noise about why their candidates will promote policies that will induce companies to "create jobs." This is especially the case with Republicans, who blame the Obama administration and the stimulus package for not doing what they promised.

Aside from the inaccuracy of that statement, the rhetoric is basically irrelevant.

You see, the problem goes much deeper than that. More accurately, what creates jobs more than anything else is companies and other entities willing to invest for the long haul. Which means, in essence, taking risks that you won't get your money back. It's not happening -- and, if the folks with the bucks have any say, it never will happen. Reason? Because they're afraid of just that.

Today we're dealing with what I call a "culture of hoarding" -- basically, a form of social Darwinism focusing almost exclusively on the bottom line; someone I knew about 20 years ago called it the syndrome of "can what you get and get what you can." Whatever makes to most amount of money the quickest has to be good for everybody -- except that, in the long run, it isn't.

In our country, this goes back to the period immediately following World War II. The American economy was going great guns because ours was virtually the only economy still standing. Here in Pittsburgh, the steel industry had no problem keeping people employed and its plants were humming. However, attributing to its shortsightedness, it didn't invest in new technology; companies in other countries built more modern plants with which the Americans just couldn't compete. (And then the companies blamed union contracts for their demise.)

In the 1980s, "supply-side economics" became quite the fad, the idea was that were businesses to have controls taken off them they would invest the profits to employ more people. At the same time, however, anti-trust rules were relaxed, which allowed companies to swallow each other, building more of a economic engine for the folks at the top but costing jobs for those in the middle. (The resultant recession pushed then-president George H.W. Bush out the door.) Anyway, today's economy is based more on speculation rather than on making quality products, which is why, for example, large pharmaceutical and health insurance companies maintain high costs for whatever they produce -- for the sake of maintaining stock prices. That's were the easy money lies.

Unfortunately, the church of Jesus Christ has been compromised on this issue, in large part because industry has gotten its tentacles into many of its media outlets. One of the first episodes of the 700 Club I ever watched featured a segment promoting what turned out to be sweatshop labor (called "working at home"), and I understand that a top executive of the Halliburton Co. sits on the board of Focus on the Family!

Basically, we simply can't afford for too much longer to have such economic imbalance, where those with the money figure out how to make more while the rest of us suffer. While I don't expect our nation to adopt consistently Biblical principles, it might be a good thing for wealthier Christians to model less-greedy behavior by hiring more people and being more socially responsible. For if you bankrupt your customers, eventually you'll go out of business.

The ultimate 'outsiders'

Over the last few years many folks uninterested in social justice for the poor have suggested that the church of Jesus Christ should operate primarily as a charity for their benefit. I'm guessing that such people believe that, if the poor would improve themselves morally -- whatever that means -- and the church helped with that, they would no longer be poor.

Aside from the classism inherent in that statement, another issue exists that we need to address: Meeting temporal needs is not the primary purpose of the church. It isn't? No.

"Well, what about the early church -- didn't it feed the hungry, clothe the naked and all that kind of stuff?" Yes, it did, but not for the reasons we think of.

We need to remember that, in those days, much of the church of that day was on the run -- hiding in caves, subject to consistent persecution, nearly friendless. In such an atmosphere, especially with people who had literally abandoned their families -- which said something back then -- to follow a Jesus that most of them had never even met in the flesh, you learn to stick together because your very life might depend on it.

Remember, some members of the Body of Christ, then the ultimate "outsiders," were cut off from family, friends, centers of political and economic power and probably even unable to find work, even though they were following the Ultimate King. Irony? Well, He was full of irony -- "the last will be first" and comments like that.

It should be clear by now just why "followers of the Way" were willing to do those things -- they understood from personal experience just what it was like to be hungry, naked and forsaken. They knew from the outset, because He said so, that belonging to Jesus meant suffering but considered doing so worth the cost. Moreover, like their LORD, they were willing to identify with "the least, the last and the lost."

I worship in a church that belongs to a missionary denomination, and in one country (I don't remember which one and probably wouldn't tell you if I did) becoming a Christian meant that you lost your livelihood almost immediately. At my church you might see someone wearing a sweater with the denomination's logo woven into the fabric. Those sweaters were imported from that country and represented the only source of income that the people had.

Contrast that with modern American Christianity. Millions upon millions of dollars for buildings in comfortable suburbs. Radio and TV programs, books and assorted doo-dads. Preachers, congregations and even denominations lobbying politicians. The "worship wars." I sometimes wonder how a Christian living in one of those countries where the church is outlawed would react if he or she came to this country.

Moreover, folks, mostly frightened "culture warriors," talk without any evidence of a day when Christianity itself will be outlawed in the United States, but even if that were to happen it might actually improve the spiritual commitment of the church because it would be forced to cling to Jesus even more. A couple of months ago a fellow musician wore to big-band rehearsal a Christian-themed T-shirt that said that it would be "banned in 51 countries."

I commented, "Maybe it should be banned in this country."

He looked at me quizzically at first but then responded, "To purify the church?"

"Exactly."

The purpose of the church is to herald the coming of the King of Kings, to demonstrate (albeit imperfectly) a preview of the New Jerusalem. Martin Luther King Jr. said that, in order to maintain its integrity, that "it must conform only to the demands of the Gospel" -- the Good News that, because of Him, things will be different and made right. However, we can't do that if we're enamored of earthly power and authority -- after all, if you have that, then why rely on the power of the Holy Spirit? And when you rely on the Holy Spirit -- well, you'll be out of step with the world. Which should be a compliment, because that's the goal.

Newsroom, 9/11/2001

Rather than writing a full commentary on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks nine years ago, I want to offer you a poem I came up with last year at the writers' conference I attend every year.

The story of the millennium, not even ten months old.

Instantly the space became a New World wing of Madame Tussaud's, everyone -- everyone -- staring at the TVs, in shock.

We made phone calls, tried to write --

But what did it matter? We knew something had fundamentally changed.

At the end of the day we stepped into nuclear winter, a city completely deserted, as if a giant vacuum had sucked all the life out of it, the rays of the setting sun going everywhere and nowhere at once -- as if it too was confused.

Everyone had already gone home -- except us, of course. We were compelled to stay, to see this through.

You see, as we watched and re-watched replays of the planes hitting the Towers we instinctively knew what that meant.

Our role, for the next few weeks and beyond, would be to make sense of the horror that had befallen us.

They'll know we are Christians by our ... rage?

For the past three years I've led a prayer meeting at work every Tuesday afternoon, originally in response to contract negotiations but which has since become more general in focus, and we pray regularly for the state of the nation and the church. After today's meeting one of my co-workers, in reaction to the anger demonstrated by some who call themselves believers, made the above comment.

I have to agree. For the past 30 years, I've noticed that many of us who claim Jesus Christ and Savior and LORD have nevertheless seemed to get very, very hot at a moment's notice. First, that rage was directed toward the "secular humanists"; later it was "liberals" and the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, Muslims and others have become targets of our ire. You may have heard about the church in Gainesville, Fla. that intends to hold a Qur'an-burning ceremony on Saturday -- of course the ninth anniversary of 9/11.

Why is this?

Well, I would say because we've become too "worldly," believing that everyone else owes us allegiance -- to our culture, our values, our ways of doing things to a point that we expect everyone to bow down to us and when they don't ... Indeed, a story in Psychology Today last year focusing upon right-wing pundit Ann Coulter brought out that the people who tend to blow up so easily are those who feel entitled (as opposed to the trod-upon). Frankly, it sounds as though people want vengeance.

We should understand, however, that demanding our rights -- and especially since we generally don't agitate or work for the rights of anyone else -- can actually turn people against not only us but also Jesus; in fact, I think it's already done so in many cases. Already Gen. David Petraeus has warned that the church's plainly foolhardy stunt might, and probably will, cause problems for American troops in the Middle East.

This is also why I have grave concerns about Christians' participation in the "tea-party" movement, which has always had a tone of anger and blame to it. It's not that they don't have a right to their opinion, but I don't seem them doing anything but venting -- no specific plan, no consultations with those who disagree to try to work things out. (Some have even denounced the "Coffee Party" precisely because it calls for civility in political debate.)

Anyway, what's missing is a sense of grace. You know, that five-letter word without which we don't get into the Kingdom of God in the first place and consequently how we're supposed to regard others. It's easy to do that with people you're already close to, but what about those we see as enemies?

Well, what would Jesus do? Well, we have in idea. Remember that He was unjustly executed for sedition because He claimed to be a king -- and took the punishment. Yes, ultimately for our sins, but keep in mind that on the cross He also said, "Father, forgive them, because they don't know what they're doing." And I'm not so arrogant to believe that, were I a first-century Jew, I wouldn't have been calling for His death.

I think that's what we need to reconsider. One of the slogans in 12-step culture is "But for the grace of God ... " If we would become a people of grace, the kind that Jesus demonstrated toward people who just didn't "get it right," perhaps we would get people to consider the claims of Christ on their own. (Or perhaps more accurately, let God draw them.) Displaying constant rage, on the other hand, just won't cut it.

Imagine ...

Three weeks ago I had the distinct pleasure of interviewing Herbie Hancock, the legendary jazz keyboardist who was in town the next week with what he called the "Imagine Project." The concept of the album, which included a cover of the John Lennon classic "Imagine," and subsequent tour was about global community, and he recorded with artists from every continent and in different languages other than English.

With all his talk about everyone living together on this planet, which I can certainly understand and appreciate, one thing of which the interview with Hancock, who was at one time a practicing Buddhist and still might be for all I know, reminded me: Without Jesus Christ, all that is ultimately futile because He is absolute, unconditional LORD.

But what would that mean, in practical terms? After all, we Christians have the only message of redemption and reconciliation that actually counts. We know the Way to peace, contentment, justice, truth ... so, why haven't we been more effective?

I think it's because we've become too much a part of the establishment. Especially in the West.

Let's remember that the early church was often on the run, had few friends and faced persecution on every side. Its members thus had to cling to not only Jesus but also each other, which is why they were so willing to share their possessions. They were willing to identify with the dispossessed because they themselves were such.

Today, however, we make the rules and ally ourselves with the powerful, assuming -- arrogantly -- that if people lived by our rules our nation would prosper. (Except that following Christ is not routine; He has to call you.) And of course, we're quite divided these days, among theological, racial, cultural, economic and ideological lines. The civil-rights movement, for openers, essentially, pitted one set of Christians against another set of Christians. Sad.

So, I'd like to take this time to imagine: What would happen if we actually dropped all our campaigns and took unity seriously? I have an idea. Some years ago I wrote a song called "A Call for Reconciliation"; in those days when you wrote a song you also thought video, and I came up with a concept for that as well.

It came in three parts: One, a mostly white church service that was already underway when a choir of African-Americans saunters down the center aisle, clapping all the while; they go up front and embrace others in the choirloft. A blond woman sings a solo; a young Asian man preaches a message; an older, bearded man in vestments holds up a wafer and breaks it.

Two, an after-church picnic, with people playing games, a wedding (with people of different races) and children riding piggyback on adults. Three, people singing at a campfire, a passing gang member tossing his guns away and a Ku Klux Klansman stripping off his robes and throwing them into the fire. Imagine that ...

Well, we in Christ can do these things, or something similar. If we did, we wouldn't need Herbie Hancock to tell people how we should live; we'd already be doing it.