Reply to Jim Wallis

In my e-mail box, I received a letter "from" Jim Wallis of Sojourners, offering me the "opportunity" to send Sojourners money!

I was irritated. Not because Sojourners is trying to raise money because, of course, as many people will tell me, they "need" to. What annoyed me was the smarminess of the letter. Addressing me by first name as if I were "Jim's" personal friend. Couching sending them money as an "opportunity." The creepy hackneyed hyberpole: "enormous," "Incredible." Treating the reader, without irony, as a fool. Maybe it was the absence of irony that bothered me most. Wanting absolutely nothing of me but my money and not even offering me a laugh for my buck. It reminded me of an old Monty Python skit where a doctor comes to pay a house call but ignores the patient while he runs around the house in a crazed way stuffing his empty black doctor's bag with any cash he can find. Of course, the skit was funny.

Here is an organization that prides itself on being different from "those people" on the other side of the political divide. Yet it seems to mirror standard corporate fundraising tactics. It seems to put all its faith in money to solve problems. Hhhm. Is it putting first the kingdom or filthy lucre? Are they anything but a mirror of the thing they purport to hate and want to "reform?" I imagine I am supposed to be naive enough to see sending them money as an "opportunity," but not so naive as to think they could "do it without my support (money)?"

I spent more than a decade in marketing and among many tasks I wrote what quaintly used to be called "direct mail" letters like the one from Sojourners. They're used because they're "proven to be effective." But just because something is an effective fundraising technique, does that justify using it? Not to be sanctimonious, but can you, Sojourners, really pour new wine into old wineskins?

I "replied" to the letter. Here's my response:

Dear Jim,

Thank you so much for contacting me personally and by first name.

In such a time as this, with both "enormous possibilities" and "incredible challenges," I too want to keep Sojourners work "alive and strong."

I am a religion journalist who would like to make you a gift worth more than a check for measly lucre: the opportunity of hiring me.

I will give you insightful, accurate and intelligent stories and columns for a reasonable salary. I will thus help you keep Sojourners work alive and strong. In fact, I will make it more alive and stronger. I am an "opportunity."

Under the new Obama proposed tax structures, this will will you a tax break of $3,000. Hiring talented people like me is part of the challenge and possibility to make a real difference in a failed economy.

Please e-mail me for my resume and more information.

Sincerely,

Diane

Do you think I'll hear from them? :)

Peaceable Kingdom

Apparently, the above photos of a tiger with piglets are real, but despite some sweet stories circulating that a group of altruistic zoo officials brought in the piglets to help a grieving tiger mother heal from the loss of her young, the real story supposedly is that they are part of a Chinese zoo exhibit meant to startle viewers in the same way a circus sideshow might.

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together." Isaiah 11:6.

And the tiger shall lie down with the piglet ...

Who says it can't happen?

Republic Windows and Doors

What do you think of the "sit in" at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago? Workers there were told Tuesday that the plant was closing for good on Friday. They were given three days notice that they would no longer have jobs. The workers decided to stage a peaceful protest by sitting in the empty factory in shifts. They say they are owed vacation and overtime pay and question whether Bank of America was overhasty in pulling the plug on the business's credit.

This sit in caught my attention because it is a peaceful protest, and because it perfectly aligns with the kind of social justice action Paul Hawkin describes in his book "Blessed Unrest," which I recently finished reading. The sit-in participants are a small group of people on the bottom of society questioning how Bank of America, which recently got how many billions (?) in taxpayer bailout money, could refuse to extend credit to the small company. Maybe Bank of America had a good reason to deny the funds and maybe not, but at least the laid-off workers are raising the question.

So what do you think?

Obama tidbits

In a recent newsmagazine article, it became clear that the French are having Obama envy. He is just so cool they can't stand it. He should be French!

Much has been made recently about how people identify with Obama for many different reasons. One reason cited was that he's appreciated for daring to sound intelligent and for using good grammar. Yes, yes, yes. I identify with that! Especially the good grammar part.

I also identify with Obama, as I've stated previously, for being close to me in age. I also identifited with Sarah Palin for that reason too, as well as for the way her life path has been similar to mine and to that of many women of our generation, who have "made it up" as we've gone along.

Will Obama be able to change anything or will he merely act as a servant, a quiet Jeeves, to a supra-national capitalist class that is above any national control? Maybe, but I want to believe that Obama's position as President holds power and that he has power in grassroots support. Am I naive?

I agree with those who say that the true Kingdom is built far away from centers of political power. Any thoughts on where we begin or have begun? I ask that because I think when people make those kinds of statements, they can be abstract and others might not know what exactly is being talking about. What are we talking about?

Take heed of greed

"And covetousness, which is idolatry ..." (Colossians 3:5)

"And take heed of greediness and earthly mindedness, and covetousness, which the apostle called idolatry; for it is a great spot and blot of the world that lieth in wickedness."

From "Mind the Heavenly Treasure," which offers thoughts of George Fox for every day of the year. This one is for Nov. 15.

Having just witnessed the economic meltdown, attributable mostly to greed, I find Fox's words especially relevant. In fact, having lived for a year in England and been stunned at the size and granduer of some of the great houses, I would have to say greed is a recurrent phenomenom and something which connects us with the earliest Quakers.

Two houses stand out in my mind: the first is Blenheim Palace, home of the Dukes of Marlborough and birthplace of Winston Churchill. I had never seen a place so overwhelmingly grand in my life, not only huge but set like a jewel on thousands of acres of stunningly beautiful English countryside. I remember how huge the rooms were, how tall the ceilings, how everything was on an almost non-human scale. It was somewhat like the palace Charlie Chaplin lives in in the Great Dictator. I remember having a visceral sense of the class system, and I would argue we really have nothing comparable to this home in the United States (or didn't). I also had a sudden realization: Winston Churchill came from the highest of rarified circles. I had a sense of the huge gulf between people like him and people like me. In essence, the palace did what I imagine it was intended to do: it made me feel small and insignificant.

The other great house that struck me was Ham House, located in or near London. It's a much smaller house, more on the scale of grand houses I've seen in the U.S., and growth has surrounded it, so it's not set in the midst of vast acreage. What struck me was the silver everywhere. Because of colonial plunders, the family which owned Ham House had vast amounts of silver. To preserve it, they melted it and had it made into big tables, in part to make the silver difficult to steal. So in the midst of, in the 20th century, a still relatively low standard of living, sat these vastly wasteful tables. I almost couldn't get over it.

Now that I'm a Quaker, it strikes me that both these house were built (or begun) in the late seventeenth century (I will check this out). So Fox and his followers would have seen these monuments to greed in the midst of great poverty. And they would have seen a concentration of wealth making ordinary people feel small. Thinking about this, it's easy to see why they pushed so hard for addressing people as equals and for equality itself.

But let's not dwell on the past. If we heed Fox's advice, how do we steer clear of greed and covetousness. Do we simply have to accept it as inevitable?

Obama

I've spent the last days processing the Presidential election.

I've mostly stayed out of politics in my adult life. I have too many friends across the political spectrum who are sincere, compassionate, thoughtful, intelligent and good people who want with all their hearts to make the world a better place for me to say that my poltical way is the only way. In fact, I've found that regardless of political orientation, most of us have almost identical goals --peace, strong families, prosperity, social justice, caring communities -- but simply believe different paths will get us there faster and more fully. When I understood that, I could no longer hang on to a "my way or no way" political partisanship. (As an aside, it's interesting to note that some of the people I know who are the fiercest advocates of all religions representing different paths up the same mountain would never, ever extend that tolerance or inclusive point of view to people of a different political party or persuasion.)

Despite my apolitical predilection, I got involved in this election, working as a volunteer for the Obama campaign even though I disagreed with him on several issues. I attended training sessions, made phone calls and knocked on doors, asking people to vote for Obama. This is everything I don't like to do. I also don't like to be identified with one politcial party or the other, because I dislike the stereotypes that are associated with party affiliation. I'd rather not be hated or misunderstood over something, that in the end, isn't that important. (Again, this makes me the flip side of people I know who militantly identify with one poltical party but don't want to alienate anybody by adopting a religious affiliation.)

I was not an Obama supporter initially. But even before the economic meltdown, this election seemed to matter more than most. Perhaps, for me, it was simply moving to Ohio that made the difference.

I was grateful when Obama won the election. And when Obama won Ohio, the people I was watching the returns with burst into applause.

I stayed up late to watch Obama's speech, because, as so many have pointed out, this was a historic moment.

I was a bit surprised, however, when the next day all the papers played up the election of the first black President. I'd almost forgotten Obama was black. For me, what made the election historic was the message from the voters that our country needs to head in a whole new direction.

As I watched the election drama, I was struck by the contrast between Obama's acceptance of the Presidency and Clinton's in 1992. I remember the Clintons and the Gores lined up on a makeshift stage together, smiling, holding up their arms and seeming overjoyed and connected to each other as "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" played in the background. The atmosphere was festive, triumphant and delighted.

In contrast, Obama seemed alone, even when his family was with him. And despite the much larger crowd, Obama appeared more somber than Clinton. Maybe it's the weight of the times we live in, and how bad things are, but Obama seemed on a different plane than other politicians, less frivolous, more conscious of the enormity of the task at hand. For that moment at least, he seemed like a great President, a transcendent President, a Lincoln, a Washington, a messianic figure who could lead us out of Egypt.

That's a lot of weight to carry. He's not a messiah, but how many Americans are pinning those kinds of hopes on him?

When, alerted by the newspapers I turned my attention to him as the first black President, I began to realize what a weight that is to bear, in and of itself. He and Michelle and their daughters already seem to be replacing Martin Luther King Jr. and his family as mythic figures in the black community. When I recognized the levels of reverence towards Obama and his family, I began to fear for him. I hope he will do everything he can do to protect himself.

And while I am trying not to expect too much, I hope he can rise to the occasion and become a great leader. And I continue to be glad to have borne witness to a joyful moment around the world. But what about you? Did you vote for Obama? Do you think Obama can bring the change we need?

Financial crisis and end times

If we have to have an economic crisis, I'm glad it happened under the most pro-free market administration I can ever remember (more so even than under Reagan, who at least was hands off about Social Security). This is good, because when a Treasury Secretary like Paulson, former chairman or CEO (let's just say bigwig) of Goldman Sachs says we have to nationalize the banks, we can't accuse him of having a secret socialist agenda. He has a huge amount of credibility. Likewise, when free market Bush comes on the air and pleads with us to support the $700 billion government bailout, we know the crisis must be serious. So I'm grateful this happened now, because if this administration is calling for a high level of government and coordinated international intervention, there can be no doubt it's needed.

I have stopped listening to Christian radio, but about a decade ago I listened to it a lot (and I learned a lot) but much of it was also ... let's say, questionable. One repeated theme was about the end times, and one of the signs of the end times was "one world government." Mostly, this warning was aimed at the EC or the UN, each of which was seen as a sign of the beast, etc. etc. Now I will say up front, that I think this line of thinking is, to put it mildly, dubious. I never saw Satan in the EU or the UN. Frankly, they both seem like good ideas to my feeble mind. But the thought has certainly crossed my mind in the past days: what of this coordinated international effort to deal with the financial crisis? Isn't that much more like "one world government" than either the EU or the UN? It's definitely the powers of the "world" coming together: the representatives of what we think of us the world's power --money and military might -- as opposed to the power of the gospel -- love, renunciation, sacrifice, non-violence, gentleness, kindness, patience, faith, etc. Now, I am not one to worry about end times, but I am wondering if anybody has heard a peep about this on Christian radio?

Financial crisis and silence

A few days ago, I was sitting in the doctor's office, waiting for Sophie to come out of an appointment. As usual, I was perusing magazines. I flipped through a Vogue and then through a Martha Stewart Living, and then I had to put them both aside. While I usually channel Jane Austen and derive a great deal of amusement out of the vanities and foibles of the human race, I realized I was too heartsick to enjoy the articles. I was heartsick because of the financial crisis. It's hard to laugh at remodeling your home into a Shaker cottage for a vast amount of money or at panicked urgings to get "preventive" plastic surgery when you're 50 "at the latest," when all the money that supported such folly seems to have suddenly disappeared.

An odd thing about this crisis is that nobody, at least in my world, seems to be talking about it. I keep wondering why. The stock market is plunging, the credit market is frozen, we're meeting lows we haven't since 1931 (not a good year for finance), such as six consecutive days of larger than one percent losses on the stock exchange, and locally, the newspaper reports the layoff of 800 steelworkers near Wheeling, an area that can scarcely afford one layoff ... and everyone is silent. Occasionally, someone will make a passing joke about nobody having any assets anymore, but as far as sustained conversation ... it's as if the crisis didn't exist. It's like being caught in one of those 1930s movies where no hint of catastrophe exists. But this is real life.

Is it, as one columnist put it, that we're at the moment before the tsunami wave hits when everything gets still? Is it that life as usual is going on as usual in most of our worlds? Are we still somehow hoping the crisis will go away? (I know I am but I also know it probably won't.) Or are many of us feeling secure enough in our jobs or situations that it's really not a worry? Or are we too fearful to open our mouths? Or too busy calculating our worst case scenario? Is it something we have to ignore like a terrible faux pas, like someone spitting out a glob of chewed up food at a formal dinner? Or is that we just don't know what to say, because we don't know exactly how the wave isn't going to hit? Ot is it just massive denial or incomprehension that life as we know it really could change?

Maybe, as Sarah Palin would say, it's all of the above. But I find it strange that it seems socially unacceptable to discuss what appears to be a worldwide catastrophe.

I'm wondering what everybody else thinks. Are people talking about the crisis in your world? What are you thinking about it? Are you making any lifestyle changes? But of course, this is inviting a discussion about ... that which won't be named.

Obama as Mr. Darcy?

OK, this happened days ago and the world has so moved on, to Paris Hilton for President and beyond. But I'm ... still that slow pace! ... and STILL thinking about Maureen Dowd's editorial in the NY Times comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy.

So wrong. Obama's a smooth speaking charismatic. Mr. Darcy was always stiff and reserved, shy and uncertain, hiding behind his wealth and status, not out of arrogance or hard-heartedness but because he felt a little awkward and fearful. Endearing that someone with all his wealth, privileges of being male, rank, etc. could still feel insecure. Endearing that he could need the intangible sparkle that Elizabeth Bennett brought to the relationship. Endearing that he was probably a more decent human being that others of his ilk.

However, I AM flattered that Dowd compared "we the American people" to Elizabeth Bennett. Who could be cooler than EB? She glides through all company with equal aplomb, never (or seldom) at a loss for words, never at a loss for wit, never without a sense of who she is. Who wouldn't want to be Elizabeth Bennett? She's the best.

But I show my prejudice. So let me pose the question: who's your favorite Austen character?

Remembering Solzhenitsyn

I've thinking about Solzhenitsyn on and off since I read of his death a few days ago. Anyone who so annoyed Western intellectuals must have spoken some uncomfortable truths, I thought. I read his 1978 address to Harvard and could see how it would have upset people. Much of it also reads as archaic now that socialism and communism have fallen. All the same, I couldn't help but agree with his stance on secular humanism (he refers to it as humanism divorced from God). I think he may fall a little hard on the anti-materialist side (I believe God did make the incarnate things of the earth for people to enjoy and nobody I know of wants people to suffer want) but I agree that we can take materialism as the source of happiness to an extreme level. What do you think?

Here's a quote:

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot [be] unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

Catholicism: Defender of the rational?

Below are excerpts from two intriguing Washington Post op-ed pieces today about the Pope. (Note: For all that I write about Catholicism, I am not and never have been Catholic.) It sounds to me as if the Pope, Shane Claiborne and Quakers might have a lot in common:

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted," [the Pople] told the country's Catholic bishops on Wednesday. "Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel."

That is a demanding and unsettling standard for the right and the left alike. Benedict asked a pointed question: "Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death?"

This is the thinking of a communitarian counseling against radical individualism. "In a society which values personal freedom and autonomy," he said, "it is easy to lose sight of our dependence on others as well as the responsibilities that we bear towards them. . . . We were created as social beings who find fulfillment only in love -- for God and for our neighbor." It is this attitude that Benedict described as "countercultural." Dionne, April 18, 2007


I think it can't be said too often that radical individualism is NOT countercultural. It may have been in 1970, but not any more.

And more:

First, despite charges of dogmatism, the church is the main defender of reason in the modern world. It teaches the possibility that moral truth can be known through reflection and argument. It criticizes what Pope Benedict XVI has called the "dictatorship of relativism" -- a belief "that does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." "Being an adult," says Benedict, "means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties."

Secularism has traditionally taught that human beings will eventually outgrow religious conviction and moral absolutism -- that skepticism is evidence of maturity. Benedict contends that modern men and women, unguided by reasoned moral beliefs, turn toward adolescent self-involvement. Their intellectual growth is stunted. In a world where all moral claims are seen as equally true and equally false -- the world, for example, of the modern university -- human conscience is reduced to biology or prejudice. Moral behavior may continue to ride in grooves of socialization or genetics, but moral assertions are fundamentally arbitrary -- always trumped by a two-word response: "Says you."

By asserting that the human mind can grasp moral truth, Catholicism also defends the reliability of reason against the superstitions of our time.

And this is important for a very practical reason: because a belief in human rights is also a moral conviction. Catholicism teaches that relativism and a purely material view of man have disturbing social consequences. "The criterion of personal dignity," wrote Pope John Paul II, "which demands respect, generosity and service -- is replaced by the criterion of efficiency, functionality and usefulness: others are considered not for what they 'are,' but for what they 'have, do and produce.' This is the supremacy of the strong over the weak."

Gerson, April 18, 2008

What do you think?

Forget your principles?

I clipped this from a Dionne editorial in the Washington Post this morning:

"Sometimes you have to forget your principles to do what's right."

What do you think of this statement?

Sex scandal continued

OK ... I am going to drop this ... I think ... but one more comment.

I read two pieces on Spitzer in the New York Times. The first brought up the old "politicians are alpha male, risk-taking, thrill seekers" theory to explain Spitzer's behavior. I am skeptical of this theory. Surely there are other ways to seek thrills and such a thing as sublimation. I did, however, agree that these men feel entitled ... in fact, I believe a sense of entitlement is the core problem.

Another piece argued that because Spitzer did a good job in cleaning up Wall Street, we shouldn't judge him so harshly for his private life. However, as a society we do, if only because sexual misconduct is a powerful symbol of ruling class arrogance and self-gratification at the expense of others.

I agree that we should celebrate Spitzer's successes in opposing corporate corruption. I also believe we should applaud Bill Clinton for his achievements in helping to build a strong economy in the 1990s. It's the demonstrated competence of such politicians that makes their sexual contretemps all the more frustrating and disappointing: The self-indulgence undermines the good these people do in other areas. Which makes me ask again wonder why?

sex scandal, economic meltdown

What a morning to open the papers! Since we don't watch television in Reynoldsville, we get our news here from the print media. What of that New York governor? How is that public officials never seem to learn that prostitutes are a bad idea? Maybe memorizing (and passing a comprehension test) on the book of Proverbs should be required before an elected official can take office?

But what concerns me most about the prostitution is how widespread it seems to be. Spitzer was hardly the "Emperor Club's" (what a name!) only client. And what of the movie "Michael Clayton?" In that saga, to "celebrate" a billing milestone, one of the protagonists (the moral center of the movie, no less) and another lawyer friend purchase the services of two Eastern European "redheads." Visiting prostitutes is apparently so ordinary, so commonplace, that it's not worth a second thought. The "redheads" are treated entirely as objects, nameless, interchangeable and dehumanized parts. They're spoken of with utter callousness. No thought whatsoever is given to what life circumstances might have brought them to this pass or what their feelings might be or that they might despise what they are doing or that it might be wrong to use them in this way. And, of course, they must be dehumanized this way for the system to work. Moreover, when it becomes normal and everyday (a "right") to have call girls at your disposal, of course our public officials will want them too ... Didn't Oscar Wilde tell us that nature imitates art?

The one gratifying part of this sordid Spitzer debacle is that "Kristen," Spitzer's call girl, is coming across in the newspapers as a real human. More so than his wife ...

Meanwhile, the New York Times is full of economic meltdown news: See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11herbert.html?ref=opinion. Are we at the beginning of a new Great Depression? Does the phrase "fiddling while Rome burns" come to mind as we watch our elected officials spending $4,000 plus dollars for a few hours with a prostitute, while millions of two-income families are earning less than $40,00 a year? Am I wrong to be outraged about all this? Is none of it "a big deal?"