politics of resistance

This might be the saddest day of the presidential campaign for me personally. CNN's Roland Martin is reporting that Obama has sent a letter to Trinity United Church resigning his membership. I respect his decision, but it pains me that it has come to this. I know that such decisions can't be made lightly.

While I am excited about the role faith has played in this election, I am also worried about the increasing blurring of the religious and political spheres on both sides. As I have said before, while I understand the perspective of many of the pastors who have been politically criticized, I also believe these ministers have a responsibility for to speak truth in a way that transmits grace and promotes reconciliation. All to often ministers flaunt their right to speak "truth" without considering this truth in context.

At the same time, I have alarmed by those on the right and the left who have invaded the religious sphere hunting for sermon footage of controversial statements, infiltrating congregations, and twisting entire sermons into inflammatory sound bites. This week I saw Matt Taibbi on the John Stewart show talking about his new book The Great Derangement. Basically Taibbi infiltrated John Haggee's congregation (fundamentalist preacher from Texas) for five months and even went so far as to become a member in order to gain material for his juicy insider book. While I was shocked at the extremity of their practices Tabbi described, I was also deeply disturbed by how unethical it was for Taibbi to exploit the good faith of the church members and leadership by posing as a sincere believer. They should rightly feel betrayed.


People of faith on both sides of the aisle should be alarmed at this type of political aggrandizing, and we should condemn it. While it is appropriate to hold church leaders accountable, we should also stand by the separation of church and state. What our church leaders say should be held to account against the the gospel, not against what is politically expedient or inexpedient. We should repudiate the authority of the Shawn Hannidys or Matt Taibbis to speak about what is appropriate and not appropriate when it comes to expressing the relationship between faith and politics. There is nothing that upsets me more than to hear a Republican strategist express outrage about the "hate speech" coming out of Trinity, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of racial oppression and injustice that such comments are arising out of.


A comment by a NYT poster responding to the news about Obama demonstrates the tension of faith and politics in this presidential race:

"I have the highest regards for Senator Obama, and understand it was politically expedient to do this, in light of the unfortunate statements some ministers there have made — but I regret his decision: I think the ministers were speaking honestly, though controversially and imperfectly, out of a liberation theology entirely suited to a people whose history has been so painful and so political. These controversies are “teaching moments,” a chance to engage history and truth… "

I mourn the fact that people of faith are not responding with more vigor to these events because the bottom line is that we should be the ones to be providing a balanced critique and a vigorous exploration of faith in context. It is on us to resist the political propagandizing and turn these events into teaching moments. We should also remember that it is not just Obama who is suffering from these events, but rather all the members of Trinity and the larger African American church. Members are scared, paranoid, and worried that there every move is being scrutinized and labeled. Elderly shut in members report getting calls from the media asking how they have been treated by the church.

I know this is nothing new. Members of controversial churches have regularly been exposed to such scrutiny, especially when their leader is regarded as highly controversial and offensive. I'm thinking of my own former, former, church in Seattle, Mars Hill, as an example. However, people of faith should demand that the public and the media explore more carefully, compassionately, and critically the role and work of the church, which is not about the Republican or Democratic agenda but rather about the work of the gospel.

I'm not suggesting that the gospel doesn't have political implications. In some cases, it is entirely appropriate to address these implications within the church. However, I think people of faith should vigurously resist the politicization of the church by both the right and the left, and we should do so publically.

a cover up!?

Today, Bill Clinton claims wife is victim of "cover up."

He then has the audacity to add "she is winning in the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

I think the first comment on the news story says it all:

" I never realized that dementia was contagious and that it could be spread between spouses."

Jon Stewart picked up on the fun last night:

to blog or not to blog

I have been a bit self-conscious recently about blogging. After reading Emily Gould's fascinating and sad article Exposed in the NYT about her life as a professional blogger, I had to ask: what is blogging, facebook, myspace really all about? What are the rules and boundaries of the internet? When I blog or post on facebook, what is driving me? Is the narcissism that Gould identifies present in me to?

I was talking to a friend from Iran last night. She thinks blogging and facebook is crazy. She made an interesting point that I had never thought about. In her country, they fight so hard to establish privacy, to create a private space that is outside the reach of the government and outsiders, and yet Americans willingly and purposefully give up their privacy.

This led into a long discussion about Americans and how we don’t care much about the distinction between private and public space. Just look at the Patriot Act – for the most part, Americans have this attitude that if I am not doing anything wrong, invasion of my privacy by the government isn’t a big deal. Who cares? We already are used to exposing ourselves everyday through the internet, reality tv, youtube, etc.

The seduction of the internet is based on the false notion of anonymity. With facebook and blogs, we suspend the rules of normal conversation. Instead, we purposefully have conversations that everyone can overhear. Why? I have to confess that I regularly debate whether I should post on someone’s wall or send them a message: I’m aware that someone else might be reading and sometimes this has a strange pull. Other times, I’m much more careful.

I’m a writer. Authentic self-expression and connecting to others is really important to me. I enjoy reading other’s blogs and writing on my own. But I also understand the dangerous seduction of blogging. I struggle with the problem of over-sharing not only on the internet, but also in real life. Too often I want release, which I can gain instantly through talking with a friend or posting a blog, instead of really sitting and digesting my thoughts and feelings. I’ve gotten a bit better at learning the wisdom of boundaries in the last few years, and as a consequence I’ve become a lot more careful about what I post and how I post. Usually, I go through some edits first, and if it is really personal, I sit on it and think about how what I say impacts both me and whoever will be reading it. I’ve learned to draw these boundaries in real life too. When I have the impulse to emotionally or verbally dump on someone, I take a step back and ask why? Am I just looking for a quick fix and release, or is their value in sharing? I’ve learned that I don’t always need to share: I have tools and resources within me. I have God. And it’s ok to not have resolution or instant release.

I think that the internet is such a new medium of communication that it’s taking time, trial and error to figure out what one’s rules and boundaries should be. We might look back, as I do, with some embarrassment at what we have posted or how we have constructed ourselves. But I try to have grace with myself too. Looking back, there were reasons why I posted things that I posted in the way that I posted or why I emphasized a certain part of my identity.

I’m not ready to swear of blogging or facebook anytime soon, but I’m definitely thinking a lot harder about the line between personal and public and the wisdom of guarding and nurturing our own private space. Because it is in this space, when we cut out all other voices, that we really begin to know our own. It is in this private space that I gain the confidence I need to be who I am, confidence that no amount of friends or sharing can give to me. I learn to trust my own voice and the still small voice within me. Ironically, I have learned that over-sharing and over-connection only exacerbates my insecurities and anxieties because I tend to lose track of my voice and just begin spewing. Generally, it feels good in the moment, but afterwards, I don't usually feel much better.

In the same way, I have to wonder how much willing public exposition contributes to our own national anxiety and insecurities. What does it mean to really honor the boundaries of both self and other? If we are serious about loving others, I think the boundaries between self and other need to become clearer; we have to be more ok about respecting the mystery of our self and the mystery of others. This is so hard for me because I crave connection and affirmation, but I think true community is only possible when we embrace our limitations and realize we don’t need to know everything and we don’t need to share everything.

This doesn’t mean that we should attempt to live in solitude or develop a false idea that we should make it solely on our own. We are created for community, which is why I still blog and get on facebook. I love seeing what friends and acquaintances are up to, especially those people who I can’t see in person (which is pretty much everyone right now). The internet has made connection and community that used to be impossible, possible. And this should be celebrated.

is guilt a virtue?

In praise of liberal guilt. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine

Is guilt a virtue? Should guilt be a virtue? How do we appropriately respond to guilt, while not living in bondage to guilt?

Guilt is a powerful motivator. In my own life, (white western christian) guilt has been a powerful force. Of course, guilt can only take you so far. Justice and progress cannot solely be fueled by guilt because with guilt comes fear: fear or offending, fear of messing up, fear of not getting it right. Guilt is like law --- it leaves no room for grace. It leaves no room for mistakes and process. And sometimes guilt dangerously distorts causing us take responsibility for more than is ours to carry.

Guilt-oriented justice is inherently self-oriented. It is about making ourselves feel better, measuring up, getting clean. Guilt-oriented justice denies the other their full humanity and also infects our own sense of self with feelings of inadequacy and shame. Guilt motivated justice keeps us concerned with our part in the equation, which is an important part, but not the end. Ironically, the notion of supremacy that we are trying to rectify through guilt ends up being perpetuated because whether arrogant or guilty, offending or penitent, it's still about us.

It took everything falling apart to get me to give up guilt (at least in terms of racial reconciliation). I led an interracial team to Jackson, Mississippi and because of my own hypersense of guilt, it failed miserably. But through this experience, I learned something important: anger, mistrust, and mistakes are part of the process and because of this, there is no room for guilt. Guilt keeps us from diving into the mess with others and giving up control. It keeps us on the defensive. Because we are so busy trying to make things right while maintaining our own sense of power and control, we often fail to let ourselves be vulnerable and fail to recognize the vulnerability and pain of the other. In this failure, we prevent true healing and progress from occurring, even if this progress initially looks and feels like chaos.

Love is the only force powerful enough to break through guilt and denial. Having a black man (John Perkins) embrace me while I was weeping on his couch and instead of condemning me tell me that it was ok to mess up and affirm who I was was the most liberating and healing thing that has ever happened to me. Because God knows if anyone had a right to make me feel guilty or to be angry it was him. But he didn't. He empowered me to love. He saw in me a capacity for love, and so he wasn't going to let me get away with wallowing in guilt. Love, unlike guilt, recognizes that the mess can't be fixed, but that we don't need to live in fear. Instead, we can walk forward confident in the hope that things will be made right by way of the mess. Love empowers.

It seems to me that guilt and love often work in tandem with each other. Guilt can lead to progress and justice. Guilt oriented justice is based on recognizing disproportionate power and a desire to make right what has been wronged. However, love takes it one step further. Love oriented justice works towards shared power and full affirmation of self and other. Love oriented justice calls us to give up power while affirming that we are valuable. Love-oriented justice is ultimately other-oriented; it denies us the ability to see the "other" as solely victim nor to see ourselves as solely oppressor. It liberates us from identities of fear, shame, and violence.

While guilt grieves what has been lost and violated, love affirms what is still possible. When it comes to injustice, both grief and hope are needed. I don't see how we can ever get to shared power without first recognizing and grieving the disproportionate use and abuse of power. Justice demands a recognition of what has been wronged, but also a desire to move beyond. I like to think of guilt as an initial prompt, an invitation to move deeper, a call to ask "what's really going on here?" Like Ron says in the article, it's about where guilt leads you. Guilt can be a good thing. It can lead us to the point of grace where we are invited to leave behind our identities of fear and shame and embrace hope, life, and love. What is sad to me is that those who refuse to acknowledge guilt and those who remain trapped by guilt may never understand that in there is something more..

So, in conclusion, I don't know if I can say that guilt should be praised as a virtue. I think guilt can lead to virtue, but in itself, it is not a virtue. However, to ignore guilt or refuse to acknowledge it can be very dangerous. It seems appropriate to question why those who criticize "white liberal guilt" do so and what their own denial of its validity means. It also seems appropriate to question if justice and progress can be sustained by guilt alone. Most would be agree that it cannot. But let's at least start by acknowledging that it has its place.

This article was a good reminder about guilt because too often I tend to be cynical about white liberal guilt, but that's probably because I see so much of myself in such imperfect and self-conscious strivings.

hillary should denounce racism

David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote - Bang the Drum

I wish I could directly link this media clip, but you will have to go to this blog to see it. It seems to only be available in a few places ---- hmmmm. I tried to find it on youtube but to no avail.

Basically, David Gergen calls on Hillary Clinton to denounce the white racist vote and to take the moral high road in this election. In my opinion, this would be a welcome alternative to her blatant pandering and exploitation of racism/classism.

Thanks to Aaron for bringing this my way :)