Humanising Hussein (Saddam and Barrack): A Meditation on David Dark’s American Gospel

I’m told that the neural pathways in our brains, in an effort to streamline the mundane processes of everyday life, operate much like highway construction in a city. To mix a Kantian metaphor, objects we encounter empirically are placed into rational categories (a neural net), and the highways connecting the information strengthen and are made more maneuverable the more they are traveled. So for instance, the neural pathway connecting my empirical encounter with a stove turned on with my rational warning “hot”, is well developed as a matter of self-preservation. And in such cases, the mechanism is very useful. The mechanism can be amplified, however, not to just subconscious value judgments based on self-preservation, but to very conscious value judgments regarding pretty much anything. When this categorizing goes unchecked in regards to our social sphere, for instance, it can be the cause of all sorts of nastiness, prejudice, and detachment.

Needless to say, there are times when this rampant categorizing can get us into trouble, when we must fight against the categories in our brain and force ourselves to look at things with a fresh perspective. To use the language of Paul, this is the business of the “renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). To use the analogy of David Dark in his book, The Gospel According to America, it is to attempt catch hold of that “rolling stone” which is “always farther along than any person or group who would presume to speak on its behalf” (Dark, 91). It is a call to constantly reexamine our myths; to see what we are easily and thoughtlessly categorizing, and to bring those areas to the light of public and personal examination.

For Dark, the foundational myth which deserves scrutiny is that of the “practically assailable” evil (Dark, 61). Using Mellville’s Moby Dick as that symbolic scape-goat onto which we project all of our most grotesque visages, Dark writes:

“There’s a mad simplicity in Ahab’s war on terror, and we’re all drawn irresistibly toward it as it permeates the herd like a contagion. It would be wonderful if there were no historical deafness involved in saying of the September 11, attacks ‘We’ve never seen this kind of evil before,” or if all human malice were conveniently contained in one man, one nation, one terrorist network or one white whale. But the “face of evil”, for all its best-selling simplicity, doesn’t actually work that way.”

Engaging in the systematic deconstruction of this particular, and entrenched American myth, Dark argues, is not only biblically mandated, but also deeply patriotic (Dark, 63-64). And yet it is admittedly very difficult to start loving your enemy with the McVeys, Oswalds, and Bin-Ladens of the world, especially in the wake of such deafening (and blinding?) violence and destruction. So, it might be prudent to begin our efforts at home, by watching how we deify our political heroes, while demonizing those with whom we disagree.

It should give us pause to think about what our political struggle makes us into every four years. The ultra-competitive, practically two-party system has all but necessitated the dehumanizing myths we tell to and about each other (tending toward both deification and demonization). Shouldn’t our ideal politics, rather than easily categorizing us into a (more or less) arbitrarily systematized grouping of standards, remind us of the complexity of both our humanity and our morality? Isn’t a communal and self-responsible ethic of change, a shared humanization, a shared humility, more likely to produce upward mobility within ourselves, and by extension those in our larger community? What, after all, does our aggrandizing, demonization, and glorification afford us? The only answer can be derision and disappointment; another four years of frantic patchwork reconciliation with a disenfranchised 49 percent, and a humbled civil servant where we were once promised a god.

Our myth of election needs to be restructured. Rather than an occasion for division, our electoral process should be an occasion for humble solidarity, wherein we recognize the complexity of the issues, and the inherent potential for progress within one another. If there is a reason why most Christians polled when asked if abortion is wrong, respond yes, and yet when asked if the procedure should be outlawed respond “no” (and if conversation among my peers is any accurate barometer, we are headed in a similar ideological direction regarding the issue of homosexual civil unions), it is because even the fundamentalist hardliners among us are at long-last beginning to recognize the complexity of our ethics. On the whole, I believe America is ready for a leader who authentically recognizes this complexity within every single well-meaning one of us.

One of the strongest explanations of the hope that Americans see in the “change” being promised by Barrack Obama, is that he might not buy in to the “politics as usual”, that the average American “Joe-the-Plummer” (to quote McCain), or “Waffle-house politician” (to quote David Dark), has grown so completely tired of. How we long for a politician in-progress, who doesn’t have all the answers, but who is competent and non-partisan enough to dialogue and toil with the right people until he can hazard a good-‘ol college try. How we long for someone we can recognize as an actual human being.

Films like “Dave” and “The American President”, “Wag the Dog” and “Man of the Year” belie the American fantasy that one day an actual American, who looks, thinks, talks, and problem solves the way normal people do, can enter the oval office. Perhaps it is hyperbole to equate the two pundits, demoralizing and hacking away at each other in fierce debate, to Luke Sky Walker in his revenge fueled fall to the dark side, becoming (in the footsteps of his father) more machine than man with every hateful swing of his light saber, but at least, like all good hyperbole, it illustrates the point.

Now-a-days, it might be the smartest thing a candidate can do to let himself shine through the polished political veneer a little bit. And if David Dark is right (and I’m convinced he is), questioning that veneer, and the veneer (or grotesque mask) we ourselves place upon others in our “multiple pilgrim species” (Dark, 98), might just be the strongest place our patriotism to America and our patriotism to the Kingdom of God intersect.

Strong Selves and the Politics of Fear

In his analysis on the American myths, Robert Wuthnow comments on a criticism of American individualism that calls for “strong selves” (American Mythos 2006). Such persons he asserts are those who have opinions and express them, and yet do so while holding in balance a sense of moral conviction.  They are persons who are not afraid to speak, but whose words when spoken come from something deeper than merely a unilateral acceptance or rejection of cultural norms.  As this year’s election approaches quickly, I can’t help but wonder how many “strong selves” will we find in the polls on November 4th.  Certainly the politicking of late would suggest that something less than moral conviction guides the voting of our nation.  Indeed, the more recent trends seem to heavily emphasize the role of fear in our modern politics.

We are told by Obama that we must vote against McCain or find our great grandchildren still fighting in Iraq.  We are told by McCain that Obama will most certainly raise our taxes.  We are told to vote in favor of school funding or see our economy decline even further.  We are told that our presidential choice will determine how our supreme court votes for the next decade or more.  We are told that our position on Prop 8 will either encourage discrimination or put our churches in danger of lawsuits.

And as we head into the final days of the election, it is all too clear that our anxiety regarding the state of our economy will drive our vote.  One might even go so far to suggest that the current political situation would be much the opposite had our economy rebounded more quickly (that is to say – McCain’s fate seemed to have been sealed the first time that Wall Street dropped 700 points).

I think the question that we as Christians have to ask is: for what do we stand?  If indeed we are to be “strong selves,” persons who operate under conviction and without fear, our political action cannot and should not be reactionary.  When deciding for whom to vote, we cannot assert “I will vote for ____ because I don’t like _____.”  That’s simply insufficient.  We must be the sort of people who stand for rather than against something.  The reason behind our votes must be bigger than their historical context, be that the context of war or economic decline.  So herein lies our challenge: when we leave the voting both next Tuesday, let us be able to say that we answered not the question, “What do you fear?” but rather, and emphatically, “For what do you stand?”

I don’t want another Christian president!

At least not the kind of Christian that presidents tend to be.

They profess Jesus as their personal savior, but not as their Lord. That scares me. We are falsely comforted by trusting that our leader knows Jesus, but what is that worth when he does not submit all his decisions to Jesus? By associating with Christian faith they have us believe they follow God’s wisdom and purposes in their leadership, but unless Jesus is their Lord, all we get is the wisdom of men. Foolishness is dressed up as the wisdom of God.

Let’s face it: the policies of a long string of Christian American presidents show minimal resemblance with the Sermon on the Mount. If the president was a-religious at least the human source of his wisdom and motivations would be clear for all to see.

Both Obama and McCain claim a Christian faith, and I have looked back at what they answered Rick Warren when he asked them what that faith means to them on a daily basis; what that faith looks like in their life.

Obama answered: “it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis (…)But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that god has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting — well, acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our god .”

This does not look too bad. I appreciate that Obama claims to go beyond a strictly personal faith, but I wish he would not only walk with our god, but follow him and lay prostrate before him.

McCain answered: “It means I’m saved and forgiven. We’re talking about the world. Our faith encompasses not just the United States of America but the world.” Not surprisingly, McCain goes on to answer the question by telling an anecdote from Vietnam. One night, after McCain had been tortured, one of the guards silently drew a cross in the dirt in front of McCain’s eyes. He will never forget that moment of being two Christians, a guard and his prisoner, silently worshipping together.

Thank you McCain for a moving story, but you did not answer Rick Warren’s question and I still wonder how your faith will influence your presidency.

In The Gospel According to America David Dark comments on this problem. The presidents claim to somehow heed the voice of Christ in their hearts. But they do not, and cannot, let the Body of Christ help them discern and hold them accountable. Dark writes: “The actual politics of Jesus aren’t usually included in a nation’s God-talk. How is it then, that Jesus influences? ‘Because he changed my heart’” (Dark, 33).

George W. Bush called Christ his favorite political philosopher (Dark, 33), but later said “I don’t bring God into my life to be a political person; I ask God for strength and guidance; (…) The decision about war and peace is a decision I made based upon what I thought were the best interest of the American people. I was able to step back from religion, because I have a job to do.” (Dark, 35, emphasis added).

I am sorry Evangelicals, with the political system we have, I don’t think the personal Christian faith of a president is worth a whole lot.

Obama and Socialism

Barack Obama is a socialist. Right? He wants to “spread the wealth around,” taking money from the rich to give to the poor, and even those who don’t want to work for it. (Wait … does that make Robin Hood a socialist?) Well, let’s have a quick look at socialism.

Socialism is a fairly nebulous term, having been used to describe positions as different as anarchism, communism, and social democracy. At its most neutral, it is, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”

But most commonly, people (especially in America) equate it with communism. Because of this, you would be hard-pressed to find any politicians in America describing themselves as social democrats (as you have in Europe). But the idea behind socialism at its most basic is about shared responsibility, shared contribution and shared profit. In reality, it is hard to achieve, but the goal is pretty admirable, isn’t it?

For Christians, this idea of sharing, of interconnectedness, of mutuality shouldn’t be foreign to us. To mention a couple of points, Luke writes in Acts, “the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. … There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (4:32, 34-35). And Jesus tells us, “just as you did [or did not] to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40, 45).

Now I’m not saying this automatically translates into a government-sponsored commonality at all, but the whole individualistic idea of everyone looking out for themselves is something I’m a lot less comfortable with. (Perhaps having lived in ‘socialist’ and ‘heathen’ Europe for eight years has rubbed off on me.) Nor am I ragging on those who, through their hard work, are doing very well for themselves. I applaud them, and I commend them when they are generous in giving. But charity is different from justice, because charity doesn’t address the injustices in the system.

As for Obama and socialism, here’s what former Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them—in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there’s nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

If you want to play the socialist card regardless, then you’re probably gonna have to acknowledge that the $700b bailout which, in part, will give a bunch of money to failing banks, is socialist, and that McCain’s idea of having the government buy up bad mortgages is pretty socialist too.

I’ve never liked labels or boxes, especially when they’re usually so nebulous—what, for example, does it mean to be a Christian when we’re represented by people as different as Jerry Falwell, Tony Campolo, Gene Robinson, and Jeremiah Wright? But in any and every case, I think we need to be careful how we use them.

Polit-igion from the Pulpit

On September 28, pastors from over 20 states preached “politically-based” sermons from the pulpit as part of a protest against the IRS’s restrictions on 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations from endorsing a political candidate. These pastors (33 in total) say that they have a Constitutional right to advise their congregants on how to vote (read more here).

Two of the things that I am most passionate about at this point in time are my Savior and politics (in that order), and I feel like both of them are being abused by these pastors.

First of all, let’s talk about the Constitutional right. These pastors stated that the IRS rule stifles their “freedom of (religious) expression.” This rule, though, simply disallows them from ENDORSING a candidate, not discussing political issues or describing what both candidates believe. If pastors feel that their religious expression is being stifled because they can’t walk onto a pulpit and say, “Hey, congregation, you need to vote for __________”, then I think they have way bigger problems than just dealing with the IRS! What a shame it is that American politics and Christianity have become so entwined that people feel their being religiously stifled when they can’t tell congregants what political candidate to vote for.

One pastor used this September 28th protest to tell his congregants not to vote for Barack Obama because of his stance on gay marriage and abortion, two issues that, in his opinion, “transcend all others.” Have Christians really whittled everything Jesus says in the four Gospels down to abortion and gay marriage? Do you mean to tell me that the six or so verses (none of which came from Christ) that talk about homosexuality are of greater value and transcendence to God than all those times that Jesus told us to take care of the poor or love one another? What a gross misrepresentation of Christ’s life and priorities.

I personally appreciate the IRS rule, because (among other reasons) it helps keeps politics and religion in America separate. I think this separation is important because (from one perspective) I do not want my government telling me what religious entity I must believe in. From the other perspective, what happens when congregants disagree with their pastor’s mandate regarding who they should vote for? Do they think they’ve sinned if they vote for the other candidate? Could they be excommunicated? Could the pastor confront them (publically or privately) about their decision, much like a pastor may do if a member is living an adulterous or addictive lifestyle? My Bible doesn’t say anything about abortion, nor does it say anything regarding the state legalization of same-sex marriages. So, pastor, you can preach to me about values, tell me what both candidates believe, and even give me your opinion on certain issues, but leave the endorsements for our personal conversations outside of the church. After all, God doesn’t endorse either candidate–when you’re speaking for Him, you shouldn’t either.

Deliver us…from illegal immigrants???

My family farms for a living. They have for many generations. It has been the source of our livelihood for decades upon decades…maybe even venturing into the centuries category. And, I don’t mean to brag or anything, but they’re good at what they do. A large part of the reason for such success is simple, hard work…hard work on the part of my relatives and on the part of the labor that they employ. My father, in particular, has employed hard working immigrants for many years, people from Mexico, Germany, and other countries. These people come, with their families sometimes numbering in the double digits, with hopes of finding the opportunities that they’ve heard about. They come despite the difficulties involved with immigrating. They come and stay, sometimes longer than they are allowed. I’m speaking of illegal immigrants.

According to immigrationcounters.com, an estimated live counter, almost 22,000,000 illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. at this moment. This site exists to make the point of the enormous weight that is falling upon Americans as a result of such great numbers of illegal aliens residing in this country and using our resources. I am writing this blog to present another view, a view that goes something like this: Without the presence of this group of people, our country’s economy would greatly suffer (more than it currently is) and perhaps collapse, and denying these people the opportunity to share the great wealth that exists in this country is unbiblical.

First, concerning the support needed from illegal aliens. Growing up in an environment where labor is provided by immigrants, I have seen this firsthand. Knowing the immense workload that must be managed is pretty basic evidence for the need of their support. These immigrant workers are meeting a need that could not be met otherwise for two reasons that I can see. First, there are simply not enough capable hands in the immediate area. The workload of the farming industry would not be manageable without their presence. If these immigrant workers were sent home, the economy in the area would collapse. Second, I think that a large portion of American citizens would not find this work suitable. The work that immigrants provide is difficult and taxing. I don’t doubt that for a minute. I think that many American citizens would think that this sort of work is below them. I won’t say anything more on that.

Now to the biblical comment. I will reference two specific scriptures, but know that this theme runs through the entire biblical narrative, and is especially espoused by Jesus. Hebrews 13:16, in reference to taking care of one’s neighbors, says, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (ESV). 1 John 3:17 & 18 says, “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?  Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (ESV). We are commanded to love and help those in need. The U.S. is an extremely affluent society compared to the world’s standard, regardless of our recent economic struggles. Of course opening our border will cause the further decline of our economy, but can we not level the playing field a bit?

As the Litany of Resistance resounds in Shane Claiborne’s book, Jesus for President:

Deliver us.

From the tyranny of greed.

Deliver us.

From the ugliness of racism.

Deliver us.

From the cancer of hatred.

Deliver us.

From the seduction of wealth.

Deliver us.

From the addiciton of control.

Deliver us.

From the adultry of nationalism.

Deliver us.