Fools, Idiot, Neighbors, and Teachers

I had a couple friends publicly denounce me and take me to task for publicly saying some mean things about religious and political leaders like Chuck Colson, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump because they said some nasty lies about Black, Latino, and poor people. The argument was that I should not attack fellow believers, and that Jesus left clear instructions about calling "your brother 'Raca' ('you fool')." Which he did, in the famous Sermon on the Mount, shortly after the Beatitudes.

And I seriously had to question this and think about this and wonder if I was betraying myself. If I may have gone overboard to my own principles.

See, I do have principles. I don't always remember what they are. And I'm not always faithful to them. But generally speaking, I try to live by them - even if I don't remember why I'm living by them or what they are.

So, I needed to ask, "Is that it? Is that the final word on name-calling in the bible?" Because it didn't seem to be.

I learned early on in my Christian life that the bible effectively uses sarcasm and sometimes even insults to get its points across. You thought Jonah was just a story about a fish eating a dude? Consider the final chapter of the book. Remember that section where Elijah and his protege Elisha dared the Baalians to a fire-off? "Where are your gods? Do they have the runs?"



And then there's these passages in the New Testament, where Jesus, Paul, and James use some pretty tough language themselves.

Jesus: You two-faced double-timers. You cleaned up sarcophagi. You den of poisonous snakes. Woe to you!

Paul: I wish those Judaisers would finish up their own jobs on themselves and fully emasculate themselves.

Speaking of sarcasm, notice the dripping irony here, in 2 Corinthians chapter 11:

Don’t think that I am a fool to talk like this. But even if you do, listen to me, as you would to a foolish person, while I also boast a little. Such boasting is not from the Lord, but I am acting like a fool. And since others boast about their human achievements, I will, too. After all, you think you are so wise, but you enjoy putting up with fools! You put up with it when someone enslaves you, takes everything you have, takes advantage of you, takes control of everything, and slaps you in the face. I’m ashamed to say that we’ve been too “weak” to do that!

In these passages, Jesus and Paul are addressing religious and civil leaders that abuse those under their watch. In contrast, Jesus gives specific directions about leadership to his followers:

• "Watch out for the impurity of the Pharisees,"  
• "The leaders of the non-Jews lord their leadership over them. You are not to be like that. You are to serve, as the Son of Man has."

In fact, that seems to be the whole point of leadership with Jesus. Those who want to lead must do so by humble example. Not by boastful braggadocio. Not by harming others, or exposing others, or spreading malicious lies about others. But by sacrifice.

If they weren't willing to do that, but were willing to take on the title of "leader" (and in the process, hurt Jesus' sheep), they are open for scorn. And not a little bit either.

But what about the word, "fool." Does the threat of hellfire in Matthew chapter five only apply to that word? Is it magical? Can we get away with any sort of insult, as long as we don't call someone a "fool"?

No. Not at all.

James 2:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clohes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompani by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

As one can ascertain in the Corinthian passage, Paul was calling the other leaders fools for their
It seems obvious to me that there are several meanings for the word "fool" or for any such insult in the Bible. The most common understanding of the word "fool" (forgive my non-use of Greek or Hebrew here) in the bible is one who acts as if there were no God to be held accountable to. Which is one way of looking at the leaders in the Corinthian church that Paul was addressing, sarcastically, above.
ie,

The fool says in his heart, there is no god.

It seems clear that when Jesus said that we shouldn't call our fellow brothers or sisters fools, he meant we shouldn't take it our words, our interactions, our insults lightly, nor that we should take ourselves so highly that every little insult is a threat to our being.

Perhaps if we look at the model of Jesus, we see and recognize a pattern. Those who hurt the poor, those who profited from the abuse of others, those who bullied or kept themselves in a level above others were open for open criticism. The more common people who were not in leadership positions may be open for gentle rebuke, but from an actual state of humility, after the rebuker earned the trust, respect, and friendship of the rebuked. Far too often we critique or judge and say we're doing it out of love.

But we aren't.

We judge people we don't really know because they don't measure up to our standards. Rather than working through life and our struggles together, earning each others' trust.

However, when we are talking about leaders, or supposed leaders, we must consider a few other directives.

• Let not many of you consider to be leaders.
• The leaders of the pagans lord over them, but you are not to act as such.
• Weep and wail, you rich people
• Woe to you, pharisees.
• To whom much is given, much is required.

Let's not forget the clearing of the temple that allowed the outcasts into the holy place.

In short, it's not okay to lash out and take personal offense at others for debatable subjects. That not the way of the humble. Christians are to freely give. That's going to be a lifetime lesson and challenge for me.

However, if we see a rich man stealing from the poor, or a religious leader abusing his flock or excluding others from worship, or a political leader trying to garner power by trampling on others, then not only is it okay for Christians to speak up strongly, it's a biblical mandate.

So, no, I won't apologize for calling Trump or Gingrich "Neanderthals." Christians should apologize to the world for following them...

posted from Bloggeroid

The Trick About History Is Not Remembering It, But Re-writing It

I think Newt Gingrich may know history. And he hates it. He hates the fact that African Americans and poor Whites ever rose up and questioned the power structure that he represents.

And so he's trying to re-write it by the sheer fact of speaking. In his act of speech, he actively gives support to those who likewise feel animosity towards African Americans, even as they themselves are usually poor whites in slightly better shape than the African Americans they attack - but in far worse shape than Newt himself is in (no fat jokes, please).



The schema of the power base (the very base that conservatives support by their very essence, since to be a conservative is to keep the status quo as much as possible) is to keep the masses distracted. Much of that distraction comes from consumptive waste (hello, Christmas shoppers!), another portion from sports demagoguery, or from the cult of celebrity worship, from too much revelry, pop culture... We are distracted from our lack by our excess.

The largest distraction for who are actually interested in the political arena is the popularity contest of politics, of course. But the biggest distraction for those aware of their lack of political (and economical) capital is the tried and true game of Divide & Conquer.

Hence the relationship between the White Citizen's Council and the Ku Klux Klan. Between Newt Gingrich and uneducated voters who come to hear his coded tirades out. Chuck Colson and older Evangelicals trying to shut up their more social-justice-oriented Evangelicals - typically younger folks like most of you, myself, Rachel Held Evans, Kurt Willems, Fred Clark of Slacktivist... But also older, more established activists, believers, and groups that are both Evangelical and concerned about the 'least of these': Tony Campolo, Dr. John Perkins and the Christian Community Development Association, Rob Bell, as well as any Christian that dare have some connection with the Occupy movement.

To not attack dissidents subtly or boldly through getting fellow sufferers against them is a sure way for the power elite to relinquish power.

But let's reconsider the bond between the White Citizen's Council and the Ku Klux Klan. Although they both were prominent in the fight against the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties in the American south and both were fearful of the rise of black power and their lack of economic or political power therein, the constitution of each was distinct. Whereas the latter consisted of working class men, the WCC were the powerful elite: politicians and city elders, mayors and preachers, governors and leading businessmen. The Klan worked exclusively in intimidation and brute violence. The Council was a little more shrewd, however.

However, despite these tangible differences, the two groups worked in perfect symbiosis - each rubbing the back of the other. The WCC was able to say that they don't traffic in violence by comparing themselves to the obvious terrorism tactics of the KKK. Meanwhile, they spurred violence in their rhetoric given in public speeches (which were attended by Klan members). The Council was able to use the Klan as a moral guard (See? At least we're not like them!) while the KKK was able to use the WCC as a moral impetus. The Council sanctioned the violence that the KKK carried out, but then washed their hands of the bloody affairs (with a knowing *wink*), once the shootings or lynchings occurred.



Do you sense a pattern here? It's the pattern of the powerful. D&C and then re-write history.

When they take over property and goods and resources and any other means to self-preservation, they set themselves up as experts and gods. Then they tell those they've dis-empowered from that their real enemies are those people in even worse conditions. Then they watch, disengaged, as those struggling groups rip each other apart.

Of course, if the poor White and Black groups could work together, they'd be unstoppable and they could be secure in having enough food and land to secure what they need. But as long as the elite kept the poor whites and blacks fighting for scraps... well, people are hungry.

In my religious tradition - or at least for the last thirty years - that's meant that a Francis Schaeffer or a Chuck Colson or a Jerry Falwell or a James Dobson will tell the rest of us who or what our "real" enemy is.

And it's not poverty. Or violence. Or injustice. Or racism. Not in any sort of tangible way. Sure, they may allude to those matters, but they are not important. I suppose they believe that the poor will always be amongst us. But they are much more concerned about those pesky secularists, feminists, abortionists, gays, Muslims, atheists...

And though they'd NEVER {faint} approve of violence against Muslims or homosexuals, they lobby violently against them, doing actual damage of ostracizing, maligning, and humiliating those who are different. Non-Christians and non-straights are scorned and denied basic civil rights that others hold. Constantly held in contemptible suspicion, these crews are perpetually suspended in a secondary citizenship status specifically because conservative Christian leaders aim to maintain their power base of fear. And that's just their direct actions, - the specific lobbying and ignorant preaching against homosexuals, against Muslims and other non-Christians (secular, atheists, Buddhists, etc.), often against the poor, against those whom may threaten communism.

None of these tactics or topics, are advocated by Jesus, of course. But that doesn't keep them from being top priorities for the so-called Moral Majority. And if the leaders say those things are evil from their (bully) pulpits, what can the congregants do but to listen? And then to attack and hurt and bomb the mosques, or mock the little "butch" girl until she hangs herself.

This is the face of bullying. Bullying works most efficiently when it's a scare tactic of the powerful to maintain their own power and keep the rest of us occupied.

And so, (dialectic history lesson approaching!) a couple years ago, when Obama began in office and he was extremely popular, Newt Gingrich, of all people, figured that Republicans can attack Obama and, in so doing, may recover some prominence. He was right, politically speaking. By blocking and obstructing the Democratic Party, the Republican Party actually may have prolonged the recession (though that is debatable), slowed down any growth for many middle class and working-class families, and made Democrats look like spineless cowards. It worked in that sense, but it has done tremendous harm to the typical American family while income inequality has spread incrementally even more so.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And Newtron Gangly actually helped to make that possible.

So, what is his solution? Fire unionized janitors at schools and hire the students to clean up the schools. Because, he reasoned, inner city students (read: African American and Latino youth and children) are surrounded by inner city adults (read: African American and Latino adults) and therefore, have neither an innate desire to work for pay* nor any role models to teach them how to do an honest day's worth of legal labor. Never mind that this isn't true in the least (we will get to that in a separate blog), but the fact that he was scolded off the planet and IN FACT leads the Republican nomination now does not bode well for our country.

But it's okay, right? Because Gingrich's hands are clean. He's not going to actually go out and personally intimidate young children of working class, Black and Latino kids and refuse to acknowledge their humanity. Right? And his party would NEVER intentionally kick out large swaths of working middle-class African Americans, while simultaneously blaming them for every social evil in the planet - therefore setting the stage for a violent confrontation over non-existent means to survive. Because that would be evil. Right?

Wait. What??

So, yeah, N00t is trying to re-write history. And if we don't learn and share the lessons of history - of how the powerful elite claw and maintain their power through our shared sacrifices and in-fighting - then we will continue to lose out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Though they'll work for free? WTF??

On Free Speech: In-Tolerance 2

Funny how last week I talked about the fraudulent idea of "free speech" as it's used to protect all sorts of nasty villains and bullies.

And then another rampage happens. And dozens upon dozens of youth are murdered viciously by another raving lunatic who has been inspired by some crazy manifestos. Including The Unabomber.

And anti-Muslim blogs not unlike Pam Geller's and Robert Spencer's.

If you've not had a chance to check out Atlas Shrugged, please don't. It's full of vile hatred and conspiracies against Muslims and any people group associated with them. The type that spew outrage about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque and that allege that every evil committed on God's green earth is done by Muslims or their sympathizers.

And the mass murderer linked to her site fifteen times in his "manifesto".

Of course, she is very defensive about this. And now every time another suicide bomber goes off, she wonders what liberal blogger inspired him/her.

Sadly, she doesn't really seem to understand that the policies of First World nations in Yemen, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq are more responsible for pulling the triggers than possibly any other direct or indirect influence. Poverty is and breeds violence.

But Geller, like most relatively wealthy Americans, doesn't understand this. Glenn Beck obviously doesn't get this. And so he blames the victims - again - calling their political camp an indoctrination space just like the Hitler youth. (Yes, we all know he says Hitler like Rudy says 9/11, like fish need water, etc.)

The scary part? I saw some people criticize it, and then, out of the woodwork, others were coming out and saying what an inspiration he is. Not apologizing. Not stepping away from. But just short of deifying.

And those that were criticizing him? Apparently, they were actively seeking to censor the voice of reason and dissent on behalf of their Dear Leader, Barack Obama.

Yeah...

I really have no interest in a "debate" with Beck, Limbaugh, Geller or any of their uber-paranoid ditto-heads. There's no point trying to dialogue with blinders. And the mainstream has never really fallen for their claptrap either way. Besides, my heart can only take so much pressure. Rather, I want to look at some take-away lessons:

1) It's not worth engaging with people who fail basic logic. Unless you are good friends with them. And then you have no choice but to do so.

2) The vast majority of the American people are not crazy. They may, for a short period of time, buy into a crazy notion. They may believe that it's high time for the US to default on its loans, if convinced by what's seen as "common sense." Most people are too busy working and living their lives to think deeply and passionately about policies and the parlor games of politics. Those of us who tend to spend our free time doing exactly that (and have wasted innumerable hours both in face and online doing exactly that)

3) Bullying should never be tolerated. Yet, it is generally championed in American society, where Competition is King and the loudest and most explosive voice usually triumphs. To defeat the crazies, we do not need a louder voice, we just need a clearer voice. The marathon of public opinion goes to the one who is calm, reasonable, and clear (cf. McCain V Obama)

4) Take notes from those who call out bullying clearly (like Rachel Held Evans did when addressing Mark Driscoll, and then Grace from Are Women Human did in RHE's defense after she was attacked for taking on the boys club), and from those who speak gracefully when under fire (I also think that Rachel does this well, too).

The New Bullies: Grandma Peace Activists, Christian Feminist Bloggers, and Consumer Advocates

photo © 2007 Simon | more info (via: Wylio)Did somebody say Wookie?

There's a cynical and ironic phenomenon that I've noticed most glaringly in US foreign relationships in the Middle East and is now manifesting itself in the financial / political world as well as the Evangelical social media world in the States: Bullies like to call anybody who holds them accountable a bully.

Israel does this any time her stranglehold on Palestinians is challenged. Likewise, WORLD Magazine (a Neo-Conservative Christian bulwark) called Rachel Held Evans a slanderer for calling out mega-pastor Mark Driscoll's irresponsible, homophobic, and trans-phobic behavior (with a bit more civility than I would probably afford him). And now House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, (R-CA) and spokesmouth for corporatocracy, is calling Elizabeth Warren, consumer advocate, a bully who would target the poor, little, downtrodden banks and loaning institutions and give them swirlies and wedgies and all that mean stuff.

Small pockets of men and women (and most recently, grandmas) try to get into Gaza, armed only with senselessly banned material - including harmless school supplies. At one point, they are gunned down at point-blank range by Israeli soldiers. At another point, Greece enforces Israel's rules for them, in the hope of international aid favor from the US. Illegal settlements are being sprouted up on top of Palestinian homes, bulldozing and setting ablaze homelands, groves, and families that have resided there for hundreds and thousands of years. The Palestinians are denied pencils, buildings, and jobs in their own homeland.

And yet, it's the international, hippy grandmas that are the bullies...

Author and blogger Rachel Held Evans demonstrated occasion after occasion of Mark Driscoll's dehumanizing taunts towards women, feminists, "effeminate" males, and queersteh gays. And then she asked her readers to address their concerns to the board of elders at his church. While Driscoll (of a large church in Seattle named Mars Hill) offered some sort of apology, WORLD Magazine writer Anthony Bradley belittled the criticisms and offered his amusing perspective that, "There is nothing loving about calling a pastor a “bully.“"* The rest of the paragraph sends a message that this male writer can only interpret as, "Woman no talk to manly man such way." (Considering that - without any evidence - Bradley calls her a liar who spreads false testimony, I'm left to believe that the problem isn't the testimony itself, but the testifier. After all, in biblical times, woman no important.)

So, it isn't the influential, authoritarian pastor who, once again, ridicules so-called effeminate men who needs to be corrected. It is the woman who dared stand up to him...

Issa is a bit of an extreme example in an extreme time of extreme extremities. It's common (though often ignored by pro-corporatists) knowledge that the recession is a direct result of predatory lending, borrowing and all means of deceit by big banks and other financial institutions - much at the hands of the poor and middle class. Warren, who has a proven track record of looking out for that important buffer - the middle class - as well as for those on the margins, is trying to protect the rest of us from the horrible practices that make a few very wealthy, very fast, on the backs of the rest of us who are left with fewer and fewer options. But she, not the banks that foreclosed on millions of hard-working Americans, is the bully? Because she would rather that these institutions not eat the poor and devour the middle class?? Really?

I suppose Orwell is shaking in his grave. It got awfully chilly.

-----------------------------------------------------------

*Obviously, nobody has informed Bradley of the practices of spiritual abuse rampant in fundamentalist churches, specifically. I'm sure that if he were dealing with questions of his own sexuality in such a church, his perspective would change.