SirNickDon's Xanga

Old Navy Boycott Canceled! It's a Christmas miracle!

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:55:02 GMT

In November, the AFA called for faithful Christians to boycott GAP and all its offshoots in response to their holiday ad campaign, which failed to feature Christmas prominently enough. The AFA's statement:

Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the three stores owned by San Francisco-based Gap Inc., are being targeted by AFA in a limited two-month boycott over the company’s failure to use the word “Christmas” in its advertising to Christmas shoppers.

Gap has refused to use the word Christmas in its television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas as well as repeated requests from AFA to do the same.

In response, GAP created an ad that specifically mentions Christmas ahead of other holidays.

Needless to say, the AFA wasn't entirely pleased with this ad, as it does mention Christmas, but also such pagan celebrations as the winter solstice. The AFA posted

According to Bill Chandler, vice-president of Gap corporate communications, Gap’s Old Navy division will launch a new television commercial this weekend …which “has a very strong Christmas theme.” Chandler responded to AFA last Friday, after a poll showed 90% of AFA supporters wanted to continue the boycott as a result of Gap’s initial “holiday” ad that mingled Christmas with the pagan’s “Winter Solstice” holiday.

Gap says the new ad will include the popular Supermodelquins proudly cheering “Merry Christmas,” and features Christmas trees, lights and ornaments as well.

In good faith, AFA is suspending the Gap boycott until it has an opportunity to view the new commercial this weekend.

As a result of your dedicated actions, we believe Gap is beginning to realize that Christmas is not just another “holiday” and will begin to advertise in a way that is respectful to Christians and Christmas shoppers.

Here is Old Navy's "Merry Christmas" ad:

This inclusion (an edit to the already recorded advertisement) was apparently enough to placate the AFA, who called off the GAP boycott. In their statement, they praised the activists of AFA who observed the boycott and wrote letters to the retailers, saying

Thanks to your involvement, retailers are listening - and they are changing the way they do business!

In our ongoing effort to encourage other companies to recognize Christmas, your AFA has sent certified letters to Best Buy and Dick's Sporting Goods, asking them to include "Christmas" in their advertising. You will find these two companies listed on AFA's "Naughty or Nice" listing of retailers. We will let you know how they respond.

---

This is a clearly ridiculous story, but you don't need me to tell you that. Instead, I will leave you with some questions.

When are boycotts ever necessary practice for Christians as a bloc?
Which is more important, the inclusion of the term 'Christmas' in holiday advertising, or keeping the Christian celebration of Christmas free from commercialism in the first place?
How should Christians who find this sort of thing ridiculous respond? Should we simply ignore the boycotts, should we denounce the boycotts, should we counter-boycott?
(Extra Credit) Some viewers of the "Merry Christmas" ad believe it is subversively mocking the Christian community. Do you agree or disagree? Using internal evidence, support your answer.

-NDSR

Christian resources in a free market

Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:02:03 GMT

I have been surprised in the last year to see how aggressively (and defensively) some Christians defend the sanctity of the free market, and how much faith Christians place in the "invisible hand" of the market to do the work of God in the world. To be sure, there is a religious component to free market ideology. We talk of the "benevolence of self-interest" (to paraphrase Adam Smith), the power of "market forces," (very spooky, when you think about it) and the capacity of capitalism to "create wealth out of nothing" (mirroring the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.)

At the same time, however, I've figured out that much of the defensiveness comes from a misunderstanding of those who critique the ideology of free markets. Defenders seem to reflexively assume that anyone who criticizes free markets, capitalism, consumerism, globalization or the financialization of the American economy (making money off money) have one thing in mind: state intervention. But it is a false dichotomy to assume that a unrestricted global market and a state-run economy are the only options available.

When I criticize the free market, I do so from the perspective not of Keynesian economic policies (which are themselves far from socialist in nature), but from the perspective of the Christian doctrines of creation, stewardship and the telos of human life. One of the major problems Christians must have with free-market ideology is that it doesn't provide any means of internal critique. The only definition of freedom provided is a negative one: 'free from state control.' Christian understanding of freedom goes far deeper and is comprised of a positive element: 'free to serve God.'

So let's consider two free-market scenarios, from William T. Cavanaugh's short book Being Consumed: Christians and Economic Desire.

Reporter Bob Herbert visited a factory in El Salvador that makes jackets for Liz Claiborne line of clothing. The jackets sell for $178 each in the U.S.; the workers who make them earn 77 cents per jacket (56 cents an hour). The factory is surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. A worker interviewed after her 12-hour shift told of being unable to feed herself and her three-year-old daughter adequately. Her daughter drinks coffee because they cannot afford milk; both mother and daughter suffer fainting spells. David Wang, president of Mandarin Company, which runs one of the plans in El Salvador, admitted to Herbert that the wages are inadequate: "If you really ask me, this is not fair." But then he went on to offer a lesson in "free" trade. "In the United States, if you want to buy a Honda Civic, you can shop around and always you will find cheaper ones." This is what the clothing companies were doing, according to Wang. "They are shopping around the whole world for the cheapest labor price."

Cavanaugh describes a second company, the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, which was founded by a Basque priest in 1956. It is also being run under no state intervention, and therefore a product of a free market. Mondragon also manufactures goods, employing over 60,000 workers with annual sales over $3 billion USD.

What makes Mondragon extraordinary is that it is based on the principles of distributism: this idea - based on papal social teaching and promoted by Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, and others - is that a just social order can only be achieved through just distribution of property and a recognition of the dignity of labor. Mondragon is entirely worker-owned and worker-governed, and it is based on a system of one vote per worker. At Mondragon they believe that labor hires capital, instead of capital hiring labor. Their capital comes largely from a credit union that is supported by workers and the community. The highest-paid employee can make no more than six times what the lowest-paid makes; 10 percent of surpluses are given directly to community development projects. Not only is the company successful and laborers highly satisfied with their work, but the communities in which Mondragon plays a significant part enjoy lower crime rates, lower rates of domestic violence, higher rates of education, and better physical and emotional health than neighboring communities.

From the perspective of free-market ideology, there is no difference between the two organizations, since both are free from state intervention and both consist of entities (customers, owners, workers, etc.) entering into contracts uncoerced. So the market itself lacks any mechanism or even perspective by which to say which of these situations is "better." For another example of a morally problematic situation created by free-market ideology, see Rhiannonator's recent post.

Christians, of course, can only approve of or condemn any situation in the world by drawing on their own traditions, contrary to the intentions of globalizing economies to displace all such local traditions. Free-market ideology tempts us to use 'freedom' as a code word to mask what are in fact bare predations of power, as in the case of the Salvadorian textile worker above. Mondragon, in contrast is founded "on the recognition that true freedom requires a careful consideration of the ends of being human." The free market cannot provide the resources for such consideration; Christians must go back to the gospel of Christ.

What resources do Christians have in a global economy where freedom is equated with unrestrained power?

First and most importantly, we have our traditions and doctrines. The doctrine of creation keeps us necessarily grounded in the reality that wealth doesn't spring from nothing, and that growth must come from work of real value: no Christian should have ever been fooled by credit-default swaps. Meanwhile the doctrine of the abundance of the Kingdom of God frees us from the need to hoard our goods and cling possessively to objects as though they were ours. As Thomas Aquinas put it, "Man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need."
With this tradition from which to draw, we are enabled to enter the market place seeking freedom in its positive sense. Christians can organize corporations whose tasks are more than simply "returning a profit to the shareholder." Christians can create goods of actual utility and quality for the world to use. Christians can enter into partnerships with small business owners in impoverished nations to interrupt cycles of poverty. Christians can refuse to shop around for the lowest prices at the expense of human dignity. Christians can enter into real relationships with the producers of their goods through farmers markets, co-ops, choosing credit unions over national and transnational banks, local jewelers, etc., as well as by purchasing Fair Trade whenever possible.
If Christians can effectively model healthy, attractive and successful methods of working within the free market, governments and secular institutions can be "brought along." Hospitals, public education and the peace corps were all originally matters of Christian conviction before governments began to notice that they worked, and gradually took over those roles in society. Christians can give shape to society specifically by serving it.

What do you think? What other resources do Christians have for interacting with a free market? What are the strengths and failings of the free market itself? Why are there not more organizations like Mondragon?

-NDSR

---

Further resources
The Free Market: the enemy of freedom?
Mondragon, the remarkable achievement by Robert Gilman
50 Factors Within Nations that Determine their Wealth or Poverty by Wayne Grudem
How Did Goldman Sachs Contribute to the Financial Crisis? on Dollarish

I hit a car on my way home tonight

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:00:14 GMT

Yes, on my bike.

Yes, it was their fault.

What is the most ridiculous thing that happened to you today?

-NDSR

The curse of immortality?

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:35:34 GMT

In his course on the philosophy of death, Shelly Kagan makes the argument that even though death is bad, the converse is not necessarily true. To live forever without death, according to Kagan, would itself be bad.

Of course, as it is, if we lived without dying but continued to deteriorate physically and mentally, living forever would be torture. That doesn't require argument. But Kagan says that even if we feel free to construct whatever form of immortality seems best to us, we will end up with something that, upon reflection, would be a curse. The basic problem with any form of immortality is that "we simply aren't taking into account how long eternity is. It's not just many years, not just hundreds of years, or thousands, or even millions of millions of years. It is literally forever."

Within a billion years, Kagan insists, everything loses what is captivating or interesting about it. I may love Chinese food, but eventually I will tire of it. I may love sunsets, but I can only see so many before sunsets I am simply disinterested. Okay, I have climbed Mt. Everest, and every other peak. What now?

What is bad about death isn't an inherent badness, Kagan claims, but a specific badness. Death is bad only when it comes at the wrong time.

If Kagan is right, two things follow. One is that death in come concrete instances would be a good thing, thus arguing strongly for assisted suicide. The second is a strong critique of the concept of an eternal afterlife. If immortality is not a good thing, why look forward to heaven?

What do you think? Would an unending life eventually run out of goods and become tedious? Is death inherently bad, or only sometimes bad? Is heaven something to look forward to?

-NDSR

The Lord's Supper - past, present and future

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:08:45 GMT

My brother Travis has got a lot of gears cranking with a recent Revelife post on the subject of the Lord's Supper. His issue is basically that in addition to the presence of Christ, we need to bear in mind the presence of other believers to hold us to ethical and theological account.

Stanley Grenz, in his imminently readable Theology for the Community of God, describes the Lord's Supper as a reaffirmation of our identity as a community gathered around Christ. The Supper binds together believes past, present and future, and its significance lies "in its relationship to the future as grounded in the past." How so? Grenz lays it out like this.

Past - The Lord's Supper is a memorial meal. It is a reenactment of the Last Supper, when we fulfill Jesus' command to "Do this in remembrance of me." In this way, according to Grenz, we symbolically enter into the Jesus story:

We vividly remember Jesus' significant life. We sit with the disciples in the upper room and recall Jesus' teaching about the pathway to life and about his death as the provision for spiritual vitality. We call to mind the table fellowship he shared with [national traitors] and sinners, which stood as a sign of the kingdom and of the new community he was inaugurating. We remember as well his sacrificial death, recalling this climax to our Lord's great example of humble service to others and complete obedience to the Father.

Present - Through our eating and drinking, as well as our sharing, we are "proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes," as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians. The bread, of course, represents the body of Christ, broken, while the blood represents the new covenant forged in his blood. Communion, then, becomes a symbolically charged act of defiance against the very same rulers who do not understand the wisdom of God, "for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What is more, Grenz observes that consuming the elements becomes "an enactment of our participation in Christ himself." It is a reception of provision and an acceptance of the way of Christ. Finally, in the act of Eucharist we declare Christ's lordship, and for this reason it "carries grave ethical implications: it is a reminder that we can serve no other gods, that no loyalty dare usurp the place of Christ."

Future - Unique to Matthew, Jesus issues a promise during the institution of the Lord's Supper. He says, "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom." To Grenz this means that we do not look only to what happened in the past, but are "drawn into the future... There we meet the risen Jesus who has gone before us into God's eschatalogical kingdom through his resurrection, which we will one day share in." But the future isn't only anticipation, but also an experience we share in the present. "Through the Holy Spirit," Grenz writes, "Jesus' promise becomes a present reality. Our Lord comes among us and communes with us... The celebration is an experience of present community."

---

What do you think of Grenz' trifold view of communion? What is the most important aspect of communion to you? When you take communion, do you think of being gathered with all believers, past and future, distant and near?

-NDSR

Sunday blogging - answers

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:27:03 GMT

Yesterday traffic was slow, so we decided to play a game. Here are my answers to your free-for-all questions.

From liferemainsbeautiful, What is the capital of New Zealand?

You know, I'm not sure. I'll guess Auckland? Anybody know if that's right?

From moonjp, What do you think of Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan?

You know, I'm not sure, and there are a lot of levels to answer that on. In the first place, I don't think 9/11 should have been defined as a military attack but a criminal one. For one thing, calling it an act of war grants it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. As soon as you say you're at war you allow murderers to understand themselves as warriors. Moreover, a war on terror can never be a just war. At what point have you won such a war? Who could surrender? What terms could be demanded?

But granted that we are in Afghanistan and have already overthrown the Taliban and intended to set up an alternative government, I'm still not sure there's a best way forward. We're still terribly unclear on what exactly our goals there are. I don't think there's any way to "win the war" in Afghanistan, because that's a term that doesn't really mean anything. Perhaps we can accomplish some specific political goals and perhaps the only way to clear the ground for that is to ship over another 40,000 soldiers. But the President could never explain it that way, "We're going to risk the death of our sons for the accomplishment of these specific but limited political goals," so I'm not sure we can even focus in on that.

crevis05 asked, Who is your favorite cartoon character?

You know, I've always been a fan of He-Man, in the original incarnation. I watched it as a kid, and I even had He-Man underwear. I love how he always acted cowardly as Prince Adam to hide his identity. If you include non-animated cartoons, though, it's definitely Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes. Nothing beats Calvin.

The next several questions from from barefoot_nomad, starting with, If you could share a meal and discussion with any person, past or present, who would it be?

I don't have a lot of languages at my disposal, so that really limits my options a bit and cuts out most of my first picks, such as St. Benedict of Nursia or Augustine of Hippo. Sticking with English, though, I have to pick my literary hero Kenneth Rexroth. G. K. Chesterton would be a close second. In any event, you have to pick someone who will do most of the talking, or it's a wasted trip.

Do you believe that the Nobel Prizes are constructive?

From what I know of the institution, I believe they are. I mean, why wouldn't the global community benefit from making public grants to its best scientific researchers or fiction writers? The peace prize is probably the most disputed of the Nobels, and is usually given more to motivate the candidate to work in a particular area than any of the others. Looking at the track record of the Peace Prize (Yaser Arafat?), I can understand the criticism.

How do you feel about traffic lights?

In my hometown of Wichita, KS, traffic lights allow you to turn left in a turn lane on a green so long as there is no on-coming traffic. It is treated as a yield, which seems wise enough. But in Oklahoma City, where I am living now, you either have a turn arrow in the turn lane, or a red light. There is no left turn on green, which I assume stems from a lack of trust in Oklahoma drivers. Pisses me off every time I want to turn left at an intersection.

Would you rather be blind in the wilderness or deaf in a city?

Well, I'd rather be in the city anyway, so that simplifies the normally difficult blind-or-deaf question. Deaf in a city. I can still read, right? On the other hand, blindness apparently makes you a martial arts master. So it's not an easy decision.

How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?

42.

The next question is from TheGreatBout (who graciously designed my new banner), What do you think about transubstantiation? Should it be a big enough deal to separate Catholics and Protestants at the table?

You know, from a Protestant perspective it's really easy to say that it's not a big enough deal to separate us, since Catholics might believe other than Protestants about communion, but they do believe at least as much as Protestants. From a Catholic perspective, I can understand it being a much more worthy issue to separate over. I think the best middle-ground is to affirm the real presence (as Luther said, "in, through and under the sacrament") without assigning a particular mechanism to that. Does the blood and wine in some sense become the blood and body? I don't think the answer is as important as affirming that Christ is present in a meaningful way in the bread and wine.

Here are two questions from HappyLemming. First, where does your screenname come from.

Step one, my name is Nick Don. It's a two-part name, like Mary Ann, or Billy Bob. I've met only one other Nick Don in my life, and he was a huge, bald black man. We didn't have much in common besides the name. Step two, when I was in high school I knew several people who (for unrelated reasons) called me "sir." So it wasn't much of a stretch when making an AIM account to throw sirnickdon up there, and I've used it ever sense.

Second, what are you positions on American foreign policy?

This could be a very long answer, but I'll try to avoid that. In the first place I want to stress that the only politics I really care about is the politics of the church. I don't think the church has any particular place to be telling the Bushes and Obamas how to run the nation; we should pray for our leaders and seek to live like the church regardless of what they do. This means that in reference to foreign policy, we concretely love not only our neighbors but our enemies. When the nation is at war, we have to separate the American "we" from the Christian "we." America is at war with Afghanistan, but the church is not. The church is in loving service to Afghanistan in the name of Christ. At times this will put us at odds with American interests. Maybe someday America will learn from our example, but I wouldn't wait for that to happen.

But as long as you're asking my opinion on America's foreign policy, I think we need a much more humble foreign policy. Obama should tell the American people that the war on terror was a mistake and that if we want to live peaceably with the world we have to learn stop trying to control the whole world. The war on terror should instead be seen as an extension of international police work that is already done to curb terrorist actions. Obama's idea of a humble foreign policy is a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough.

deepestrecesses asks, If you're a pastor for a congregation ranging from 2x to 3x your age (or more), how do you convey the importance of Prayer and passion?

This wins the award for most difficult question, though I could easily lump it with "What is the capital of New Zealand" and just say, "I don't know. Maybe Auckland." It's a difficult question because it is what most of us actually face when we graduate from college and take our first church. How can a pastor minister to Christians who have been praying longer than the pastor has been alive?

The truth is that we can't. We expect to come in from university with our theological education and to whip the congregation into shape. "Those fools don't even realize they're amillennial pacifists, do they? I'll have to show them." When in fact, the church has to whip the pastor into shape as well, because a pastor doesn't know how to minister to a church until the church shows them. I think the best account of this is Will Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas' short book Resident Aliens.

As for the specific issue of the importance of prayer and passion, I think a two-pronged approach is necessary. First, you have to model it, obviously. In part this includes insisting that a set amount of your office hours are not open, because they are for prayer. Prayer is not so unimportant that it can be kicked aside at anyone's whim. Part of what makes a minister a minister is a prayer life. Second, you teach about prayer as a central tenant, not a secondary one. Perhaps a series on "Prayer that changes things," looking at prayers throughout the Bible that actually seem to sway God's decisions. Perhaps praying through a psalm during each service fr six months (you could actually delegate that one). Perhaps a Sunday-night class on the subject. Anyway, those are just ideas, but I think both aspects are necessary in some measure.

Two questions from soy_esteban. What are food items that almost always fill your fridge and pantry?

I don't eat meat, so I always have veggie burgers in the freezer, and lots of frozen vegetables and frozen fruit. I start every day off with a fruit smoothie made from a blend of fresh and frozen fruit and yogurt. Several kinds of rice. Seed and nut blends that I get from Target. I have vegetarian chili, baked beans and black beans, lentil soups and the like in the pantry. I also eat a lot of pasta, especially gnocchi, which is perfect because it cooks in four minutes or so.

How many hours a week do you watch TV or spend on the Internet?

None on television. We have one, but we don't have cable or a converter box, so it's only used for the Wii, which I play a couple of hours in a normal week. More since Super Mario Bros Wii came out two weeks ago. On the Internet I spend most of my time at home, but it's difficult to measure, since I'll intersperse reading and browsing, a few minutes of each at a time. I'm pretty heavily ADD, so I flit from activity to activity at a ridiculous pace. I still manage to read a couple hundred pages a week, though. I always regret not reading more, but here I am, on the computer again.

ccarothers asks, "What are your thoughts on male v female virginity? Like the fact that women have a very physical sign of their chastity where as men do not. From a Christian prospective, what are you thoughts on that? Men aren't ever called 'virgins' in the Bible where as women are."

There is definitely an imbalance in the way cultures have viewed male and female sexuality. The Bible, throughout, is fairly patriarchal. Women are required to be virgins when they're married, but men are not. In fact, according to OT law, if a man rapes a woman his punishment is that he has to marry her without chance of divorce. It's basically a "you-break-it-you-bought-it" policy, since a non-virgin woman couldn't get married and would be a financial strain on her father. Same deal with the New Testament. When the woman who was "caught in the act" is brought before Jesus, there is no sign of a man. If she was caught in the act, where is the man?

As for why cultures tend to be patriarchal and have this double-standard, it is hard to say. I've heard arguments that the earliest cultures were matriarchal and peaceable but were overrun by patriarchal cultures. I've heard that men feared women on a primal level. But I definitely don't know any certain reason.

A set of five questions from Amyseen, starting with, What is God's call on your life? How do you want him to use you?

I don't believe that God has specific plans for individuals that precede their existence. If my parents had not chosen to get together, there would have been a me to guide. God always works in the moment. Now that I am alive and married to Lydia and working where I am, God has specific callings that work within that framework. For the most part, though, I think my callings are along the same lines as most Christians, and laid out in Mt. 5-7, Romans 12, etc.

I do think my specific calling is to work within the framework of the Church of God movement, the tradition I've grown up in. I'm not sure, to be honest, what the next step looks like, whether it's pastoring a congregation, going on to teach at a university or what. If I have a hope, it's that I can bring the Church of God closer to its own roots, more visibly distinct from the wider evangelical culture and thus a stronger witness to the kind of community God wants churches to be.

Have there been times you've lost hope? How have you dealt with it?

I've had dark months and even dark years before. Failed entire semesters of school because I was too depressed to put pencil to paper. It's no way to live, but I think most of us have been there at some time or another. I'm not sure I can say that I've ever lost "hope," because my hope is not in myself or even in my ability to hope. If I stop hoping, I still realize that hope is not dependent on my hoping, if that makes sense. I think that at the rock solid core of my thinking is the assurance that goodness exists, and so long as there is goodness, life is bearable.

What makes your eyes twinkle?

Most often, my wife Lydia. Nobody makes me laugh harder or more often. Birds come in at a close second. I love birds. Also, there are several films that always light up my eyes, including Man on the Moon and Love Actually. I'm a sap.

A question from the_greatest_pip: What do you think of preterism?

You could call me a partial preterist. I think most of the New Testament material we take as referring to the "end times" was in fact apocalyptic referring to the seige of 70 AD. Luke 19, for instance. At the same time, I think scripture also teaches that God is going to act eschatalogically to make a new creation out of what was marred. Romans 8, for instance. But all the stuff about a tribulation, anti-christ, etc., I interpret through a preterist framework.

Finally, a question from gmx0. Mgdt hf nkge wptau bog xanga yrz cit vx sjgl? I hope you understand.

Well, I don't understand yet. But Lydia is diligently working on deciphering. I'll get back to you.

---

Thanks to everyone who submitted questions. If you have any questions about my answers, just comment them here and I'll try to clarify. Maybe we can play again next weekend.

-NDSR

Saturday blogging - ask me anything

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:23:38 GMT

Lately I've been attempting to work through a lot of my more foundational ideas, which makes it difficult to write didactically. In particular, I'm re-reading Aristotle's Politics, which is always challenging. I may surprise us all in the near future.

Anyway, in order to take a break from my normal posting routine, I thought we'd play a game. Leave me a comment on this post, asking me a question. Feel free to ask me anything; I don't believe in off-limits. Then I will post my answers.

Fun, right?

-NDSR

Practice Resurrection

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:08:07 GMT

Very few writers are as acute in diagnosing our cultural and societal illnesses as Wendell Berry. Berry wrote this poem, The Mad Farmer Liberation Front, in 1973, which you can tell by his references to computer cards, from the days when programs were literally holes punched in cardstock, carried around in crates and fed into computers one at a time.

But that one dated image aside, Berry is exactly right here, both in his diagnosis and his prognosis. If we want to have any chance, we've got to live out of step with the ordering of society and its values. Black Friday is as good a day as any to recognize this.

Love the quick profit, the annual raise,
vacation with pay. Want more
of everything ready-made. Be afraid
to know your neighbors and to die.
And you will have a window in your head.
Not even your future will be a mystery
any more. Your mind will be punched in a card
and shut away in a little drawer.
When they want you to buy something
they will call you. When they want you
to die for profit they will let you know.

So, friends, every day do something
that won't compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing.
Take all that you have and be poor.
Love someone who does not deserve it.
Denounce the government and embrace
the flag. Hope to live in that free
republic for which it stands.
Give your approval to all you cannot
understand. Praise ignorance, for what man
has not encountered he has not destroyed.

...

As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn't go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection.

What do you think? Does Berry accurately diagnose our cultural malaise? How can we take his advice to lose our minds? What does it mean to practice resurrection?

-NDSR

Full text of The Mad Farmer Liberation Front

Justifying 9/11

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:29:50 GMT

Several of the 9/11 conspirators are being brought to New York for their criminal trial. Attorneys in their defense (there's a job I wouldn't take for all the money in the world) have announced their defense strategy. The conspirators are pleading not guilty. They are going to attempt to justify their actions as being a valid response to American foreign policy.

This is interesting because it means that the trial will, in a sense, be a trial of 9/11 itself; as well as a trial of America. For the sake of the allegations, the conspirators admit to doing it, but will try to argue that it wasn't wrong.

Good luck with that.

What do you think? Could a terrorist act like 9/11 ever be justified? What does it take to justify any act of violence against innocents? Most Americans feel that the use of nuclear weapons during WWII was justified - is there any correspondence?

-NDSR

Source

Political-religious maturity

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:33:36 GMT

One of the most frustrating things about witnessing the ridiculous merger of American politics and American Christianity is not so much the theologically questionable nature of such a venture, but the sheer immaturity of it. Listening to someone like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity attempt to reason from religious convictions to political stances is painful for anyone who understands the complexities inherent in either realm.

For this reason, it is always reassuring to recall politicians whose political-religious thinking is mature. Even where I disagree with him, Abraham Lincoln had this sort of deep maturity evident in his writings and speeches. It's undoubtable that his religious convictions informed his political stances. On the matter of conscientious objectors to the Civil War, Lincoln "felt that unless we recognized conscientious religious scruples, we could not expect the blessing of Heaven."

Probably the best example of Lincoln's mature thought is his second inaugural address, given just months before his assassination. After explaining the causes leading to the Civil War, which was still ongoing, Lincoln analyzed the war from his Christian theological perspective.

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

The maturity and humility of Lincoln's thought is impressive. Even while he clearly believes his view is correct, he does not paint it in black-and-white terms. He observes that both sides pray to the same God, and that "the prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully." One can hardly imagine George W. Bush speaking this language.

Perhaps the best modern exemplar of this kind of political-religious maturity is our current President. Obama does not speak from the perspective of providential Christian theism as Lincoln did, but that is precisely the point. Providence is not the center of our nations' religio-political discourse anymore. Obama exemplifies the kind of thoughtful pluralism that can say that "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

Regardless of how much you agree and/or disagree with Obama's political philosophy (and there is much for any thoughtful person to both agree and disagree with; no need to be a party hack), it is this sort of political-religious maturity that is allowing Obama to recast America's role in the world, especially our relationship with global Islam. But it is also this maturity and craft of speech that makes it so difficult for his viewpoints to be gelled into the talking points modern voters need in order to make judgments. It's sad to say, but a good number of Americans need to hear pundits define Obama, because they can't follow the nuances and subtlety of his speeches, especially his more important international ones.

Still, I don't doubt Obama would hold to these closing words from Lincoln's address.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

What do you think? Do you agree that Lincoln and Obama exemplify a sort of political-religious maturity? If not, who does? Who do you feel exemplifies political-religious immaturity?

-NDSR