A Persistent Peace. An Autohagriography
Throughout Christian history there has been quite an interest in men and women who did great things, whether in this world or within their soul. These men and women weren’t seeking self-satisfaction. Rather, they were truly seeking God and his work in them and in this world. The interest in such people often insisted they be viewed as saints, objects of devotion if not worship. Biographies written were often filled with stories of great victories, moral pronouncements, heroic stands. Little was said that would suggest these people had real personal histories or daily struggles or lived in complex times.
Glossing over the negatives, and thus the whole truth, these biographies were meant more as inspiration than history–inspiration for those already walking in their footsteps, devoted to the cause and method.
A Persistent Peace: One Man’s Struggle for a Nonviolent World
I was disappointed, however. A Persistent Peace is a history of the icon, John Dear S.J, and even more the story of the names and places involved in the Peace movement since Reagan.
But we never really get to know the man, John Dear. The gift of an autobiography is that we can see not only the events, but also the internal perspective, wrestling, frustrations, development of the subject. John Dear seems to open up, but often only in ways that bolster the sense of his superiority. People around him don’t understand him. They are bored or angry or confused. Dialogue is pontifications of his teaching to the ignorant, even hateful, opponents or less ignorant friends. This is coupled with a hero worship of sorts, in which Dear seems to reveal himself most by talking about the people he wants to be like. But, all throughout it seems a lot of the real John Dear remains hidden, hidden because it seems he is still unwilling to be truly transparent about who he is and where he came from.
In the foreword, Martin Sheen writes, “I suspect that much of John’s character was formed, as it is for all of us, during adolescence, that critical period when every level of physical, emotional, physiological, sexual, and spiritual development begins to emerge.”
I suspect this too. Only A Persistent Peace gives nothing of this. We begin with John in college at Duke. We are given only the barest glimpse of his family life, which is decidedly upper class and filled with powerful influences. Indeed, he mentions his father and mother only in passing again and again, often as sources of introductions for people he proceeded to lecture about peace issues.
So, we don’t really ever get to see the man, only the image of the peace activist seeking the way of Jesus in this world as he sees it, fighting against the benighted masses who disagree, not only with the goal but also the method–public protest and nuisance. This is not a review to argue such tactics, however, I can’t help but think that being empowered because of arrests for public behavior is entirely different than the martyrs arrested for their message. Speaking the message is perfectly fine and accepted, a fact I think grates against those who seek to find identity within a pampered martyrdom.
Because of this I was disappointed with the book. We are left with more of a polemic than a story, again and again told rather than shown. Which places me outside of the target audience, to be sure, which is almost certainly the choir of people who already celebrate the message, goals, and tactics of John Dear as being the true expression of a “faith that does justice”.
Giving this a star rating was difficult even still, because I realize for many this is precisely what they want and need. Hagiographies were popular, and still are, because people need heroes presented in a certain light and need the empowerment that comes from seeing their causes as black and white, good versus evil. I give it three stars because I do not share the initial assumptions and was seeking a history of the man rather than a story of places, and celebrities, and events that make up the Peace movement. I wanted to learn about the man, not the symbol.
Here is a quote that I think would best help readers to determine the worth of this book. John Dear upon arriving at the Pentagon says, “it was the center of death for the whole planet, its prime purpose to organize the empire’s killing sprees at the behest of the multinational corporations and their politicians.”
If you agree with this, then you will see this as a five star book, speaking truth to power, and modeling heroic activism. If you disagree, you will find this book likely confirming what you like least about the Peace movement, even if you happen to agree with many of their ideals.
This is not particularly an interesting or insightful autobiography. It compares poorly as such to the recent works by Jurgen Moltmann about his life in theology, A Broad Place: An Autobiography
This is a book for the choir. If you’re wearing the robes then have at it, enjoy it, for it is certainly written with passion. It is also a good history of the last decades of the Peace movement. In fact, I wish Dear had not styled this a story of one man’s struggle and instead more honestly made this a book of many people’s participation.
As such, I’m left thinking Dear is trying to impose himself as a major figure, seeking the identity of his heroes Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Bobby Kennedy, but falling flat despite his many arrests and popularity within a certain segment of particular activists. He wants to be seen and applauded and affirmed.
Which makes me wonder what his life was like before Duke and with his family. Which makes me also wonder if maybe he really should have become a Franciscan after all.
Proposition 98 and 99
I’ve not done too much politics of late, mostly because it’s not entirely a fruitful discussion. But sometimes I think it’s worthwhile to jump back in and have a little say. Or at least point to someone else’s say.
This June 3rd we in California have a couple of ballot initiatives, both of which are addressing the idea of imminent domain, the issue raised most recently by the utterly execrable Kelo decision.
Both seemed a little suspicious to me, and with these kinds of initiatives deception should be looked for, and the backers analyzed as well as the text of the law.
Ilya Somin has a new op-ed in the Times that clarifies what is happening, and why we should probably vote Yes on 98 and No on 99. ]
Though, honestly, they both have problems and I wish there could be an initiative that is straightforward on this topic. It wouldn’t be that difficult. Though, I suppose it doesn’t really matter how we vote. California voting is more like an opinion poll that gives us something to do while the courts tell us how it’s going to be.
I do suggest voting still, though. Because one never knows what will stay on the books, and if because of this people end up not losing their homes it’s a victory.
property
I am going to speak, as you would have the right to expect me to speak, of what affects us at the present moment here in this State—of one of those problems with which we, who are for the time being your servants and representatives in public life, are trying to deal.
Now, take the very question that you have seen advocated and which you will see advocated some more during the next fen days—the question of the taxation of franchises. On the one hand we have the perfectly simple savage who believes that you should tax franchises to the extent of confiscating them, and that it is the duty of all rail¬road corporations to carry everybody free and give him a chromo. On the other, we have the scarcely less primitive mortal who believes that there is something sacred in a franchise, and that there is no reason why it should pay its share of the burdens at all.
Wow, gentlemen, remember that the man who occupies the last position inevitably tends to produce the man who occupies the first position, and that the worst enemy of property is the man who, whether from unscrupulousness or from mere heedlessness and thoughtlessness, takes the ground that there shall be something sacred about all property—-that the owners of it are to occupy a different position in the community from all others, and are to have their burdens not increased, but diminished, because of their wealth.
~Teddy Roosevelt, 1899.
Evangelicals on Politics
The Evangelical Manifesto that I mentioned before has been posted and I thought I might have a look at it. There’s the 20 page full version and the 5 page abridged version.
It is a big statement, though I don’t think it will make a big splash right away. Basically, as I see it, it’s more of a defining stand than a dramatic proclamation. Those who signed it represent some of the foundations of Evangelicals. However, there are many who didn’t sign it who have represented the public voice of Evangelicalism. These latter voices, and their followers, have long defined Evangelicalism in the public square. And so they likely will still try to do so. Instead of being given free reign, other Evangelicals are here now standing up and taking advantage of a shifting climate in the ranks. This isn’t going to change too much in the present, but it will set the tone for coming generations.
I’ve only looked at this briefly, but I’m going to be having a go at the longer version and maybe post some of my thoughts.
For now, here’s the shorter version if you want to have a read:
Read the rest of this entry »
Interesting
In the news today:
Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word “evangelical” has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.
The statement, called “An Evangelical Manifesto,” condemns Christians on the right and left for “using faith” to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
“That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots’ for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology,” according to the draft.
The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed “truth without love,” helping create a backlash against religion during a “generation of culture warring.”
“All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others,” they wrote, “while we have condoned our own sins.” They argue, “we must reform our own behavior.”
I certainly agree.
Religion, America, and the world
President Bush welcomes Pope Benedict XIV
PRESIDENT BUSH: Holy Father, Laura and I are privileged to have you here at the White House. We welcome you with the ancient words commended by Saint Augustine: “Pax Tecum.” Peace be with you.
You’ve chosen to visit America on your birthday. Well, birthdays are traditionally spent with close friends, so our entire nation is moved and honored that you’ve decided to share this special day with us. We wish you much health and happiness — today and for many years to come. (Applause.)
This is your first trip to the United States since you ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter. You will visit two of our greatest cities and meet countless Americans, including many who have traveled from across the country to see with you and to share in the joy of this visit. Here in America you’ll find a nation of prayer. Each day millions of our citizens approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us. Millions of Americans have been praying for your visit, and millions look forward to praying with you this week.
Here in America you’ll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.
Here in America you’ll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation’s independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the “laws of nature, and of nature’s God.” We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.
Here in America, you’ll find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and eternal truths. The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth — it is also among the most religious. In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our country’s greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions across the world.
Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that “God is love.” And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from “falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism.”
In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that “each of us is willed, each of us is loved” — (applause) — and your message that “each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary.”
In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this “dictatorship of relativism,” and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)
In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but “in a spirit of mutual support.”
Holy Father, thank you for making this journey to America. Our nation welcomes you. We appreciate the example you set for the world, and we ask that you always keep us in your prayers. (Applause.)
Pope Benedict responds, and greets America with kind and deep words:
POPE BENEDICT XVI: Mr. President, thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the 200th anniversary of elevation of the country’s first Diocese — Baltimore — to a metropolitan Archdiocese and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville.
Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel, and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America’s Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.
From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time, too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideas and aspirations.
In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America’s Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual group can make its voice heard.
As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human and free society.
Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate.
In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time and again that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation,” and a democracy without values can lose its very soul. Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.
The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God. She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman. Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling and to hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.
For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts underway to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world’s peoples.
On this, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity — as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God’s bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish — a world where the God-given dignity and the rights of every man, women and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.
Mr. President, dear friends, as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America. (Applause.)
“my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America.”
What a wonderful, wonderful way to end, challenging and complimentary, full of hope and life. I wish so many who have the same heart for much the same causes in this country would see how expressing hope, rather than anger, and peace, rather than disdain, and encouragement, rather than rejection, are fruit of the Spirit and lead to real progress.
a little political humor
In a conversation about Obama on NPR’s Wait, wait.. don’t tell me!
“Every single one, of the millions and millions of people who support him, are becoming more like Tom Cruise everyday. They’re all jumping on couches.”
~host Peter Sagal .
Made me laugh out loud while driving on the 210.
do I belong
As the primary approaches us this Tuesday I am faced with an existential question that is undercutting my very identity.
In writing online and in print, in discussions, motivations, instincts, and interactions I’m pretty much aligned with the emerging/missional church.
Yet, I do not own a Mac and I won’t be voting for Obama.
Is there still a place for me among such people? Or am I outcast, one with them in peripheral issues but not really authentic, because I clearly don’t get what really counts? I worry about my emerging soul.
For I type this on a PC, and lean towards McCain.
Is there hope for one such as me? Is the tent big enough for a guy with Windows and an R labeled ballot?
Strike!
Jenna Fischer, Pam from The Office, has written a great little post on the Hollywood writer’s strike.
I’m not a screenwriter, and likely will never be one. But I really support this strike, as a writer. The writers are the foundation of any good entertainment. Casts get famous, but it is the writing of a show or movie that sets it apart. Because they are behind the scenes, however, writers are often forgotten and ignored. Ignored by studios who are run by people with very little creative talent, besides squeezing more dollars out of society. The writers are asking for what is rightfully theirs, part of the royalties for the content they, not the studios and not the actors, created. The multi-national corporations, however, would rather break the union, force the writers to hide once more. I’m for this strike, no matter how long it lasts. The studios are ruining entertainment in this country and they need to lose for all sorts of reasons. No better reason, in my mind, than giving writers more money.
The Politics of the Beatitudes
Tod Lindberg writes on the politics of the Beatitudes. This isn’t a new topic by any means. However, what’s especially interesting to me is that Lindberg is not a Biblical scholar, pastor, or theologian. He’s an expert in politics, someone who spends their life considering the present political situation. Very much worth reading, and his book, The Political Teachings of Jesus, has now found a place on my amazon wish list.
If no one persecutes people for following the teaching of Jesus, then the category of the “persecuted” disappears. If no one persecutes those who seek righteousness, then this category, too, disappears. And if the response to the poor in spirit is not to show contempt for them but to uplift them, to encourage them to find the value in their lives that they have somehow lost sight of, then that category, too, disappears. Thus, these three categories of the blessed for which Jesus makes promises only with regard to heaven disappear entirely wherever the Jesusian teaching takes root on earth. This explains why Jesus assigns no earthly reward for people in these three categories. His silence anticipates that once people follow his guidance there will be no one left in these conditions. His ambitious political agenda is to rid the world of both persecuted and persecutors — opposite sides of the coin of persecution.
This echoes a fair bit of Jurgen Moltmann’s thoughts on the subject, though Moltmann is more explicit about spreading this concept into eschatology. He sees heaven as the place where persecutor and persecutee are finally, fully, reconciled and no one is left in those conditions. It is the church which is supposed to, then, reflect this reality even in the present as the Kingdom that has already come in the power of the Holy Spirit, who is, I think the Personal presence of the Kingdom. Where the Spirit is, there is the Kingdom. To the degree we participate with the Spirit we participate in the Kingdom.
Moltmann has also a wee bit more Marxist leanings and an interest in Liberation theology and politics, which I suspect Lindberg disagrees with, for good reasons. Moltmann is a theologian, not a political scientist, and politics is one area that I’m thinking he could use some helpful guidance.
