Aye, there's the rub

The Rick Warren Problem in a nutshell:

HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

All right, two problems, really. One is that nagging problem all Christians have, the "turn the other cheek" thing that Jesus taught us. I've heard explanations running from: to turn the other cheek is to require the person slapping you to offer his open palm, which is used for endearment (we only offer the "back of the hand" in anger or repudiation) to "Well, that only applies to friends!" Or some such. Reinhold Niebuhr famously wrestled with the question, and his answer didn't exactly satisfy his even more theologically sophisticated brother Richard. Warren, of course, betrays no such subtlety or sophistication. He knows what evil is. He knows government is empowered to stop it.

Even when the evil is in the government. No mention of the methods used to thwart that evil, methods now exposed as evil themselves, and worthless. But Warren is a "big picture" guy; he can't be bothered with the details. After all, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, am I right?

So now we're at the fringes of the second problem, and this one is much bigger, if only because people take it more seriously than any talk about "loving your enemy." I mean, who ever tries to seriously do that, even at Christmas? The larger problem is this: what do we do with that even more blanket directive from Jesus: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged."

As Dom Crossan and others have pointed out, this is a very simple statement with a very radical and disruptive telos: if you do not judge, you step outside the cycle of judgment and punishment, and are not yourself subject to judgment. Again, Niebuhr recognized the problem here, and he condemned the pacifists and Social Gospel advocates of his day who thought that simply abandoning the system of judgment would bring about the basilea tou theou. Reinhold was the practical one, but Richard was the better theologian. And both wrestled with this problem, while Warren just seeks to reinforce a status quo which has made him a wealthy and influential man. He's got a lot to lose if he doesn't play the system's game.

But that's Warren's problem, and I leave him to it. I am no better than he, and in no position to judge him. I only pause to point out how easy judgment is, how hard it is to remove ourselves from the cycle of judgment and declaration of guilt or innocence. No, the real "Rick Warren problem" is ours, not his, because what he declares we as good assume. And like him, we assume for ourselves the right of judgment, and the "right" judgment, and the authority to enforce "our" righteous judgments.

Let's start with the easy one: evil. Do you know what it is? Probably better than you know what art is; but in both cases, we are quite certain we know it when we see it. Fine; you see the splinter in your brother's eye, but do you see the log in your own?

Here, of course, is where the first distinction gets made. Rick Warren is not my "brother." Because he compares gay marriage to pedophilia, or incest, or bigamy. Because he says things I strongly disagree with. Because he supports the use of force to defeat "evil." Because he's James Dobson-lite. Pick your reason; there's a quiver full of arrows for this particular Bartholomew. We can pin-cushion a figurine of Rick Warren with the arrows of our calumny, and all of it aimed at separating ourselves from this particular "other" so we can, well: stand in judgment over him. Which is precisely what he wants to do, to people we like or agree with or accept or even love. So tell me again how we are different from Rick Warren. Because we are right, and he's not?

And what part of this judgment is specifically, or particularly, or even vaguely, Christian? But now push it a little further: Rick Warren asserts that the Bible, and specifically his interpretation of the Scriptures, his understanding and use of the Bible, authorizes him to both discern and define evil, and to oppose it. Isn't that the authority we claim when we condemn Rick Warren for his theology, or ideology, or politics? Isn't that the very same authority we assert when we condemn Rick Warren as a man unworthy of the high honor of offering the invocation at probably the most historical Presidential Inauguration since that of George Washington?

Which of us has the beam in his eye, and which the splinter? Which of us gets to judge, and which of us can only be judged?

But the problem is worse than that, at least for those of us who profess to be Christians. This is the other problem: if Rick Warren isn't my "brother," then who is? If I can start making exclusions so I can determine who can be subject to my righteous judgment, where do I stop? When can I not exclude you? If I must oppose evil, where do I start? With you? Or with me?

Advent 19: Other voices, other rooms

Arabic infancy gospel:

1. We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

2. In the three hundred and ninth year of the era of Alexander, Augustus put forth an edict, that every man should be enrolled in his native place. Joseph therefore arose, and taking Mary his spouse, went away to Jerusalem, and came to Bethlehem, to be enrolled along with his family in his native city. And having come to a cave, Mary told Joseph that the time of the birth was at hand, and that she could not go into the city; but, said she, let us go into this cave. This took place at sunset. And Joseph went out in haste to go for a woman to be near her. When, therefore, he was busy about that, he saw an Hebrew old woman belonging to Jerusalem, and said: Come hither, my good woman, and go into this cave, in which there is a woman near her time.

3. Wherefore, after sunset, the old woman, and Joseph with her, came to the cave, and they both went in. And, behold, it was filled with lights more beautiful than the gleaming of lamps and candles, and more splendid than the light of the sun. The child, enwrapped in swaddling clothes, was sucking the breast of the Lady Mary His mother, being placed in a stall. And when both were wondering at this light, the old woman asks the Lady Mary: Are you the mother of this Child? And when the Lady Mary gave her assent, she says: You are not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women. The old woman replied: My mistress, I came to get payment; I have been for a long time affected with palsy. Our mistress the Lady Mary said to her: Place your hands upon the child. And the old woman did so, and was immediately cured. Then she went forth, saying: Henceforth I will be the attendant and servant of this child all the days of my life.

4. Then came shepherds; and when they had lighted a fire, and were rejoicing greatly, there appeared to them the hosts of heaven praising and celebrating God Most High. And while the shepherds were doing the same, the cave was at that time made like a temple of the upper world, since both heavenly and earthly voices glorified and magnified God on account of the birth of the Lord Christ. And when that old Hebrew woman saw the manifestation of those miracles, she thanked God, saying: I give You thanks, O God, the God of Israel, because my eyes have seen the birth of the Saviour of the world.

....

7. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judæa, in the time of King Herod, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, as Zeraduscht had predicted; and there were with them gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And they adored Him, and presented to Him their gifts. Then the Lady Mary took one of the swaddling-bands, and, on account of the smallness of her means, gave it to them; and they received it from her with the greatest marks of honour. And in the same hour there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before guided them on their journey; and they went away, following the guidance of its light, until they arrived in their own country.

8. And their kings and chief men came together to them, asking what they had seen or done, how they had gone and come back, what they had brought with them. And they showed them that swathing-cloth which the Lady Mary had given them. Wherefore they celebrated a feast, and, according to their custom, lighted a fire and worshipped it, and threw that swathing-cloth into it; and the fire laid hold of it, and enveloped it. And when the fire had gone out, they took out the swathing-cloth exactly as it had been before, just as if the fire had not touched it. Wherefore they began to kiss it, and to put it on their heads and their eyes, saying: This verily is the truth without doubt. Assuredly it is a great thing that the fire was not able to burn or destroy it. Then they took it, and with the greatest honour laid it up among their treasures.

Infancy Gospel of James:

Chapter 17

(1) Then, there was an order from the Emperor Augustus to register how many people were in Bethlehem of Judea. (2) And Joseph said, "I will register my sons. But this child? What will I do about him? How will I register him? (3) And my wife? Oh, I am ashamed. Should I register her as my daughter? The children of Israel know that she is not my daughter. (4) This day, I will do as the Lord wants."

(5) And he saddled his donkey and sat her on it and his son led and Samuel followed. (6) And they arrived at the third mile and Joseph turned and saw that she was sad. (7) And he said to himself, "Perhaps the child within her is troubling her." (8) And again Joseph turned around and saw her laughing and said to her, "Mary, what is with you? First your face appears happy and then sad?"

(9) And she said, "Joseph, it is because I see two people with my eyes, one crying and being afflicted, one rejoicing and being extremely happy."

(10) When they came to the middle of the journey, Mary said to him, "Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child pushing from within me to let him come out."

(11) So he took her off the donkey and said to her, "Where will I take you and shelter you in your awkwardness? This area is a desert."

Chapter 18

(1) And he found a cave and led her there and stationed his sons to watch her, (2) while he went to a find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.

(3) Then, Joseph wandered, but he did not wander. (4) And I looked up to the peak of the sky and saw it standing still and I looked up into the air. With utter astonishment I saw it, even the birds of the sky were not moving. (5) And I looked at the ground and saw a bowl lying there and workers reclining. And their hands were in the bowl. (6) And chewing, they were not chewing. And picking food up, they were not picking it up. And putting food in their mouths, they were not putting it in their mouths. (7) Rather, all their faces were looking up.

(8) And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still. (9) And the shepherd lifted up his hand to strike them, but his hand remained above them. (10) And I saw the rushing current of the river and I saw goats and their mouths resting in the water, but they were not drinking. (11) And suddenly everything was replaced by the ordinary course of events.

....

Chapter 20

(1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place."

(2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire."

(5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you."

(8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you."

(10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

(12) Suddenly, there was a voice saying, "Salome, Salome, do not proclaim what a miracle you have seen until the child comes to Jerusalem."

Dialogue with Trypho:

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "[Chapter 78]

Origen:

CHAP. LI.

Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth--that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem--in the following manner: "And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. Moreover, I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was." But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."

Revelation to John:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,

but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.

The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.

But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

It took its position on the sand of the sea.

Massacre of the Innocents, 21st century style

While left blogistan is outraged over who has been selected to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, this goes by almost unremarked on.

Funny how this didn't dominate the Presidential debates; and doesn't dominate the public discussion now.

Oh, well; I guess when we get that attractive floor covering selected, we can turn our attention to this.

Of Eschatons and Advents and Tempests in Tea-pots

Not that anyone will listen, but really, is this so unreasonable a stance?

What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.

And the answer is, of course: yes! Yes it damned well is !!!!

Because, you know, it's all about power. Or politics. Two conditions that often appear alike.

I don't like an invocation anyway, but is this really equivalent to a major government appointment? Has Obama elevated Rick Warren to a Cabinet level position? Is there a position of "America's Pastor," and does giving the invocation at an inauguration indicate election to the office? Quick, name the pastor who gave the invocation in 2005. In 2001. In 1997. And Googling is cheating.

The whole thing puts me in mind of something I learned from the German E&R church, although many other denominations (most of which are also the result of mergers of formerly distinct and disparate churches) claim it: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity." It's that last that's the clincher: all things, and in them, charity. Probably it seems more applicable to a religious setting than a secular one, but if you think that, you haven't been involved in a church lately (or maybe it's the reason you're no longer involved!).

So I ask again: why is Obama so wrong? Because those we disagree with must be crushed under our heels, their women driven before us wailing and lamenting, their ideas shamed and vilified? You will say to me: "What if Obama had chosen a White Supremacist, or even a Black Racist, to offer the prayer?" And I would say: well, that would be an interesting choice, wouldn't it? But Rick Warren's raison d'etre is not about hating gays. It's not exactly what he's known for, is it? I think he's wrong on most things. I dislike him for his theology more than for his stance on social and civil rights issues. And I have a problem with an invocation, period.

But the continuing clamor about this selection for this tiny, tiny portion of a ceremony where most people won't even remember the Inaugural speech the next morning....well, that I just don't get.

Except as an expression of power politics. And if you haven't figured it out by now, Obama doesn't seem to play that game. He seems to believe in politics as jiu-jitsu. Whether that works or not, remains to be seen.

Update: This is what leaves me shaking my head:

That aside, I'm with Steve Benen: Whatever short term political benefit this gives Obama is transitory at best, and it's easily outweighed by the downside: It gives an enormous platform, and the appearance of moderation, to someone whose views are radically out of step with Obama's -- things that can only help Warren when he opposes Obama's agenda on social issues for the rest of his presidency.

Yeah, because Warren's mega-church, his best-selling book, and the fact that the media always gives credence to pastors with big incomes and big congregations (so long as they're white and not members of a denomination, which is why so few had heard of Jeremiah Wright before Obama came along, despite the size of his church*) mean nothing, and who gave the invocation at Obama's inauguration will mean everything!

Good grief.


*I do know of some black pastors of large non-denominational churches with high public profiles; but somehow, they never get close to being a candidate for "America's Pastor." Frankly, it seems that should spark a bit more interest, if not outrage, than it does. Oh, well.

Advent 18

1. Remember, O thou man,
O thou man, O thou man,
Remember O thou man,
Thy time is spent.

2. Remember, O thou man,
How thou cams't to me then,
And I did what I can,
Therefore repent.

3. Remember Adam's fall,
O thou man, O thou man!
Remember Adam's fall
From heaven to hell!

4. Remember Adam's fall,
How we were condemned all
To hell perpetual,
There for to dwell.

5. Remember God's goodness,
O thou man, O thou man!
Remember God's goodness,
And promise made!

6. Remember God's goodness,
How His only Son He sent1
Our sins for to redress,
Be not afraid.

7. The angels all did sing,
O thou man, O thou man!
The angels all did sing,
On Sion hill

8. The angels all did sing,
Praises to our glorious King,
And peace to man living,
With a good will!'

9. The Shepherds amazed was,
O thou man, O thou man!
The Shepherds amazed was,
To hear the angels sing.

10. The Shepherds amazed was
How it should come to pass
That Christ our Messias
Should be our King!

11. To Bethlehem did they go,
O thou man, O thou man!
The shepherds three;
O thou man, O thou man!

12. To Bethlehem did they go,
To see whether it were so,
Whether Christ were borne or no
To set man free.

13. As the Angels before did say,
O thou man, O thou man!
As the Angels before did say,
So it came to pass;

14. As the Angels before did say,
They found him wrapt in hay
In a manger, where he lay
So poor he was.

15. In Bethlehem he was born,
O thou man, O thou man!
In Bethlehem he was born,
For mankind's sake;

16. In Bethlehem he was born,
For us that were forlorn,
And therefore took no scorn
Our sins to bear.

17. In a manger laid he was,
O thou Man, O thou Man,
In a manger laid he was
At this time present.

18. In a manger laid he was,
Between an ox and an ass,
And all for our trespass,
Therefore repent.

19. Give thanks to God always,
O thou man, O thou man!
Give thanks to God always,
With heart most joyfully

20. Give thanks to God always,
Upon this blessed day,
Let all men sing and say:
'Holy, holy!'

The people, Lord, the people!

I'm really not trying (again!) to become the anti-"Street Prophets," or the evil twin of Pastor Dan, but I'm really confused by this:

That being said, stories like McCurry's are incredibly offensive. They strain credulity, for one thing. Did McCurry forget about Hubert Humphrey, who wrote letters to Reinhold Niebuhr? Did McCurry forget about everyone from the seminary graduate Gene McCarthy to the Sunday School teacher Jimmy Carter to the to the seminary graduate Gary Hart to Father Drinan to Jesse Jackson to John Kerry to Mario Cuomo to Bill Moyers to his own former boss, the very publically religious Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary?

Did he just forget about Walter Mondale, who said in a debate with Ronald Reagan:

"I have a deep religious faith. Our family does. It is fundamental. It's probably the reason that I'm in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us, about the moral life that we should lead. And I think we're all together on that."

Did he really forget all those people, or just not meet them? Does he really expect us to believe that they have not been a part of the life of the Democratic party?

Or would he rather ignore them, as he ignores the millions of other faithful members of the party, because he has an axe to grind?

Democrats are just now "getting" religion? Really?

I guess because most people today, despite my feeble efforts, don't really remember Reinhold Niebuhr (sic transit gloria mundi), or if they do, it's because of Andrew Bacevich and Bill Moyers, not HHH ("Who?," most of the internet savvy generation is asking.) Most pundits and politicos mocked Jimmy Carter's Sunday School earnestness, and even now ignore the religious roots of his public good works. And who remembers that Bill Moyers was a seminary student, or Gene McCarthy or Gary Hart (yikes!) were, for that matter?

Does anybody even really note Chris Hedges' background (who is not a politician, but at least is a more current public figure identified with progressive politics than anyone Pastor Dan mentioned).

My first thoughts actually ran to the Berrigan brothers and Will Campbell, but maybe that's just another generational thing. Anyway, this led me to McCurry's article, where I grew even more confused:

For the progressive left, social activism grounded in faith and theology crested in the 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” was maybe the high water mark – a Biblical-based sermon addressed from one black preacher to a group of his white, Southern peers, calling for a radical transformation of perspective on the main social issue of the day.

That history needs to be remembered because faith-based social activism on the left largely disappeared for a generation in the aftermath of the 1960s. Various movements flowered – the antiwar, feminist, and environmental movements – and the action in the streets helped stimulate enormous social change. But organized religion – in the Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations – began its slow, steady decline in the midst of the social turmoil.

I would quibble with the causal connection there between social activism and church decline, but I don't find anything else to disagree with in those paragraphs. McCurry goes on:

The liberal faithful fled the scene in favor of latte and Tim Russert on Sunday mornings. Organized expressions of faith were rare at Democratic party gatherings. When I worked at the White House in the mid-1990s, I would not have dreamed of sharing my beliefs on faith with my colleagues. Our prayer and spiritual life was furtive even though we were all drawing on it to make it through rough and trying days. I sat next to George Stephanopoulos for a whole year on the campaign trail in 1996 and never discussed the moral turmoil he writes about in his book, All Too Human. More than once, I inadvertently interrupted Rahm Emanuel’s weekly session with his rabbi as they studied the Torah (yes, that Rahm Emanuel), but it never occurred to me to pull up a seat and join in the conversation.

That first sentence is certainly true. It took me a long time in left blogistan to establish my bona fides as a religious person concerned with political issues without being a fringe "evangelical" or a superstitious fool. And I certainly think the explanation of staying home to watch Tim Russert on Sunday mornings is a better sociological explanation of the decline in church membership than the first reason he offers. Still, what offends here? Indeed, McCurry indicates that the zeitgeist didn't allow for public expressions of faith, all the while faith continued to be an issue for individuals.

Which pretty much tracks my experience of the last 50 years. As I say, maybe it's a generational thing. As McCurry might agree:

All that is changing now. In Barack Obama, Democrats have put forth a man of strong religious faith who is comfortable connecting his spiritual life to his public role as a policymaker. Obama’s campaign benefited from a determined effort – which started during the 2004 campaign and accelerated since – to reach out to communities of faith and let them know that Democrats are their brothers and sisters.

The change is in the group dynamic, in other words. The topics of conversation have shifted, and the "moderate" believers feel welcome to the agora. Again, what's the problem here?

I've said before that religious people needed to reclaim the vocabulary so we can re-enter the public discussion. My church roots lie, in no small part, in the "Evangelical and Reformed" Church. The second word of that title is almost meaningless, although it has a 500+ year history in Western culture, and the first word has become a shibboleth and symbol of blinkered superstition and close-mindedness. When the public discourse is dominated by Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells, and now by Joel Osteens and Rick Warrens, it is rather difficult to be easily conversant with one's faith, unless you are of the Osteen or Warren ilk. Certainly, as McCurry points out, even people of faith like Stephanopoulos and Emmanuel and McCurry, felt cut off from each other and from any public conversation on the topic. The fact that Bill Clinton went to church more often than Ronald Reagan didn't really change that dynamic, either. It took something more.

It took a change in the zeitgeist, a change we now have. Is McCurry's prescription for more change on target? Well, it's interesting that his focus is not on "What God can do for me" but on "What I can do for God's people:"

During the primary season, various forums allowed candidates like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others to profess their Christian faith and witness to the ways they are called to fulfill scriptural mandates to care for “the least, the last, and the lost.” None of the witnesses those candidates gave was phony: all of them, especially the new president-elect, seemed genuine in describing what the gospel news of Jesus requires them to do as humble servants of God.

And frankly, I find his conclusion encouraging, not off-putting:

Many Democrats are rediscovering the connections that exist between the moral teachings of religion and the things we must do to create a community of the common good here in America. Our nation is entering hard, troubled, and painful times. It’s not a bad thing that the Democrats who are about to inherit positions of power have had a Great Awakening about how their own personal faith speaks to the needs of a dispirited nation in need of a big lift.

There is room there to include conservative Christians, progressive Christians, Jews both observant and secular, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, what-have-you. As an observant Christian I sense a movement of the Holy Spirit in this, not just a confluence of historical events. And if that's sweeping away some of the old, well, isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

Cease to dwell on days gone by
and to brood over past history.
Here and now I will do a new thing;
this moment it will break from the bud.
Can you not perceive it?
I will make a way even through the wilderness
and paths in the barren desert;
the wild beasts will do me honour,
the wolf and the ostrich;
for I will provide water in the wilderness
and rivers in the barren desert
where my chosen people may drink
I have formed this people for myself
and they shall proclaim my praises--Isaiah 43:16-21, NEB

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel...

Huh.

President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony will feature big names like minister Rick Warren and legendary singer Aretha Franklin, the Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced Wednesday.

Warren, the prominent evangelical and founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, will deliver the ceremony's invocation.

It isn't the person giving the invocation I object to (no, really!). It's the idea.

We don't coronate our President. We don't give him power from a deity. The ceremony is not conducted even on the doorstep of a church. Why, then, do we "invoke" a deity at the Presidential Inauguration? And why must it be a Christian prayer? In fact, it must be Protestant. Imagine if a Presidential candidate asked a Roman Catholic Archbishop to perform the invocation. Or the Archbishop of an Orthodox Church. Dwight Eisenhower got away with that one; but he also got away with calling what we have today a "military/industrial complex." Which tells you how much the political discourse has shifted within, oh, my lifetime. Now the argument for Warren is that it punks Dobson, as Warren can be seen as the "leader" of the "evangelicals."

Huh.

Why couldn't it be a Buddhist monk, a Muslim imam, or a Wiccan? An invocation is a prayer, after all, and our Constitution doesn't recognize any religion.

Yeah, that'll happen. Suddenly the "invocation" would be highly problematic then, huh?

And yeah, this is another shot in the "Obama is a Mooslem!" argument. But that just means religion is once again the handmaid to politics. Which isn't good, either, and the other reason so many Baptists supported Thomas Jefferson's argument which led to the inclusion of the First Amendment in the Constitution.

Besides, this is the time of year when we remember when politics and religion used to mix freely. The birth of a child prompted the Massacre of the Innocents. And that child grew up to tell us to give Caesar what is Caesar's. He was referring to the fact that Caesar considered himself divine; and had the full power of the State behind him, to enforce that opinion.

Good times, good times.

Streams in the Desert

Without taking up any of the sides in this issue, this is the kind of thing that makes me want to retreat to the desert.

Figuratively speaking.

Though perhaps what's more interesting is this critique, as cited by Pastor Dan:

there's little question that the RIC and its journalistic proponents (Amy Sullivan, E.J. Dionne) have sometimes let wishful thinking run away with sober judgment, hopefully announcing the evangel of what has not (yet?) come to pass. The problem here is not with the RIC, which is simply going about the traditional political business of grabbing for folks in the middle of the road and spinning the results. Sticking strictly to your prophetic guns, as Pastordan urges, amounts to a lefty version of the Rovian strategy of playing to the base. (Sorry, Dan.)

There is more there than meets the eye, because the comparison to Rove is not an idle one. Rove is a committed ideologue (as he has shown since leaving the environs of the White House) but he was more committed to one thing than to his iedology: power.

Rove was all about power: gaining it; holding it; wielding it. Not pretty, is it? Nor do I accuse Pastor Dan of being even a little bit Rovian. But it is very difficult to have these conversations without coming around to the question of power. So how's this for a conversation starter?

My soul extols the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has shown consideration for the lowly stature of his slave. As a consequence, from now on every generation will congratulate me; the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name, and his mercy will come to generation after generation of those who fear him. He has shown the strength of his arm, he has put the arrogant to rout, along with their private schemes; he has pulled the mighty down from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has come to the aid of his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever. (Luke 1:46-56, SV)

To repeat myself: The Magnificat is not a political statement. This is not about a greater power than all others on earth, overwhelming what we know and wiping it out. If reason is really going to save us from ourselves, it can only do so by overpowering emotions; it will only do so when we all finally and fully think alike, and praise the same things, and damn the same things, and there is no deviation. It will only finally rule supreme when human emotion is wiped out, and desires and wants are expunged. Reason will only finally be our best and highest ruler when everyone is a slave and no one thinks unlike the rest, and the philosopher kings take their rightful place, and we all learn to bounce our ball in sequence on the coldly perfect planet of Camazotz.

The Magnificat is not a political song. It is not the Maccabees taking on Rome and precipating the slaughter of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It is not the Pax Romana that finally fell, never to rise again. It is not the plea of the Populists, of New Deal Democrats, the Yippies, or the Green Party. The Magnificat is not about what will be, but about what is.

It is not about resistance, about plans to rule and overpower, either malicious or benign. It understand implicitly: there is no power without resistance. It is not a song of resistance, or a song of prediction.

It is a song of now.

All this discussion of "RIC" and whether or not Rick Warren is an "epic fail" or a boy genius is all so much inside baseball. (Ironic, no?) And I'm not even a fan, much less a player. I can't tell the players without a scorecard, so outside of E.J. Dionne and Digby, I don't know who the people are Dan is talking about (nor had I ever heard of a "Religious Industrial Complex." I think I prefer the traditional term: "Christendom." And though I'm a UCC pastor, I don't want to have anything to do with what either of those terms represent.) I'm happy to agree with Fred Clarkson that Rick Warren is an "epic fail," but honestly: who cares what I think about Rick Warren? I don't like Joel Osteen either, but I haven't made a dent in his popularity, nor do I ever hope to.

This is much larger than Pastor Dan, so I'm not picking on him, just picking it up from him:

Our movement, like any, depends on people with diverse skills, constituencies, voices and approaches to advancing our cause. Some speak prophetically about what we should fight for and inspire the faithful, some work to organize the community into coalitions, some strive to bring unlikely allies together, some magnify the voices of others, some develop the next generation of leaders, and so on and so forth. In my short time here at FPL, we've tried to help in many of these respects, and we're continually assessing how to best contribute to advancing a common good agenda. We hope our "RIC" status doesn't stop the critics in our community from wanting to work together in 2009 -- there's no shortage of things to be done.

My first response is still: isn't the agenda of Christians to advance the basiliea tou theou? Which may seem an exclusive stance, too, so my second response is: if I'm going to spend my days deciding who is "in" and who is "out," I'm going to be very busy not getting a whole lot done (Hey! Kind of like blogging!). If I'm going to come at this from my Christian confession, is being a good member of the RIC the purpose of being a Christian? Is my confession just a seasoning on my preferred activities, a way of giving me a different frame than Atrios or Digby or the "evangelicals"? And what does any of this have to do with now?

As Merton said of the Desert Fathers, when all human society is in chaos, sometimes the only response is to grab a bit of flotsam in the flood and hang on for dear life.

These kinds of discussions always strike me as more flood than flotsam.

Next up: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And are they using the right foot? In the meantime, what's going on right now? And what does the Magnificat have to say about it?

O Sapienta

The "O Antiphons" begin tonight with "O Sapienta."

O Wisdom, O holy word of God, you govern all creation with your strong yet tender care; Come and show your people the way to salvation.

Rejoice, rejoice, Immanuel will come to thee, O Israel!

O God of Mercy, When?

Via Wounded Bird comes this:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he was directly involved in approving severe interrogation methods used by the CIA, and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should remain open indefinitely.

Cheney's remarks on Guantanamo appear to put him at odds with President Bush, who has expressed a desire to close the prison, although the decision is expected to be left to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Cheney's comments also mark the first time that he has acknowledged playing a central role in clearing the CIA's use of an array of controversial interrogation tactics, including a simulated drowning method known as waterboarding.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared," Cheney said in an interview with ABC News.

Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: "I do."

Jonathan Turley all but predicted this:

TURLEY: What the administration is doing is they know that the people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so they could go to their supporters and say, “Look, there’s really nothing we could do.”

Well, the Bush administration is calling their bluff. They know that the Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments.

What would the argument be? Jack Goldsmith, another law professor who once described the threat of prosecutions of Administration officials for authorizing torture as “the judicialization of international politics,” provides it:

He explains that in his view the “danger now is that lawyers will become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment.”

Goldsmith's preferred solution?

The best way for the Obama administration to establish a record of what happened under President Bush without further debilitating our national security system is simply to let the many current investigations run their course.

Which may be exactly what Obama does:

The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.

Meanwhile, today, three of five Bosnians who have been prisoners in Gitmo since 2001 were finally repatriated (albeit in shackles) to Bosnia. As an earlier report on the order of their release noted:

With this as the first of many Guantanamo cases due to be reviewed by federal judges in the coming months, Thursday's ruling will likely be seen as a signal to other judges to be skeptical of the government representations.

In fact, the case ruled on today has become a prime example of the moving target the government has presented as legal justification for many of the detentions.

This may be what spurred Cheney's ire. He hasn't been able to establish a law-free system of imprisonment, and so as he leaves he makes his lawless position clear. Grandmere Mimi calles him shameless. Dick Cheney is worse than shameless. He is defiant. This is Cheney daring Obama to prosecute him. He knows Obama won't do it. Or rather, he doubts Obama will do it. As do I.

If he doesn't, we are a government of men, not of laws, and Dick Nixon is proven right: when the President (or Vice-President) does it, it's legal.

Prosecuting all the other actors in this mess now, without pursuing Dick Cheney, would make the entire affair pointless and an offense to justice. But will it happen?

Is there a Santa Claus?

Speaking of eschatons and apocalypses

I freely admit, I don't get it:

Pastor Rick protests that he's not a homophobe because he's given money to people with AIDS. He has gay friends and has even eaten dinner in "gay homes."

I mean, I do. I remember in the '60's, when some of my best friends were "Negroes."

Well, not my best friends. I was only 14 when the '60's unofficially ended, and didn't attend an integrated (or, as we said then, "desegregated") school until I was 16, so I didn't have a chance to have "Negro" friends. But still, I understand the sentiment. Pastor Warren also says:

"I support full equal rights for everyone in America," adding that he only opposes a "redefinition" of marriage."

Isn't that a matter for Webster's, though? Or the OED? But this one I do understand:

Warren claimed he supported Proposition 8 because of a free-speech issue -- asserting that "any pastor could be considered doing hate speech . . . if he shared his views that homosexuality wasn't the most natural way for relationships."

Well, I don't know that anyone would be condemned or charged with a hate crime for saying it wasn't the "most natural" relationship. But maybe if we could just agree to stop calling it the "most unnatural" relationship.

And that wouldn't require a redefinition at all.

Las Posadas 2008

"LAS Posadas, literally, "the shelters," which begins on the 16th of December, is celebrated with great joy as the"holy pilgrims" (Mary and Joseph) move each night from house to house, one after another. It is always celebrated with song, prayers and special food, some of which are: tamales, donuts, champurrado and buffets.

"Why? Because it is the time of Advent, the time of expectation, the jubilant wait, the time when all await the birth of the son, awaiting the celebration of his birthday. This is the time of Las Posadas, the time of joy, preparation and waiting.

Why do people carry lanterns in the procession of Las Posadas? Because all those carrying the lanterns represent the stars which illuminate the way for the shepherds who make their way to the house of the birth." --Celestina Castro

FOR the LORD, your God, befriends the alien, feeding and clothing them. So you too must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves.
--Deuteronomy 10:17-19

DIYINO Y eterno Verbo, que desde el Padre descendiste al corazon de siempre Virgen Marfa; el amor que tienes a los hombres te conduce a la ciudad de Belen para nacer a media noche en un pobre y humilde establo.

Es verdad que millares de angeles te acompanan en este viaje; pero tambien es cierto que te dejamos, nosotros a quienes viniste a salvar y a conducir al Belen de la eterna felicidad.

Perdonanos, Dios y Senor del Universo, y ayudanos a cami-nar con Maria y San Jose para luchar y poder triunfar sobre toda adversidad. Amen.

Divine and eternal Word, who descended from the Father into the heart of the ever Virgin Mary, your love for humankind leads you to Bethlehem where you are born at midnight in a poor and humble stable.

In truth, thousands of angels accompany you on this journey, and yet we, whom you came to save and lead to that Bethlehem of eternal joy, stubbornly turn away from you.

Forgive us, God and Lord of the universe, and help us to walk alongside Mary and Joseph, thus giving us the courage to fight against and triumph over every adversity. Amen.--Posadas Prayer

"Las Posadas is a time of celebration in Mexico and the Southwest United States. It is an event of much significance with joy, protection and festivity. Las Posadas is always observed with much song and celebration. It is a novena of preparation for the feast of the Nativity. It begins on the 16th of December and ends on the 24th of December with the" Mass of the Rooster," the celebration of the Mass at Midnight.

"Las Posadas has its origins, possibly, from Father Diego de Soria, a religious of the order of St. Augustine. He was an enthusiastic priest, introducing the devotion in Mexico, in the church of Alcoman, in 1587. It was the intention of this celebrated religious to contrast the celebration of the Aztecs in honor of their god of war, Huitzilopochtli. It was celebrated at the same time as the time of the Nativity, and was presenting many problems of attraction for the neophyte Christians.

"Las Posadas of Father Diego became popular very quickly and extended to other churches in Mexico and the surrounding countryside. It then began to be celebrated in the homes of individuals.

"It is the celebration of the "pilgrims" who go from house to house led by an angel who conducts the little donkey with the seated Virgin. She is accompanied by St. Joseph. They sing songs as they look for shelter, the masters of the houses open their doors and all who participate share in the buffet which the owners (innkeepers) of the house offer.

"The people celebrate that the messiah will come again. It is the celebration of preparation for this coming. It is time to open the doors of our hearts to give shelter. How do we give shelter to Jesus? By the doing of good works. It is the preparation time for the doing and practicing of the virtues. It is a time for coming together with our neighbors. It is the occasion for gathering with our families and with those who live near us.--Fiestas Navideñas

We forget how much of the Christmas story, whether told by Luke or by Matthew, is about hospitality, as much for Mary and Joseph as it was for the Magi. An interesting modern version of Las Posadas, via a BBC reporter, viz:

The morning began with a beautiful walk, but ended with a stark reminder that this trail takes us through what remains a conflict zone that impacts on people's lives every day.

The final few kilometres to the checkpoint took us past small communities, again, divided into those which were predominantly Jewish, and those that had a mix of Christians and Muslims, like the village of Mokeble, the last stop before the barrier that separates Israel from the West Bank.

There, I got talking to Adala, a teacher, who was keen to show off the Christmas tree in her school hall. She said that since the barrier had been put up, her husband had been separated from his brothers and sisters who were in a village a few hundred metres on the Palestinian side.

She said they could no longer come to visit him, but that her and her husband, as Israeli ID card holders, could sometimes cross the other way into the West Bank if the checkpoint was open.

After a wait at the checkpoint, I was happy to be told that I would be allowed to pass. However, the Israeli authorities informed us that our donkey did not have the correct paperwork. Donkey number two would have to be left behind.

In the Spirit of the Season II

The reason for the season.

"Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Luke 3:9

Advent 16

1. The first good joy that Mary had,
It was the joy of one;
To see the blessed Jesus Christ
When he was first her son:

When he was first her son, good man;
And blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity

2. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of two;
To see her own son, Jesus
To make the lame to go:

To make the lame to go,
Good man, and blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

3. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of three;
To see her own son, Jesus
To make the blind to see:

To make the blind to see,
Good man, and blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

4. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of four;
To see her own son, Jesus
To read the Bible o'er:

To read the Bible o'er,
Good man, and blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

5. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of five;
To see her own son, Jesus
To bring the dead alive:

To bring the dead alive,
Good man, and blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

6. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of six;
To see her own son, Jesus Christ,
Upon the crucifix:

Upon the crucifix,
Good man, and blessed may he be,
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

7. The next good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of seven;
To see her own son, Jesus
Ascending into heaven:

Ascending into Heaven
Good man, and blessed may he be
Both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
To all eternity.

The Season for No Reason

What is it about Washington?

The fight over holiday displays at the Capitol building in Olympia, Washington, is fascinating, in large part because it's such an incredible mess.

The official policy seemed fairly reasonable and accommodating. A private group asked to donate a Nativity scene to be publicly displayed on the Capitol grounds. Officials agreed. An atheist group noted that if a creche is permissible, then they'd like to have a display of their own. Reluctant to play favorites and invite a legal dispute, officials agreed to this, too. A menorah was soon to be added to the mix.

At that point, the door was open, and others wanted to walk in. A hyper-right-wing religious group demanded that it be allowed to erect a sign that reads, "Santa Claus will take you to Hell." Around the same time, Seinfeld fans asked that space be reserved for a "Festivus" pole. Then came the request for a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" display, a Buddhist request for a display, and a Christian goodwill message to atheists. All wanted equal time, just like the others had received.

Frustrated and befuddled, state officials announced that a new moratorium is now in place, forbidding any additional holiday displays at the Capitol.

If this sounds familiar, it should:

All nine Christmas trees have been removed from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport instead of adding a giant Jewish menorah to the holiday display as a rabbi had requested.

Maintenance workers boxed up the trees during the graveyard shift early Saturday, when airport bosses believed few people would notice.

"We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive," said airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt. "We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year."

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, who made his request weeks ago, said he was appalled by the decision. He had hired a lawyer and threatened to sue if the Port of Seattle didn't add the menorah next to the trees, which had been festooned with red ribbons and bows.

"Everyone should have their spirit of the holiday. For many people the trees are the spirit of the holidays, and adding a menorah adds light to the season," said Bogomilsky, who works in Seattle at the regional headquarters for Chabad Lubavitch, a Jewish education foundation.

Which is not to say there's something wrong with menorahs. As MP asked me a few years ago:

A serious question, rmj. Wouldn't a menorah be completely acceptable in any Christian festivity and, actually, more relevant to the nativity event than a north European fir tree? And on a practical level a symbolic burning bush is much safer than the fire hazard that is a dried out shrub after four weeks in a centrally heated environment.

And the answer is, yeah, it would be acceptable, if it had been accepted a few millenia ago. But then we had the whole Luke/Acts thing, where Gentiles were drawn into the "Jesus movement" through Paul, which really curdled Peter's milk; and then we get the Johannine community, where Hebrews/Jews were clearly tossed out of the older, larger community because of their beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth, and pretty soon identifying with the "other" at all became a problem for the group's identity.

Which is why many Protestants today still don't recognize Advent, or understand why we shouldn't be singing Christmas carols from the first Sunday after Thanksgiving until December 25th (a day upon which no one should be in church, even on Sunday!) It's the "thing" about symbols: they are emotional, not intellectual. When something "makes sense," it isn't a symbol, it's an intellectual construct. Symbols never make sense; but that doesn't mean we have to fight over them, either.

We need to remember the reason for the season:

Advent and Eschaton and Apocalypse

Read this, and tell me it doesn't bring to mind Reinhold Niebuhr's assessment of human nature, history, and nations.

“You have to understand,” Eisman says in his defense, “I did subprime first. I lived with the worst first. These guys lied to infinity. What I learned from that experience was that Wall Street didn’t give a shit what it sold.”

If that isn't a perfect description of "original sin," I don't know what is. Or take this one:

Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.

But he couldn’t figure out exactly how the rating agencies justified turning BBB loans into AAA-rated bonds. “I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.

And by the way, here's the entire financial debacle in a nutshell, a nutshell Reinie would easily recognize:

That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, This is allowed?”

But what's really interesting is this:

Zelman alienated clients with her pessimism, but she couldn’t pretend everything was good. “It wasn’t that hard in hindsight to see it,” she says. “It was very hard to know when it would stop.” Zelman spoke occasionally with Eisman and always left these conversations feeling better about her views and worse about the world. “You needed the occasional assurance that you weren’t nuts,” she says. She wasn’t nuts. The world was.

Can the world, simply by definition, be nuts? I mean, if everyone else thinks so, you're the one out of step, aren't you? But if the world is nuts? Then maybe the Magnificat and the Benedictus take on a wholly different meaning. And maybe it's easier to separate eschaton from apocalypse, and to understand that the real revelation is that the world is crazy. Because, frankly, it is; and that brings us back to original sin, again:

Until that moment, I hadn’t paid much attention to what he’d been eating. Now I saw he’d ordered the best thing in the house, this gorgeous frothy confection of an earlier age. Who ever dreamed up the deviled egg? Who knew that a simple egg could be made so complicated and yet so appealing? I reached over and took one. Something for nothing. It never loses its charm.

Advent 15

"Look, there he stands--the god. Where? There. Can you not see him? He is the god, and yet he has no place where he can lay his head, and he does not dare to turn to any person lest that person be offended at him. He is the god, and yet he walks more circumspectly thatn if angels were carrying him--not to keep him from stumbling, but so that he may not tread in the dust the people who are offended at him. He is the god, and yet his eyes rest with concern on the human race, for the individual's tender shoot can be crushed as readily as a blad of grass. Such a life--sheer love and sheer sorrow. To want to express the unity of love and then not to be understood, to be obliged to fear for everyone's perdition and yet in this way trulty to be able to save only one single person--sheer sorrow, while his days and hours are filled with the sorrow of the learner who entrusts himself to him. Thus does the god stand upon the earth, like unto the lowliest through his omnipotent love. He knows that the learner is untruth--what if he made a mistake, what if he became weary and lost his bold confidence! Oh, to sustain heaven and earth by an ominpotent 'Let there be,' and then, if this were to be absent for one fraction of a second, to have everything collapse--how easy this would be compared with bearing the possibility of the offense of the human race when out of love one became its savior!"

Johannes Climacus, Philosophical Fragments, ed. Soren Kierkegaard, tr. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Unversity Press, 1985.

Gaudete

There is nothing I can give you, which you have not; But there is much, very much, that while I cannot give it, you can take. No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in today. Take heaven! No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present instant. Take peace! The gloom of the world is but a shadow. Behind it, yet within reach, is joy. There is a radiance and glory in the darkness, could we but see, and to see we have only to look. I beseech you to look. Life is so generous a giver, but we, judging its gifts by their covering, cast them away as ugly, or heavy or hard. Remove the covering, and you will find beneath it a living splendor, woven of love, by wisdom, with power. Welcome it, grasp it, and you touch the angel's hand that brings it to you. Everything we call a trial, a sorrow, or a duty, believe me that angel's hand is there; the gift is there, and the wonder of an overshadowing presence. Our joys too: be not content with them as joys. They, too, conceal diviner gifts. And so, at this time, I greet you. Not quite as the world sends greetings, but with profound esteem and with the prayer that for you now and forever, the day breaks, and the shadows flee away.
--Fra Giovanni 1513

Advent 13

The Advent mystery is the beginning of the end of all in us that is not yet Christ.--Thomas Merton

"So, then, (to continue with our poem), the god has made his appearance as a teacher. He has taken the form of a servant; to send someone else, someone completely trusted, in his place could no more satisfy him than it could satisfy that noble king to send in his place the most highly trusted person in his kingdom. Yet the god had another reason as well, for between one human being and another the Socratic relationship is indeed the highest, the truest. Therefore, if the god did not commit himself, then everything would remain Socratic, we would not have the moment, and we would fail to obtain the paradox. But the servant form is not something put on but is actual, not a parastatic but an actual body, and the god, from the hour when by the omnipotent resolution of his omnipotent love he became a servant, he has himself become captive, so to speak, in his resolution and is now obligated to continue (to go on talking loosely) whether he wants to or not. He cannot betray his identity; unlike that noble king, he does not have the possibility of suddenly disclosing that hs is, after all, the king--which is no perfection in the king (to have this possibility) but merely manifest his impotence and the impotence of his resolution, that he actually is incapable of becoming what he would become. Although the god is unable to send anyone in his place, he presumably is able to send someone in advance who can make the learner aware. Of course, this predecessor cannot know what the god wants to teach, because the god's presence is not incidental to his teaching but essential. The presence of the god in human form--indeed, in the lowly form of a servant--is precisely the teaching, and the god himself must provide the condition...; otherwise the learner is unable to understand anytning. Through a predecessor of this kind, a learner can become aware, but no more than that.

"The god did not, however, take the form of a servant in order to mock human beings; his aim, therefore, cannot be to walk through the world in such a way that not one single person would come to know it. Presumably he will allow something about himself to be understood, although any accommodation made for the sake of comprehensibility still does not essentially help the person who does receive the condition, and therefore it is actually elicited from him only under constraint and against his will, and it may just as well alienate the learner as draw him closer.He humbled himself and took the form of a servant, but he certainly did not come to live as a servant in the service of some particular person, carrying out his tasks without letting his master or his co-workers realize who he was--wrath such as that we dare not ascribe to the god. Thus the fact that he was in the form of a servant means only that he was a lowly human being, a lowly man who did not set himself off from the human throng either by soft raiment or by any other earthly advantage and was not distinguishable to other human beings, not even to the countless legions of angels he left behind when he humbled himself. But even though he was a lowly man, his concerns were not those that men generally have. He went his way unconcerned about administering and distributing the goods of this world; he went his way as one who owns nothing and wishes to own nothing, as unconcerned about his living as the birds of the air, as unconcerned about house and home as someone who has no hiding place or nest and is not looking for such a place. He was unconcerned about accompanying the dead to their graves, was not attracted by the things that commonly attract the attention of people, was not tied to any woman, so enthralled by her as to want to please her, but sought only the follower's love. All this seems very beautiful, but is it also proper? Does he not thereby elevate himself above what is ordinarily the condition of human beings? Is it right for a human being to be as carefree as the bird and not even fly hither and thither for food as the bird does? Should he not even think of tomorrow? We are unable to poetize the god otherwise, but what does a fiction prove? Is it permissible to wander around erratically like this, stopping wherever evening finds one? The question is this: May a human being express the same thing?--for otherwise the god has not realized the essentially human. Yes, if he is capable of it, he may also do it. If he can become so absorbed in the service of the spirit that is never occurs to him to provide for food and drink, if he is sure that the lack will not divert him, that the hardship will not disorder his body and make him regret that he did not first of all understand the lessons of childhood before wanting to understand more--yes, then he truly may do it, and greatness is even more glorious than the quiet assurance of the lily.
...
"So now we have the god walking around in the city in which he made his appearance...; to proclaim his teaching is for him the one and only necessity of his life, is for him his food and drink. To teach people is his work, and ot be concerned about the learners is for him relaxation from his work. He has no friends and no relatives, but to him the learner is his brother and sister.
...
"How, then, does the learner come to an understanding with this paradox, for we do not say that he is supposed to understand the paradox, but only to understand that this is a paradox. WE have already shown how this occurs. It occurs when the understanding and the paradox happily encounter each other in the moment, when the understanding steps aside adn the paradox gives itself, and the third something, the something in which this occurs (for it does not occur through the understanding, which is discharged, or through the paradox, which gives itself--consequently in something), is that happy passion to which we shall now give a name, although for us it is not a matter of the name. We shall call it faith."

An Advent Lesson-December 12, 2008

Cafferty's question of the day:

The fate of the U.S. auto industry is still unknown. The $14-billion bailout bill died in the Senate after a dispute over union wage cuts.

Senate Republicans said the bill wouldn’t do enough to put automakers back on their feet. They wanted the Auto Workers Union to accept a lower pay and benefits package similar to what employees make at U.S. factories where Japanese cars are produced. The union balked.

In an unusual move, Labor and Industry representatives met with lawmakers at the Capitol last night to try to make it work. But eventually the union walked away unwilling to comply with the demands.

The industry still needs cash to avoid collapse.

General Motors said today they will cut 250,000 cars from their first quarter production schedule by closing 20 factories.

President-elect Obama asked the White House to intervene and the White House Press Secretary said all options are under consideration, including the possibility of dipping into the $700-billion Troubled Assets Recovery Program.

So our question is: Should the United Auto Workers Union have accepted wage cuts to save the bailout?

Jesus answers (more or less):

"Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house." (Luke 10:7) He who has ears had better listen.

The word of the Lord.

Thanks be to God.