Moral Imperialism: The Episcopal Church Of The United States

Prologue

I recall standing in Canterbury, England in 1986 and shaking my head. There was an American restaurant tucked in the heart of that gorgeous city, serving burgers and fries in the shadow of the great Canterbury Cathedral. Later, in London, amidst several American fast-food joints, I had a conversation about American colonialism; about how "greedy Americans" were wiping cultural and economic diversity from the face of the earth. The American scourge was unabated; one English clergyman shared how he and his parishioners believed America was the apocalyptic Whore of Babylon.

In the 1980s, as American President Ronald Reagan expanded American influence on the world, many people were concerned about the new colonialism, that such neo-colonialism meant not just the Americanization of the world, it was the epitome of hubris. Nations appeared to be bullied into compliance by American political and economic interests; dictators were propped up in Central and South America, and in the Middle East; weaponry was delivered to American allies; economic sanctions and divestment were used to threaten, chide, cajole, intimidate. America was expanding, and the world must follow. After all, liberty, capitalism, jobs, security: everybody benefited from a safe and happy America. Who could stand in America's way? Americans were right, and might makes right. Or so it went, or so it was perceived.

No single group during this fast and furious time was more critical and circumspect about American neo-colonialism than my leftist peers. Christian leftists even abhorred America's penchant for pushing its agenda on lesser nations; America was "un-Christlike" pushing itself uncritically on its neighbors as it exported Hollywood, McDonald's, gas-guzzlers, the Dallas Cowboys.

(Im)Moral Imperialism?

Imagine what would have happened if, in the midst of America's emergence as the world's sole superpower, a leader said of those third world countries alarmed by American expansionism that they should submit to American ideals since they have "yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world." What if an American, particularly an American bishop of one of the wealthiest Christian denominations on the planet, spoke so dismissively of Africa, Nepal, Tibet? Would anyone care?

Well they should care, for what we are currently facing is a leftist neo-colonialism the likes of which rivals any sort of economic imperialism we have seen in America's past. You see, the above condescending quote is from the wildly liberal bishop (retired) John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). And Mr. Spong, whose heterodoxy is well-known and even self-admitted, does not speak in isolation: there are many in the Episcopal Church (my church) who think like him: the other nations of the world that do not think and act like the American Episcopal Church are backwards. And his sentiments, quoted by The New Yorker, were introduced by that esteemed publication with these words, "The liberal American bishop John Shelby Spong, of Newark, disparaged the Africans’ form of Christianity—." Such haughtiness is now American to the core: we are better, we're the best.

What I am getting at is that the American left is particularly expansionistic and imperialistic; but instead of exporting military might or capitalistic ventures it is exporting sexual liberty and the apotheosis of self. And the Episcopal Church is leading the way.

As you know, the Anglican Communion comprises dozens of smaller denominations and affiliations, of which the Episcopal Church is one. Since the consecration of New Hampshire bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003, the Anglican Communion's conservative members have stood in defiance of the American hubris embodied in Robinson's consecration, calling for censure of the ECUSA and even its expulsion from the world-wide Anglican Church. Recent Anglican documents have even exhorted America to repent of Robinson's appointment; more moderate ones have asked that the ECUSA abstain from ordaining controversial clergy and blessing "same-sex unions." And it was expected that the ECUSA's recent General Convention in Ohio would lead to some healing and resolution. Instead, the ECUSA appointed a new national leader -- a woman who is pro-gay marriage and ordination -- and did not apologize for or repent of its misplaced consecration of an openly and proudly gay bishop. As a result of this apparent intransigence, several American dioceses want out of the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion is more sharply divided than ever. How can it not be when many of the Anglican Churches don't even accept ordained women as a theological or ecclesiatical possibility? (In the United States, retired bishops secretly ordained women as priests decades ago against the wishes of the Anglican, and Episcopal Church; call it guerrilla consecration.)

The New Yorker writes (of Henry Luke Orombi, the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda), "To the Global South primates, such acts as the consecration of Gene Robinson without the broad assent of the whole church reflect an arrogant indifference to the consequences. 'If you want to be very blunt about it,' Orombi says, 'it’s a form of neocolonialism.' "

It is hard to disagree with Archbishop Orombi: An arrogant indifference to the consequences, indeed. Sounds a lot like nearly every leftist criticism ever uttered against American foreign policy. But now it is the leftists who are indifferent, haughtily indifferent.

But it is not just the threat American sexual and identity imperialism poses to the rest of the Anglican world, it is the threat that the ECUSA holds with its purse strings. For the ECUSA is no doubt poised to tyrannize the Anglican Communion with its wealth: the ECUSA is undeniably the wealthiest member of the Anglican Communion, and its wealth is distributed to the far-flung lands which so adamantly oppose the American church. Should the ECUSA be pushed out of the broad Anglican fold, the financial repercussions will be felt by everyone, and everyone knows it. ECUSA is the new face of American hegemony. And the liberals, religious or otherwise, are clapping with delight. After all, might makes right.

I would point Contratimes readers to an op-ed and subsequent discussion at the UK's Guardian Unlimited. The essay is written by a Peter Tatchell, "gay rights campaigner". Mr. Tatchell takes serious issue with Anglican Church of Nigeria Archbishop Peter Akinola, who is (perhaps) the loudest and most influential voice of Anglican conservatism in the entire Communion. Tatchell's column is recommended reading, and I would urge you to scroll through the comments to see what I posted on May 22. But what I really want you to read is the comments of Maduka (halfway down) who immediately follows me in the comments thread. Maduka is Nigerian, and his words are amazing:

It is true we inhabit the same planet, but our [the Nigerians] experience is so different that it will be dangerous to thrust the "latest fad in Western thinking" on a society that is still discovering itself. ... I understand socially conservative environments. People in Africa are not evil because they are socially conservative? [sic]... Just as you crave understanding, we crave to be understood. There are no no quick fixes in social engineering. Societies will evolve at their own pace.

Please, go read the Tatchell piece. Maduka's four postings are illuminating, particularly in the context of Spong and Tatchell's rebukes of African capacities. Besides, the comments I left there are pretty good, too.

Where, pray tell, is the outrage at exporting Western ideals -- pressing weaker nations toward conformity -- by liberals who extol democracy and diversity, and yet fall deaf and mute at their own imperialism? Why should the religious world conform to American ideals of self and "gender identity" if that world should resist other forms of American economic and political empire-building? Why should Nigeria look like Provincetown (MA); why should Uganda or even Canterbury look like Key West (FL)? What about the rights of people for self-determination, even that determination which defines for itself what is sexuality, marriage and democracy?

For shame the Episcopal Church of the United States. It has become -- as I've said too many times to count -- the Unitarian Church with a fetish for vestments. And it is absolutely devoid of anything desirable at the center, at least anything religiously desirable. For its "spirituality", its "revelatory message and prophetic voice", are remarkably familiar, being, as they are, identical to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And it is all sounding a lot like the fodder offered as "new" by young 1960's radicals: it's really just hypocrisy in acid-flashback.

OK. That was harsh. Forgive me. We beg for grace, for mercy. And wisdom.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gene Robinson, Peter Akinola, Imperialism, Neo-colonialism, Neocolonialism, The New Yorker, Henry Luke Orombi, Peter Tatchell, Guardian Unlimited, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics

All The Noise That's Fit To Print: The Threat To Truth

[Forgive me if I've kept "Theology As Sport?" up front too long. I simply wanted to give everyone involved, and those interested, as much time as possible to respond or opine. Thanks for your understanding.]

There is much abuzz about something, even about everything. Where to start?

We have all heard by now how The New York Times reported -- against the wishes of the US executive branch -- that the executive branch has been spying on bank records of terrorists without a court order (at least, I think I have this right). Of course, we all suspected this sort of investigative probing by the executive branch anyway, particularly since immediately after 9.11.01 we all heard President Bush announce that terrorists' financial transactions were followed and their assets were frozen or seized. So we knew that this sort of thing was going on. Perhaps we did not know the mechanics or the extent, but we knew something was up.

I am not here going to denounce The New York Times as treasonous. What I am here to do is announce that, at least for the The New York Times, this sort of reporting is surely dangerous. In fact, it may be the worst kind of news the Times can report if it wants to maintain itself as an authentic and distinct voice in American political culture. Let me explain.

Let us begin with a few assumptions. The first is that on many levels The New York Times (NYT) is the most important news outlet in the United States: when it sneezes the rest of the media often catch a cold. Let us also assume that the conservatives in this country have pretty much painted an effective picture (a rather easy one to paint, since it is nearly paint-by-numbers), that the NYT is hopelessly leftist, is untrustworthy, takes great liberty with the facts, and bends everything according to a blatantly socialist bias. Compelling books have been written about this sort of thing; books which are widely read and believed.

But there is more. The Times is no doubt still reeling from the Jayson Blair debacle. The Right surely exploits this fact; the Right reminds us that The Times has actually fabricated stories, or at least fabricated facts pertinent to certain stories, ostensibly proving that the paper is virtually without merit. Moreover, the Left has also slammed The Times, vociferously and bitterly complaining that The Times was complicit in the unjust "run up" to war in Iraq; that Judith Miller's reporting may have single-handedly galvanized American support for President Bush's imperialistic invasion of Iraq. It is even suggested that Ms. Miller was spoon-fed propaganda from the Bush White House solely to wreak havoc on those news reports (if there were any) published by less well-known papers and which offered countervailing information to Ms. Miller's pro-invasion fodder. In short, let us assume that The New York Times is a recognized player in national affairs that is believed to be amazingly vulnerable to manipulation and falsehoods.

What are we hearing now? We are hearing, from the Left particularly, that The New York Times is to be commended for being forthright, for keeping the electorate informed. And we are hearing, from readers on the Right, that The Times is nearly treasonous for revealing a secret program used to detect actions of members of terrorist groups. But is either position right?

There is a very curious part to this whole report that deserves a comment, and that curiosity is this: the Bush Administration and even some members of Congress (of both parties) begged The New York Times NOT to run this story. And here is what must be asked (and really why this whole thing is curious): Why do we believe that the White House and Congressional members were serious? Why do we believe that they REALLY did not want this story told? I mean, how do we know that they did not actually WANT this story printed, but only gave the appearance that they did not?

In other words, is it not possible that The New York Times was ONCE AGAIN fooled by the Administration; that the Administration did this, in an election year, so the Republican Party can -- with justification -- repeatedly slam The Times as reckless, treasonous; that the paper is blindly greedy for a reputable bottom line? Can't the Republicans now dynamically exploit this all, gaining advantage over their Democratic opponents, by making everyone wary of the patriotism of the left-wing media?

Plus, how is it that THIS sort of potentially spoon-fed story raises cheers from liberal readers when Judith Miller's allegedly spoon-fed work merited nothing but scorn and derision?

It is utterly ironic how uncircumspect The Times' editor Bill Keller sounds in his essay about the whole noisy affair. He even gives a bit of a US history lesson, reviewing for us how the founders of America expected an aggressive and independent press, one that "rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish." For it is utterly ironic that Mr. Keller takes the President at his word regarding the publishing of the story: that it was unfortunate for America and perhaps even dangerous to American interests in fighting terror. Again, what if the White House only feigned concern about the report? Mr. Keller's note to readers proves that he has not thought of that possibility at all.

What this boils down to, in part, is that The New York Times might have been hoist by its own petard, so to speak. It is not wrong to recommend that The Times be more circumspect when printing such volatile stories; nor is it wrong to admit that The Times may have found itself in a damnable catch-22: either way it was going to get hit by criticism. Sadly, because of The Times troubled past, this sort of story has garnered The Times little favor, for Republicans can berate for political gain The Times' alleged lack of loyalty to America in a time of war; and the Democrats can lament once again that The Times' has fallen prey to manipulation that creates the impression that the Grey Lady is foolish, greedy and anti-patriotic. I mean, when an Administration begs you not to run a story, aren't you tempted to think you've got a hot one?

But what this finally boils down to is that we really don't know where to turn for truly independent and trustworthy news.

Just a few hasty thoughts.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: The New York Times, Treason, Judith Miller, Bill Keller

Theology As Sport? I Hope Not

[For those of you interested in Christian theology, particularly the struggle over theological authority, then this post may interest you. It is a long post, and what looks like the end of the essay might not be the end at all. Also, the comments that follow are really quite interesting. For everyone else, you may skip over to something less overtly religious.]

Recently I have spent some time perusing the Christian theology blog, Pyromaniacs. I fell upon it after following the link found at the website of one of Contratimes' frequent visitors. It is a feisty and well-written blog, thoroughly theological.

Last week I read at Pyromaniacs an essay called, God, Evil and The Cross. I read it in earnest, noting that it addressed similar issues to what I discussed in my recent series, The Problem Of Knowing Good and Evil. I commented on the essay, which was written by Mr. Dan Phillips, but as far as I can tell, Mr. Phillips never replied. However, another Pyromaniacs writer did respond (Pyromaniacs is team-written), a Mr. James Spurgeon. In his response to my comments, he asked me this:

What I detect is that your view of God is not entirely informed by Scripture. Am I wrong?

There is nothing threatening or mean in Mr. Spurgeon's question; in fact, there was even something light-hearted about it. So I offered him this reply (directed to a few others, as well):

My dear friends in Christ,

In response to brother Spurgeon's observations re: my last comment, I will try to be terse in this reply. But I will only try.

Let me share my story. I graduated with a double major in Philosophy and Biblical Studies/Theology from a well-known evangelical college. I minored (essentially) in history. Subsequently I began the application process to several seminaries (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) but never finished; I visited Oxford (I thought I'd be an evangelical Episcopal priest, now a nearly extinct species. Yikes!) to look at a program there; I was finally accepted at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, but deferred enrollment. After 20 years, I remain deferred.

You see, something happened along the way. One of my professors, a very well-known evangelical, converted to Catholicism. And then I heard a question while contemplating the news of that conversion during my prayers: Did Jesus Christ Himself tell you that you must not be a Roman Catholic? I have been trying to answer that question since 1984.

And how I've answered the question, in part, and how I am "informed" by Scripture (Mr. Spurgeon's question), begins this way: I do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead because I read it in the Bible.

Now, I hope this is an utterly plain proclamation here. Moreover, I hope the same is true for everyone reading this. We do not believe in Jesus' resurrection because we have read about it in a book, irrespective of how perfect the book might be. Do we?

Let us stipulate without wavering that the Bible is not only inerrant and infallible in matters of faith, but it is also the sole arbiter, the sole guide, of our glorious Faith. The problem with this assertion, however, if there is a problem, is to be found in the word "sole."

You see, if the Bible is the sole guide to faith, then it would seem that the only place for news about Jesus' all-important resurrection is within the Bible itself; that the sole arbiter of this momentous event is Scripture. But to make this assertion is to create a singular problem. For if the Bible is the sole arbiter, and the sole guide, to crucial matters of faith, then we are stuck with a story something like this: Sts. John, Peter and Matthew, when they first saw the empty tomb and the Risen Lord, chose not to believe the testimony of their senses until they first ran back to their desks, wrote down their testimony and then, reading their own words said, "Ah! Now I can believe that He is risen, indeed." What I am saying is that Jesus rose from the dead irrespective of and even independent of the Scriptures, and the disciples did not defer to a sole written arbiter to assure them, infallibly and inerrantly, of what they were witnesses to. And generations of Christians after them followed the exact same example without recourse to Scripture: The Church testifies to His Kingdom, the Church bears witness to His gospel, the Church declares what is authentic and what is not. Why? Because the Church is witness. And that witness includes me. I, too, have known the Risen Lord. I, too, have heard His voice, even in the "deep heart's core."

So what I am getting at is that the Church precedes the Scripture and not the other way around. Of course, I know you have heard this sort of debate before. But it is worth debating over and over again. When St. Paul tells the believers at Thessalonika to "Test everything," he is not telling them, as several evangelical pastors I've known have taught, to "test everything" against Scripture, because there was no Scripture† for the early church to use to conduct such tests. The Church tested everything against the repository of truth which was and is the Church itself.

And while I am not a big "natural revelation" guy, I am quite convinced that natural revelation is rather thorough: St. Paul tells us that the visible world reveals not only the invisible characteristics of God, it reveals sin and fallenness, and that sinners deserve death.

What I am ultimately saying is that Christians have more than just Scripture to guide them. Yes, they do have nature, but they also have the whole corpus of truth shaped within the Body of Christ: literature, prayers, lessons, carols, sacraments, encyclicals, rebukes, apologies, catechisms, and so on. After all, if Scripture is the sole guide for the Church in all matters of faith, where does Scripture tell us that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John belong in Scripture? Surely the matter of what is canonical and what is not is a critical matter of faith; how then is the Bible silent about it if it is indeed the sole arbiter of faith? Or should we not find solace in the rather glorious announcement found in the repository which is OUR Church: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John belong in the Canon not only because they were witnesses, but because we KNOW them to be right, good, and pure (of course, the scary thing here for Protestants is that this sort of thing shifts authority from God-inspired written words to a dynamic, breathing, ancient and God-inspired Church).

This in no way is a suggestion that Scripture is errant. This is just a suggestion that the Church is not peripheral to biblical authority. It is central to it; biblical authority is contingent upon the direct authority as witness inherent in the Church. When Jesus says that His sheep will know His voice, He is declaring that the Church has the authority to recognize whether He is present or not.

I hope this explains the problem I have experienced in my life as a follower of our glorious Lord and Savior.

Bill Gnade

†It is important to note that there was probably not one single first generation believer that saw, read or held all of the New Testament Canon. It is also important to note that even if Paul meant that believers were to test everything against the OT Canon, it was not like Torah scrolls were just lying around on people's nightstands (with gilt edges and leather covers). In fact, many if not most synagogues did not have a complete Hebrew Canon. Besides, Paul's exhortation was to Thessalonian Gentiles: it's not like they were carrying miniature Torahs around for nightly "Sword Drills," nor is it likely that they had much access to the ark in the nearby temple. Perhaps a few rich Gentiles had a few Torah scrolls, but that is being optimistic. The best thing we can say here is that when Paul meant "Test everything," he meant a lot more than just using Scripture to "test." Grace.

I thought that might be the last of it, but I was wrong.

Today, while visiting Pyromaniacs, I found a new essay by Mr. Phillips called "How we 'do' Christianity, and the reverse." I urge Contratimes readers (if interested) to read Mr. Phillips' essay. It is rather telling. You see, apparently my comments --

I do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead because I read it in the Bible

Now, I hope this is an utterly plain proclamation here. Moreover, I hope the same is true for everyone reading this. We do not believe in Jesus' resurrection because we have read about it in a book, irrespective of how perfect the book might be. Do we?

-- perturbed Mr. Phillips. Now, let it be noted that Mr. Phillips does not name me, though a quick perusal of the comments offered about his last essay would reveal my name rather plainly. But what I want you all to see is how Mr. Phillips represents my position, and how he characterizes me. It is stunning. I urge you. Please read his essay and then come back here. My reply, which I posted at Pyromaniacs, follows.

Here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Phillips,

Alas, I am late to a party built around (sort of) my own words.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am that you should essentially craft a straw man out of what I said. Apparently it does not bother you to ignore the totality of my point; nor does it bother you to suggest, shamelessly, that I may be something of a saint doing theology badly. My devotion is utterly objective, and it is in this objective fact: That Jesus Christ is Lord, risen from the dead, irrespective of the fact that such news is also written in the Scriptures. I have not besmirched the Scriptures here; I have honored the witness of the Apostles -- the testimony of the Church as Witness -- which preceded scripture by decades. The people of the early church were converted without recourse to a single New Testament verse; they were converted by the power of objective facts reported by objective witnesses who were not first writing things down. That this goes to the heart of "Sola Scriptura" is evident, utterly and completely. Scripture alone? Impossible.

You throw down a gauntlet: Can anyone say anything about Christ without recourse to Scripture or doctrine? Perhaps I can: perhaps I can cite Josephus? But you leave yourself a wondrous out by separating "doctrine" from "the Bible," and, in so doing, leave the door wide open for me to solidify my point. Doctrine is something that the Church systematizes and teaches; and, while our very own Bible tells us that Jesus did and said far more things than all the books of the world could contain, we know THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH WAS INITIALLY FORMED WITHOUT RECOURSE TO A NEW TESTAMENT. And what was that doctrine? It was: He has risen, just as He said He would, and thus He is truly our Lord. Plus, we know that doctrine is those truths culled from Scripture. Doctrine is not the Scriptures themselves. Otherwise, "doctrine" and "the Scriptures" would be identical.

What of the Bible, really? Are you saying that truth about God is only contained in the Bible? Nonsense. Even the Bible PROVES that to be false. Doubt me?

Read this from Acts 17:24ff:

24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

What do we find here: we find the very canonization of pagan poetry, that in pagan poets we find God's Word, truth about the God of the Universe, the Father of our Savior. Who were those poets? They were probably Epimenides, Aratus, and possibly the Stoic Cleanthes. Plus, it seems John was comfortable finding truth in Stoic thought in the preamble to his gospel. Of course, he is entitled to so redact, because his authority as a witness qualifies him to find truth in Stoic philosophy, and to show where that truth falls short or is augmented.

Would it be wrong to say this: That the Bible is not the Word of God; it is the Word of The Church? Is not Jesus the Word of God? What of these conundrums:

When King David writes in Psalm 119:11 that,

I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you…

David is not saying that those very sentences are the words he hides in his heart, is he? And when he says in Ps. 119:105 that "Your word is a lamp to my feet…", David is not talking about the word he just wrote in verse 105, right? In fact, David is referring to some other word, right, something other than the word he is writing? Otherwise he is storing in his heart his own words.

Similarly, when the writer of Hebrews 4:12 describes the word of God this way --

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart…

-- the writer is not referring to that sentence, is he? How does that sentence divide "the soul and spirit, joints and marrow"? How does that sentence judge the "thoughts and attitudes of the heart"? It doesn't do any of those things, and is thus referring to something other than itself, namely the Word of God of which the word of the Church proclaims.

Lastly, if Luther, who abhorred vast chunks of the New Testament, "killed it", as you say, why would Clark and Henry have to kill it too?

I think that you should be more careful attacking a brother's theology as you have mine. Reducing me to a person who "feels" and "thinks" in some sort of subjectivist's bathtub is one of the worst things you could have intimated about me. That you were kind enough to keep my name out of it -- which is good since you've built your case around a fragment of what I said -- gives me no small comfort. This is no game; and it is not about winning some sort of on-line honors. This is about the Gospel, where it is, what it sounds like, and who is proclaiming it.

And as I've said elsewhere, and I'll say it again, "We are not known as Christians by our orthodoxy, but by our love. Orthodoxy without love is dead. In fact, orthodoxy without love is not orthodoxy."

You may have been orthodox in dealing with my heresy, but it was not loving, not one whit. You may disagree. But at least know this: I will die for Christ, His Church, His Word, and His Creed. That may be a lot of subjectivism to you, but I'll live with that.

Peace and mirth, always, to you.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Gnade
Contratimes

Now, I share this not to cast aspersions at anyone. I share this here because I want to reiterate what it is I am doing: I am trying to model grace in all I do. I fail every instant, but I wish I did not. But what I will not do is permit myself to misrepresent someone's argument and then stand on high, denouncing its deficiencies. Straw men are easy to blow down. What is not easy is to address the heart of an interlocutor's argument. It is easy to dismiss from a position of presumed superiority; it is hard to debate from a position of humility. And yet humility is at the heart of a good debate, for only the humble hear what the other is saying, and only the humble actually want to learn.

What I have written above, about the Bible, King David, and the New Testament, may be novel ideas for some of you. I have written such things elsewhere, in a manuscript I've been working on regarding difficult matters threatening the Church. I apologize if they seem heretical. My intent is to be orthodox, of course, but sometimes we have to go through weird stuff to get to the normal vistas we enjoy. There are distortions around, and I am trying to bring clarity to what has been bent out of shape.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Scratch Ticket Bliss: Electing To End The Electoral College

[This piece is related to SES: Stolen Election Syndrome]

You have perhaps already heard the news that various (American) states are intending to up-end the electoral college by compacting together to "give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the [overall] popular vote." If the compact can gain enough member states to garner the 270 electoral votes required to win a presidential election, then not all states will need to agree to the procedural change: several states can control a national election. Needless to say, the National Popular Vote proposal, as it is called, has bi-partisan support, and California is strongly behind it. Even the Los Angeles Times editorialized about the beauty of the proposal, writing "…we say the United States is ready for real democracy."

But the real democracy the California editorialists dream of is the tyranny of states over the federal government. To better understand my point, I offer the following comments I posted to a question by "Whattheheck", who wondered if there remained any defense of the electoral college (the question was posted at "In These Times" in the comments section):

Dear Whattheheck,

Yes, I do believe there is a defense of the electoral college, and it is this:

Please, just imagine for one second, that the Mormons in Utah go on a reproduction spree (I am not dissing Mormons here). Meanwhile, in major metropolitan areas around the country, a weird disease smites the population. Suddenly, in less than one generation, the largest single, and single-minded, voting bloc lives in Salt Lake City and its surrounding towns. Suddenly, one place and one place only, dictates national elections by having the largest single vote, dominating popular elections for decades.

Or, think of it this way. Imagine that the Ohio population burgeons to 600,000,000 people, all of whom are Republicans. Do you think anyone would ever campaign in New Hampshire again? The point is that there is to be a distinction between state and federal power. State power must not ever usurp or transcend federal power re: a federal policy or function. But, abandoning the electoral college may indeed lead to one state acting as the dictator of federal office.

Killing the electoral college is anti-democratic. In one very real sense, the electoral college is an affirmative action protecting smaller voting populations. And it makes candidates more sentient of the broad opinions that compose American ideologies; dismantling the electoral college will reduce candidates’ interest to the one major voting bloc that can give them the popular vote.

The electoral college may be the most ingenious thing ever created by our forbears, eclipsing, if that were possible, the very Constitution itself.

Peace,

BG

It is interesting to note that the LA Times supports a plan they refer to as a "scheme," and that the "ingenious scheme" is the brainchild of Stanford professor John R. Koza, who, again according to the LA Times, also invented the "scatch-off lottery" ticket (according to Mr. Koza's homepage, he is the co-inventor of that ditty). That Mr. Koza is responsible for fueling the addictions of so many American gamblers goes unnoticed; as does the fact that supporting the National Popular Vote proposal, while not yet approaching an addiction, is quite surely a gamble. I am one of the many, I hope, that find no delight in either of Mr. Koza's inventions.

I am interested to read what Contratimes readers think about such matters.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Electoral College, National Popular Vote, National Popular Vote Proposal, John R. Koza, affirmative action

SES: Stolen Election Syndrome

Like a dog returns to its vomit, so a political party to its theories of conspiracy.

In case you have not been paying attention (not that you should, since being attentive to this sort of thing is like looking for authenticity at a World Wrestling Federation contest), but there is a lot of noise about the 2004 election in Ohio. It seems that, once again, that great dope, George W. Bush, managed to elude the power of exit polls, using a series of stealth tactics, and landed a Ohio victory for himself and his cabal. Though I have not read his whole Rolling Stone article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s piece is something approaching Holy Writ on the matter (after all, it is written by a Kennedy). But I did read all of Joel Bleifuss' article here, and I must say that the preoccupation with -- and even the idolization of -- exit polls is puzzling. You see, the argument is that something appears to have gone awry in the election process in Ohio, since the final votes from that day did not correspond with what exit polls were showing. In response to that apparent discrepancy, I wrote the following at the site "In These Times", where Bleifuss' article appeared:

The essay [by Mr. Bleifuss] posted here is interesting, but it seems to be based on one very dubious assumption: that exit polls are trustworthy. While I admit that I have not read Mr. Bleifuss’ book, I can only gather from this article that such an assumption has been made without analysis.

Why trust ANY exit poll? The electorate is well-informed about how such polls are used; much of the electorate remains angry that such polls may or may not have influenced voter turnout in previous elections. We all know the criticism that exit polls lead pundits and prognosticators to call a state or district for a particular candidate before the final tallies are in, and, perhaps, before polls are closed. Hence, knowing that voters are mindful of this sort of problem with exit polling, why would we assume that any voter participating in an exit poll is telling the truth?

My own experience is two-fold. I have lied on the exit polls I’ve taken (I am not proud of this, now that I think about it), and I know many others who have lied on the exit polls they’ve taken as well. Plus, I am amazed by the vast numbers of people who refuse to even acknowledge an exit poll worker when exiting the voting station. What, alas, is the percentage of voters who vote in the actual election who take exit polls, and what percentage of them are NOT telling the truth? I don’t know, and I am not going to get the answer from reading this essay.

Moreover, how do I know that REAL voters even filled out the exit polls in question? If I can’t trust the polls INSIDE the voting station, why should I trust polls taken OUTSIDE? Surely we can all imagine an overzealous exit-pollster working to skew the projection data by filling out a few extra exit polls, can’t we?

The bottom line is that potential problems with a voting machine doth not a conspiracy make, nor does a disparity between inside and outside polls. This essay does not appear to analyze the most basic assumption of the authors’ whole thesis—the trustworthiness of exit polls—and as such should be read warily. And I am afraid that if we were to launch an investigative study of exit polls, we would discover that such tools are rife with problems, potential and actual.

Peace,

BG

Peace indeed.

(More to follow.)
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Election fraud, Voting, Ohio Election Fraud, Bush Stole Ohio, Exit Polls, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone, Joel Bleifuss

Stuck In Drive, And The Day After Dad's Day

It is important for me to be vulnerable with my readers. You see, I am having a hard time of late putting words to page. Part of me has lost my focus, not because I've stopped concentrating, but because I am concentrating too hard. You know how you feel when you've spent too much time in a large bookstore, a mall, a furniture warehouse: you've seen too much and now you can't see anything at all. Well, maybe you have not felt that way, but I feel that way right now. I am blinded by everything I see; I am made dumb by all that I am trying to understand. Imagine playing "Let's Make a Deal" with an infinite number of doors from which to choose; and then imagine that you have a 103º fever and everyone around you is trying to apply nail polish to your nose. That's sort of how I feel as I write.

I am supposed to be working on a proposal for a book on prayer. I have an interested publisher, and, for perhaps the first time in my life, I am having a hard time putting one consonant in front of any vowels. Part of this malaise came from reading the first few chapters of a book by Christian writer Donald Miller. The book is Searching For God Knows What, and it has confounded me. Not only that, it has confounded me to such a degree that I cannot even explain how it is I am thus confounded. Has anyone here read anything by this guy? What are your impressions? There is no doubt that he is an incredible, even enviable, writer. He may be the best Christian writer I've read since Thomas Howard. But there is something disorienting about his prose; it is thoroughly simple and pellucid, but there is something quintessentially postmodern about it all. Thus, I feel that the quest for authenticity has suddenly become inauthentic. Or perhaps what I am responding to is what appears to be an inauthentic quest for authenticity. I don't know. But Miller is a trenchant thinker in a very off-hand way; he gets me thinking, reeling, doubting. But I am not sure any of that is a good thing. Perhaps (or so I hope) one of you can help me here.

***

In other news, Father's Day has passed without me properly acknowledging dads everywhere. My initial sense is that Father's Day should always include a parade, but then I realize that I should nix that idea, knowing that fathers would probably have to organize it.

Yesterday, the day after Father's Day, was a perfect day for this dad. My 16-year-old son, who recently acquired his driver's license and inherited (sort of) his grandmother's 1995 Subaru Legacy, finished his first round of finals before zooming off after school for pizza with his buddies. Afterwards, he went and worked for a couple of hours weed-whacking (where he accidently whacked a frog and its death made him very sad, he later admitted), collected his $15, and then went off swimming with another friend, only to promptly lose his cash somewhere in the nearby lake. Then, after spending an hour or so hanging out at our house, he took his buddy home (two towns away) moments before massive thunderstorms rolled into the region. And, while driving past the local ski mountain, my son (he tells me everything) said this to his buddy:

"Hey, Didge. What do you say we drive up the mountain?"

"Yeah, let's do it!"

(Let me interrupt the narrative here with a question: What are a redneck's last words? Hey, watch this! Not that my son is a redneck, mind you. But he did make a curious decision: he attempted to drive up a ski trail called Pluto's Plunge. Alas, it is hard to find fault in that.)

Now picture this. About an hour later, let yourself see a dad driving a somewhat disabled car's front wheels up onto the sidewalk curbing of an abandoned ski lodge to use as a makeshift jack. Picture him getting out and crawling under a certain Subaru Legacy, using part of a photographer's tripod as a prybar. Picture a teenage boy standing over his father complaining that his perfect day has become something of a nightmare. Picture that handsome lad looking down on his father, whose legs jut out from under said Subaru, and saying "That's just great. My perfect day is ruined, several times now, and on top of that it has to be absolutely pouring out." Picture a dad getting up from beneath that car, gravel and sand stuck to every pore of his body (he's wearing shorts); picture lightning and wind and glasses covered with grit and water, hear the thunder; picture father and son soaked to the skin, and you've pictured the day after Father's Day.

And then picture dad saying to his son: "I completely disagree. It is perfect that it is raining. Just perfect."

(At least the car got fixed, for the moment.)

It was hard for me to be cross with my son, really. For me, it was clear that the facts of the day were punishment enough. Nothing chastizes a young man like the results of his own bad decisions. Why add an irate father to the mix? Besides, my son had me stumped when he said that there is no way I could be upset when I not only have tried such things in the past, I might still try such, well, adventures. I mean, really. What sort of dad would I be if I scolded an inquistive child who wanted to see what would happen if he took his grandmother's Legacy up Pluto's Plunge? It is the stuff of myths, for Pluto's sake. I could write a story about it all.

And if this is the worst it all gets, or even if it gets worse, then I'll take it -- with joy, lots of smiles, and more than a few hugs.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts On You, With A Glad Heart

This is a note of thanks to my readers. Obviously I am grateful that I have even one reader at all. And I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and cheerfulness with which many of you have emailed me. Really, thank you.

But what I am most grateful for is the quality of the comments posted here, or sent to my email box. What especially gladdens this heart is the kindness which pervades them. There is hardly a nasty comment here; and though I am sure the big blogs have far more readers and commenters, I will gladly keep my diminutive blog if it means ensuring that I receive such bright, kind and loving comments. I mean this: the quality of the comments here is a rarity in the blogosphere. And I note that the comments left at the links in my blogroll (in righthand column), are also civil and utterly decent. It seems that there is a revolution afoot.

I have used the dinner party analogy before. I'd like to think of Contratimes as a great dinner party, where differing viewpoints are greeted with a potent civility, and a potently rational response mixed with humor, frivolity and, in the best sense of the word, gaiety. I like to imagine an atheist and theist in one corner of a verandah, swirling glasses (by the stems) of cabernet sauvignon, laughing heartily with each other as they rip out one another's prejudices and mistakes, with their bruises covered not with bandages but hearty badinage; and then to see them sit at table together, breaking bread. And the same goes for the Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal: Let us all disagree, please, but let us all do so with love.

As I wrote in the comment section the other day (and this speaks to more than Christianity), orthodoxy without love is dead; in fact, orthodoxy without love is not orthodoxy. The New Testament tells us not to speak truth, nor does it tell us to proclaim love. It tell us to "speak the truth in love." Speaking truth without love is often a form of abuse; I was with a wonderful woman at a reunion years ago when her uncle, upon seeing her after years of absence, pronounced, "You've gotten fat!" Indeed, she had gotten fat. But the fact, the truth, was not spoken in love and thus was a form of hate. And this is something tough to even consider, but it is true: speaking truth can be hate speech. Similarly, loving without truth is equally damnable and dangerous: telling a man injecting himself with heroin that anything he does is fine -- that I love you just the way you are and, after all, who am I to speak? -- is not one whit loving because it deforms truth (and people) into something other than the real; it deforms it into a sentiment-laden status quo, a celebration of a harmony that is chaos.

Think of it this way. There is to me, in America, no more awful event to have to attend than an opening at an art gallery. Wine by the flagon is not enough to make such an event wonderful, for the wine cannot conceal the fact that an invitation to an opening is an invitation to a festival of lies. For no one can speak the truth there, namely, that the artist stinks. And, let's face it, most art does stink. But yet there are countless artists filling countless galleries that drip with wine sprayed from upturned noses. No one takes the artist aside, or walks the gallery with him or her, saying, "You know, the best thing about these paintings is the framery." But even fewer times do we hear people speak the truth to artists with love. In fact, we seem to create, like openings in galleries, situations where speaking truth, even lovingly, is impossible. I mean, who wants to be put on the spot like that, especially when the free merlot and tapénade are so scrumptious? (I know the wine is supposed to loosen the tongue and the purse strings, but surely artists should know that too much wine only crosses the eyes, making patrons see twice as much really bad stuff.)

Forgive me if I seem rather petty. But I am all too aware of my own mediocrity in artistic matters, and in my efforts at lovingly telling the truth. What I see here at Contratimes, however, is something approaching the wonderful: people speaking to each other with grace. And for that I am grateful. Besides, I am beholden to that standard: My last name is Gnade, the German word for grace, for mercy. I have to live up to my name. Please forgive me when I fall short.

Thank you for making this a great dinner party. I hope you all enjoy yourselves.

Peace to you,

BG

(BTW: For those of you who care about your contributions here, you have all made Contratimes tumble -- in the good way -- in the Technorati blog ratings. It was only a few months ago this blog was rated in the top 345,000. Today, it is listed around the top 76,000. That's quite a fall/leap. And considering Technorati rates over 44 million blogs, Contratimes thus falls in the top .16 percent of blogs. You all have helped this tremendously; and I hope that I can continue to reciprocate your kindness with like kindness of my own.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Hillary Clinton For Contradiction-In-Chief

Pascal may have proven that "nature abhors a vacuum." And I may have proven that the more progressively minded folks among us abhor a paradox. But neither proof can explain how it is that the recent paradox offered by Hillary Clinton regarding the Iraq conflict could so completely suck the life out of reason.

Here is what Ms. Clinton said:

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government. Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests ..."

It is worth noting that Ms. Clinton said this at a liberal gathering called "Take Back America" (where they jeered her). One wonders if the progressives who named that momentous event were sentient, for the title could not be more ironic: progressives who want to take America back. And here I thought these folks were all about moving America forward.

But Ms. Clinton's commentary could not be more deadening. To use the word "contradictory" is to be too complimentary. It is simply self-canceling, and the self, indeed, is quite canceled. But I am willing to admit that I am not sufficiently nuanced; that I cannot understand the incredible subtlety of Ms. Clinton's trenchant remarks. No doubt that subtlety, when surgically removed from between the lines of Ms. Clinton's observation, might read like this:

"I oppose an open-ended strategy in Iraq. I also oppose a definitely closed-ended plan. I propose a strategy with a very vague ending. I want to pressure the Iraqis by forewarning them that we have a plan with an amorphous, ambiguous terminus. I want them to know that we are planning about some moment that is in the definite future but is not defined by that future."

I am so glad that we have thinkers like Hillary Clinton to liberate us from the claustrophobia of strict reason. And it is nice to know that Ms. Clinton has the keys to free us from the intellectual Guantánamo Bay within which we Americans have been detained by the Bush Administration. I hear the clanging of the locks right now.

Indeed, liberals like Ms. Clinton abhor paradox. But perhaps there is something encouraging knowing that Ms. Clinton was booed by a group of progressives who want to take America backwards.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, Take Back America, Paradox

The Power Of Not Being There

I used to think that the toughest question I could ask a would-be US presidential candidate is, "Who are you to put yourself forward as presidential material?" I mean, it takes a significiant amount of confidence, even conceit, to raise one's hand and step forward: "I am your next great world leader!" It is the acme, the zenith, the high point of pride; and it seems it is the very nadir of humility. "Who do you think you are to seek my vote?" is probably not the most politic question, but it gets close to the heart of a candidate's sense of self.

But I am rethinking whether such a challenge is really the best starting point. I think a better starting point might be this: "Assuming you serve as President of the United States for two terms, what do you see yourself doing AFTER you are President?"

We surely know what someone like Jimmy Carter will do after serving just one term: he will serve the public well on many fronts, and do so very publicly. But we also know that he will criticize and even undermine a sitting Administration, using his former (and rather ignominious) stature as a weapon for political sniping. And we know that Bill Clinton will do the same sort of thing, though with a bit more sniping. I mean, what we don't see in either of these men is any invisibility. They are still striving for ascendancy: Books and book tours, lectures, campaigns, talk shows, political consulting, serving as international ambassadors. In short, what we don't see is any reluctance to be seen as servants.

Allow me for a moment to speak about retiring ministers. Many churches will not permit a retired minister to remain in the congregation. Many pastors and priests accept this, for they understand the political pitfalls of hanging around. Some denominations have very strict guidelines, in fact, all designed to protect the church from division. That churches nonetheless often split after a beloved pastor moves on or retires is proof that the process of becoming a "former leader" is fraught with peril. Near where I sit, the local Unitarian Church (one can hardly find a more progressive place), is bitterly split by the very vocal and political presence of its former longtime pastor who not only refuses to leave or be silent, he's even defied recommendations from national oversight boards that he should recede. Unity is a good thing, is it not? Perhaps no act can be more uniting than for a former leader -- one who has allegedly moved on -- to retreat nobly.

I am not suggesting, however, that any former President of the United States must retreat. What interests me is the current President, George W. Bush. What will George W. Bush do with his time after the presidency? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear: He's going to disappear (assuming, of course, that he is not assassinated first, as he, I believe, is the most endangered President in US history).

I wonder if the reader has either read the book, Being There, or seen the movie of the same title. The tale is of an utterly naïve and protected gardener who is ousted from his service to his master when the master suddenly dies and the estate where he works and lives is bequeathed to others. The gardener -- whose name is Chance Gardiner -- through a series of rather humorous events, is elevated to the highest levels of American society, even though he is utterly void of intellectual depth, conceit, or ambition. He is just there, and "being there" is, at least for some, the most important thing of all.

In some ways George W. Bush reminds me of Chance Gardiner, though Chance is a dolt and Bush is not. What George W. Bush has always broadcast to me is a pervasive wish to be somewhere else; he seems to be a reluctant leader. I don't see ambition in the man; he does not seek the spotlight. There are countless leaders on the world stage who seek to wow and woo, and George Bush is certainly not one of the them. In fact, when he walks onto the stage he always looks like he wishes he could be anywhere else. In that he is a lot like Chance Gardiner, who, while "being there", was never really "there." His goal was ultimately about being somewhere else, too.

In a way, this is what makes Bush effective in the American heartland. He sends a message that he would rather be on his farm, working, playing, hanging out with his dogs and his wife, than upstaging his rivals at a cocktail party with badinage or revelling in the sycophancy hidden in a handshake over brie. He conveys that he recognizes that his very dream of the simple rural life is jeopardized by external threats which require a powerful response -- someone needs to respond and it might as well be him (but really, anyone could do it, or so he intimates in his common speech). It is precisely this humility that appeals to voters: Bush is serving this country because he can and is supposed to (a family like the Bushes looks to "give back"), not because he has ambitions or conceit. That message wins elections.

What should we expect from the current President once he retires? We should expect exactly what we already know: he will disappear quietly, like his father has, and the only other living Republican president, Gerald Ford. He will retire to his farm, enjoy his grandchildren; sit on his couch. Hopefully he and his family will live in peace, though I am afraid no family in America will live so protected a life, marked, as they are, by their haters and detractors.

What do you think Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or Joe Biden will be doing after they have served as President? How about Mitt Romney, John McCain?

I'd love to know.

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Reading Words We Cannot See

(The essay that appeared here is currently on hold for other purposes. Sorry for any inconvenience. It will return at the proper time.)

Contratimes Writing Tip #2: 'Tis A Game With Lots Of Clues

Try it just this once. Think small, act big. Do not hope for loss. Pray to win. You know you can do it. You just need to try.

There is a God and you think He might be too small to help. Is that what faith does? Does faith quit on the sun, the moon, and the King of them all? Is faith just a dream, naught more than a wish on a lie, a trust in a doubt? Does it quit at the first sight of a storm on the edge of the sea?

Do not let your heart be hard. Lay your sins at the foot of His grace. He will come and give them back to you as gems. Each pearl comes at a great price, but for you, each one is free. All you have to do is pay your debts, which is no more than to ask that your debts be paid. He has paid the price, and you know that to be true, deep in your heart. Why let clouds of fear or the gloom of old pains keep you from the grace that sets all free? The books have been cleared. Sing praise.

How is it that so few love love? Where do these men come from, those who love hate, who hate love? Is hell for them? Who knows? But know that grace comes to those who hate their own hate; who plead for health when death looks like fresh rain. Don’t hide, don’t run, don’t bow your head in shame. Just ask, “Please?” Joy will come on blue and clear wings; it will brush your head and sweep your heart clean, and you will laugh. Feel the breeze that comes on the heels of each word prayed; and know each hand held high shall be held through all time, through all that must come to pass. One hand held is a whole life lived.

We run through closed gates. We chase strength down weak streets. We miss it at each strange turn, near each dark bar. Strength runs just out of reach; it leaps when we fall, as we pant for lost breath. Sweat pours down our frayed grins. We know that the game is His to win if we but let Him. He will come on His own terms. Chase not. Wait. And then take, eat, for this is His flesh; drink, this is His blood (like wine). You know the rules: He is the one who serves, who gives, who grants the grace you need. Just ask. And then bend the knee.

***

Do you not yet see the point? Come. It has to do with depth, strength. It has to do with breadth, with loft, with the great heights found in small things. Can you see it?

We have blind eyes; we have ears drawn shut. We see the big, the grand. We hear a boast and we think it has said all there is to say: Big is best, best is big. If one is good, ten must be grand. That is the lie that has shut our eyes, the song that has left us deaf, the draught that has left us with tongues that can’t taste. Tell me you see it now, please! I beg, I plead!

You know to what I point. Truth does not care for the size of a word. One sound, one word. That is the rule.

Try it just this once. It will not kill you. Think small, write big. Write prose as light as a bird on the wing, a leaf in the breeze, a flake of snow on the tip of the tongue. Watch words spill down the stream of each page you write; and make right your dreams. What truth may come will be up to you, and His grace, and you might just change the world. Who knows? One sound is all it takes to move the ear, the heart. To save from grief.

Turn off the dark. Turn on your light, and let it shine!

(And for those of you who still can’t quite see it, I leave you with this clue: There is just one word of more than one syllable in this whole post [the name does not count]. And yet, with just small words I can write with great depth. Can you find the one word? It sticks out like a sore thumb.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[For more on this topic, see my comments, and two other samples, at Contratimes Poetry. Thanks.]

Technorati tags: Writing Tips, Richard Lederer

Watching The Sun Fly

[Let us divert our attention for a moment from politics, theology, evil. Let us saunter over and take a look at the really deep things of life. We shall leave the shallow stuff for the weekdays, the weak days. But the weekends? They were made for humanity. Consider it all a Sabbath rest. And later today look for Contratimes Writing Tip #2. I promise: it's a dandy! Then for tomorrow I think we shall enjoy a reflection on one of the most amazing photographs ever made. Peace. BG]

The other day, while searching the local greenhouse for plants for my rather sparse garden, I noticed a yellow swallowtail bumping futilely against the glass, all in a vain effort to escape. After several tentative tries, I managed to cup the lovely butterfly in my hand. In order to keep it from either escaping my grip or getting hurt, I cupped both hands together, hoping that the larger hollow would provide safe passage for the little bit of loveliness within. After a quick exit out into the open air, I opened my hands slightly, allowing air and brilliant sunlight to seep into the hallowed hall between my palms. The butterfly's feet tickled my palms and fingers; its antennae made their appearance, and I let the wondrous flying leaf go. But instead of travelling north or south, or towards the romantic west or the mysterious east, the butterfly ascended straight overhead, paddling the air toward the deepest part of the great blue ocean above. It lifted off with such intent into the dazzling sky that it appeared more like a gem sinking into the sea, swirling down along invisible currents, flashing sunlight back into my eyes until it was too deep to ever be seen again.

I thought of the passage of that little butterfly, its journey from hard and brutal light, a light that held it back from its pursuits, its goals. It had twitched and fluttered and smacked against a stiff transparency, only to be suddenly swallowed, tail and all, by a moist darkness. How long was it in the belly of my hands, three days, or three minutes? Was this its death, this opaque paralysis, this coffin of callouses and scars? And then! What light! What passage from darkness to brilliant blue and streaking yellow and gold!

Did the swallowtail feel as if it had passed through to life's other side? Or did it merely feel like it had travelled through time, carried through warps of compressed time in a machine made of hot, pulsing skin? Did it find itself awash in a primeval innocence, baptized by the sun and sky above an ever-receding earth?

One shall never know. But I pray that it is off like Jonah spat from the whale, flying skyward, or down into the abyss, to warn, to proclaim, to bring tidings of glad things. Perhaps the little butterfly is even now a legend, a hero, a king among its kin. Perhaps it is hailed as the bearer of good news, telling a tale of being swallowed, and yet raised one more time.

May hope have its way.

Peace and mirth.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Photo: Male Baltimore Oriole perching to feed on orange. Image taken with a Canon EOS 3, with Canon EF 80-200/2.8 L lens at 1/500 f.6.7. Tripod. A radio-controlled shutter release was used to capture this image on Kodak E100 film. Scanned using a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 scanner.]

Breaking Great Wind In The Storm's Eye, Part II: Roger Ebert On Al Gore

Trust me when I say that I am not opposed to the idea that the earth is warming. Trust me when I say I believe in climate change. Trust me when I even say that there has never been one instant in history when the earth has not either been getting cooler or getting warmer: Climate change is a constant. I get the big picture. I am about as green as green can be, within my means (only the really, really poor and the rich can be truly green). And trust me when I say that I am not agoraphobic: I am not afraid of crowds. But I might be Algore-aphobic, afraid of the crowds swirling around the low-pressure system which is the used-to-be "former President of the United States." (Ever see a satellite photo of a low-pressure system? It looks a lot like a bunch of spinning 6's. You know what I mean.)

Roger Ebert, the well-known film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, admits in his recent review of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, that he is, as critic, working as advocate. And, in fact, he is doing so as an absolutist, even an infallible one:

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.

It is good to know that infallibility is not the sole claim of the Vatican: Al Gore, Roger Ebert, and the "scientists" are absolutely right. Next thing you know Messrs. Gore and Ebert will be dictating sacred scripture for our edification in the new Church. But I digress. There is more from Mr. Ebert:

In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

I wish Mr. Ebert would explain, since he is clearly a science whiz, how it is that he and countless others, including Al Gore, have no problem dumping tens, nay, hundreds of thousands of gallons of burned jet fuel at 35,000 feet so they all can get to Cannes, France to watch movies. Perhaps he can also explain those solar-powered yachts at anchor just off-shore of that famed movie mecca. Perhaps Mr. Ebert will, eventually, explain his omissions about such emissions to his grandchildren. And I am absolutely certain that Mr. Ebert will tell his grandchildren that, when it comes to "burning fossil fuels" jet-setting from Cannes to Sundance, "no other view can be defended."

At least there is the one saving caveat to Ebert's review: it represents, in his words, "the truth as I understand it." Of course it does.

As I've said, An Inconvenient Truth is exactly that.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Roger Ebert, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, Cannes, cannes film festival

More From Medusa

[Addendum: 6.09.06, 2:43 pm EST: I feel it behooves me to inform readers that I don't approve of the invective used by Ann Coulter. I do not condone it in others. My point here is to show how easy it is to write the way many writers ALWAYS write. Sarcasm, invective, acrimony: these are generally easy, though, it is worth noting, such is usually associated with "wit." For more complete thoughts on this, see my comments at the end of Playing Hockey With Ann Coulter.]

Seriously. With all the wagging about Ann Coulter these days, I must say this: I would take Ann home to my mother (or just home) any day before I would take this, uh, pundit, to the beer tent at the county fair. OK. I am married, so I can't take Ann home. But even if I wasn't married, Maureen Dowd could not move in my circles, largely because the only circle she moves in looks a lot like a pentagram. She makes the Stewart Gardner Museum look like a tattoo parlor. I would rather scour junkyards for sheet metal with Ann Coulter than do anything on a yacht in the Aegean Sea with Maureen Dowd. And this for no other reason than that Ann Coulter, at the very least, understands.

If Ann Coulter makes people scream with her outrageous words, Maureen Dowd makes her very words scream for help, shrieking for mercy; for no American writer abuses language with greater facility. Ann Coulter may throw plates at your head, but Maureen Dowd wants to put electrodes in your skull. Her aim is to anesthetize and electrocute; she hopes to scramble your brain. Ann just wants to shock you back to the sanity Ms. Dowd has zapped from your cranium. Coulter may make you squirm and cringe, but Dowd makes you ask the waiter for the check before the appetizers are cleared. They may both be witches, but one is wicked and nice and the other is just plain wicked.

(Again, see how easy it is to write sardonically, sarcastically; in a spirit of meanness?)

Is it too much for me to declare that every paragraph of Ms. Dowd's essay is wrong? Alas, her essay speaks for itself.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd

Breaking Great Wind In The Storm's Eye: Al Gore And The Democratic Party

Former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, needs the world to melt away.

As you know, and as I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, Al Gore, with the help of his friends at Apple Computer, Inc. (where he sits on the board of directors), has recently released a film, An Inconvenient Truth. Ebert & Roeper have given the film Two Thumbs Up. I will skip the science part of the whole debate for today, and I will admit that I have not seen the film, though I intend to. What I want to point out is that Al Gore has done something utterly precarious: He has pinned his whole political life on a swirling, whirling, convecting and advective maelstrom of gas. In short, he has put his career on the line for a bunch of variables, hoping to win our plaudits by the hoped-for triumph of one constant: The planet is getting warmer.

Trust me when I say this: Al Gore is doomed if the planet begins to get cooler. He is doomed if the polar caps are indeed getting deeper in their cores as they are shrinking on their edges (as some have posited). He is doomed if November 2008 is bitterly cold, especially if September and October are cold, too. His career will be so much vapor looking for one constant particle around which to coalesce; yet if the rarefied air he hopes to coalesce in should become utterly clean of any particles, his raindrop will never form, and he shall be lost in the gases he fears.

I am not suggesting that he is wrong for being concerned about global warming, or that humans impact the environment in often grotesque proportions. I am saying that he is wrong for politicizing this whole "crisis", this "planetary emergency", as he calls it.

But what I am really saying is that the Democratic National Party is doomed for the exact same reasons. You see, they have embraced Gore's "science" completely: They have endorsed his view and made it a plank in the Democratic Party's weather observation deck. Gore is The Man right now, and he has got to be relishing the attention. Egads, he was even The Man at the Cannes Film Festival.

Yesterday I received this email titled "Gore-bashing" from Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. Let me remind you that Democrats repeatedly refer to the Republican leadership as "fearmongers". Here's the email:

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Hurricane season has arrived -- and two fresh studies point to a link between global warming and an increase in the number and power of storms like Hurricane Katrina.

What are Republicans doing about it? They're smearing former Vice President Al Gore.

One right-wing pundit compared Gore to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist. Another right-winger, who's been on the payroll of corporate special interests, likened Gore's pursuit of solutions to global warming to Adolf Hitler's pursuit of genocide.

I'm sending Al a note this week telling him to keep fighting, to keep standing up for the truth no matter how vicious the attacks. I thought he might like to hear from you, too. …

Facts are facts. Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence. But it also presents a historical opportunity to rise above politics and act boldly. Despite right-wing efforts to silence him, Al Gore has articulated one of the great moral challenges of our time and tried to move people to act.

This should not be a political issue. We need a conversation about climate change and its consequences. But special interests in Washington have a tight grip on the Republican leadership, and an entire network of corporate-funded front groups has emerged to deny reality and attack the messenger.

They hope that scorched-earth political tactics will cover up the reality that the scientific debate is one they've already lost.

Vice President Al Gore deserves our thanks for his courage and leadership. …

Did you know the National Academy of Sciences joined academies in the other G8 countries last year by concluding that global warming requires "prompt action"? Or that insurance companies are fleeing coastlines and charging huge premiums to avoid taking more losses from massive hurricanes? How about the fact that climate researchers have a new worry: that we could cross a tipping point that sends sea levels rising by 20 feet by the end of the century?

If you didn't know, that's by design. Corporate special interests are deeply invested in keeping us hooked to the status quo -- high gas prices, inefficiency, and dependence on foreign oil.

That's why last year, in the middle of a record-breaking hurricane season, Republicans in Congress and the White House gave oil companies $6 billion -- even as those companies ran away with the largest corporate profits in American history. And that's why we still have yet to see the Bush administration stand up and do anything to stop global warming.

Enough is enough, and people know it. Al Gore is demonstrating exactly the kind of courage and moral clarity that Democrats will bring when we take back Congress and win elections up and down the ballot this year.

The inconvenient truth is that global warming exists -- and thanks to Al Gore, it's now more likely that America will come together and do something about it.

Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

And, according Dr. Dean, here are the two offensive quotes regarding Mr. Gore:

Citations

"You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't go see Al Gore's films to see the truth about global warming."
--Sterling Burnett, DaySide, Fox News, May 23, 2006.

"Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."
--Bill Gray, as quoted in The Washington Post Magazine, May 28, 2006.

Now, I have no idea who Sterling Burnett (?) or Bill Gray are, but to Dr. Dean, this amounts to an all-out right-wing attack on Al Gore. And if you don't think that Dr. Dean's letter suggests that the Democrats have politicized this issue, then recall with me what happened May 31 when a group of concerned citizens protested outside the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Hurricane Center. What was their beef (excuse the references to methane)? That NOAA has been "covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming." And NOAA is doing this in a gross conspiracy along with the Bush Administration and EXXON! Don't believe me? Then read this statement from the protest's organizers. It is clear that the protesters are not members of the Republican Party.

(Let me point out that real scientists would not say that there is a "growing scientific link" between anything. There is an alleged "climatological, meterological" link or "growing atmospheric-chemical" link. But a "growing scientific link"? That's middle school stuff.)

And lastly, look at this from the Democratic National Committee. It pretty much proves what the Democrats have in mind.

***

Why has Al Gore hitched his wagon to a melting polar ice cap? Simple. It is a perfectly hot topic right now, and it is perfectly ambiguous. It is the sort of scientific "fact" that can be used for glorious political gain, because it is one that has the appearance of certitude and yet is, by all honest accounts, a field of broad uncertainty. Moreover, Al Gore has hitched his wagon to so much gas because he wants to distance himself from "Big Oil", you know, the REAL source of global warming and the impending calamity. And the Democrats have hitched themselves to the very same vapors.

THAT is why they desperately need the planet to get hotter, at least for a couple of more years. They need the calamity in order to save not only all of us, but all of them. They need the planet to melt so badly they can see water already rising in New York. They are so knee deep in it that they might just propose putting life jackets in voting booths.

It is a bit of a joke when we hear Democrats insist that this "crisis" should not be a partisan issue. Of course it should: The Democrats have made it one. They are the real scientists after all, a fact well-established now that they've shown the Republicans to be all about Intelligent Design (which is about the philosophy of science, the very foundations of it, and not about science per se; which is a fact lost on critics of Intelligent Design). And it is the Democrats, long critics of Big Oil, who have laid the blame for most of the global warming on that giant industry.

Of course, there is great irony watching all those liberals, so concerned about global warming, flying over to Cannes to watch Al Gore's film. Gore also scarred the sky in a trans-Atlantic crossing. And now he flies around the globe, telling us all that the atmosphere is fragile and is becoming our enemy.

An Inconvenient Truth is exactly that.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Al Gore photograph courtesy of CBS News (via Google photos)

Technorati tags: Al Gore, Global Warming, Climate Change, An Inconvenient Truth, Environment, Democratic Party, Democrats, Howard Dean, DNC, Big Oil

"We hope that he will join other martyrs in heaven" - the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's brother†

We do not gloat about winning when the price is death. This morning the President of the United States confirmed that the most feared -- and loathed -- terrorist in Iraq had been killed by US airstrikes. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead indeed. But we do not praise this news in the way others might. We do not run into city streets, with guns pointed skyward, strafing the quiet sky with bullets. We burn nothing in effigy; we burn no cars. We do not strap bombs to our chests and kill ourselves. We are simply glad justice is served, and that a murderer has been stopped. And we are justly sad that it all has to happen at all.

I watched President Bush this morning as he made the announcement, and, while it was clear he did not gloat and that he was even quite circumspect, I wish that he had said something that indicated that America does not revel in this sort of news. This is not a condemnation of him: as President, he (theoretically) embodies all of America, and there are Americans whose loved ones were killed by the man who died this morning. It's rather to observe that we are a complex people; we want justice for the worst offenders, and yet we grieve, often, when justice is meted out. Mr. al-Zarqawi could not be any more of a monster in my eyes: Any man, for any reason, who beheads another, while using a small knife and recording the demonic act on videotape, deserves mercy, in my opinion, and death is that mercy. I have opposed the death penalty elsewhere in these pages. But to hack the head off of a panic-stricken, shrieking man; to then broadcast that brutality over the internet, is to earn a direct-to-death card, or so I believe. You have given yourself over to something unredeemable (at least it is unredeemable by anyone walking on this planet), when you kill that way.

Today we do not gloat. We offer thanks that there are people committed to keeping all of us safe. And we pray for peace, knowing that peace may never come, or that if it does, that it must come hard. But the last we thing we hope is that Mr. al-Zarqawi has joined "other martyrs in heaven." Not that I wish hell upon him. I just wish hell on the violence that was clearly his love.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

†No, we don't.

Technorati tags: al-Zarqawi, Zarqawi, Bush, Peace, Iraq, Martyrs, Death Penalty

Playing Hockey With Ann Coulter

You have probably heard this so many times you are surely ready to spin your head around and spew green vomit, but I must say it nonetheless: yesterday was the 6th of June, 2006, or 06.06.06. If the Beast of the Apocalypse is a day, then yesterday was beastly. But I am not going to discuss Satan here, though I am going to discuss Ann Coulter, which, I know, is pretty much the same thing if you are a left-leaning pol or pundit unnerved by Ms. Coulter's incendiary prose and devilishly long, and beguiling, legs. She is a feisty one, that Ann.

Yesterday marked the debut of her book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." No doubt it is a rowdy read, and, well, an arousing one, too. While I can't imagine a first date with Ms. Coulter, I could imagine a 666th one, and I think by then she would have me deconstructed to a rather small figure of a man. In fact, I would be reduced to little more than an exclamation point chained to her ankle bracelet, a mere punctuation mark, the leftovers of my last two cries, "What the ?!" and "Help me!"

Anyway, back to the book. Ms. Coulter made the talk show circuit yesterday promoting her newest work, having a moment of difficulty (when has she ever had an easy interview?) with Matt Lauer and a less than flirtatious moment with Alan Colmes. In the latter interview, along with Colmes' co-host Sean Hannity, Ms. Coulter revealed that Christianity is her motivating force. She insisted that it enfuses her every strident phrase and pugnacious punctuation mark; that it calls her to take a stand, to confront lies, to battle darkness, to challenge the Zeitgeist, and to show off her legs as much as possible.

But what is curious is something that has to do with Contratimes. It is not that I know Ann Coulter, nor is it that I have often written about her. What is curious is that yesterday dozens of people suddenly showed up here looking for Ann. According to my statcounter, there was a sudden surge of online queries for "Ann Coulter and Bob Guccione III." And their queries sent them here. You see, Ann Coulter, a Cornell grad who once dated Bill Maher (another Cornell grad), also dated the heir of the Penthouse magazine empire, Bob Guccione. So, why this sudden interest in that fact? You know why.

The sudden interest has got to do with Ann Coulter claiming to be a Christian. For we all know a real Christian would never date a pornographer's son. We all know that Christians are ALWAYS to be nice, with their actions and words always subdued, proper; with their words tumbling over lips of purity, perfect and prim.

In other words, Ann Coulter is a hypocrite. Of course, I have no doubt that she is. We are all hypocrites. But what alarms me most about the charge of hypocrisy aimed at Christians is that it is always pronounced with such righteous indignation. Where, after all, should hypocrites be if not in the Church? Doesn't everyone realize that Christianity is the household of the broken; that it is not like the Democratic National Convention, which is the household of the whole? Why be surprised to learn that Christians are hypocrites? They are sinners, after all.

I attended one of the elite evangelical colleges in the United States. This does not make me an evangelical, mind you, anymore than going to the Jesuit-run Georgetown made Bill Clinton a Catholic. But the prejudices to which I was exposed (by outsiders) were often astounding. Once, when our hockey team was pounding the pastries out of a visiting team, a group of visiting fans of the visiting (non-evangelical) hockey squad astonished by my alma mater's bruising checks asked me during a period break, "Your team is rough. Isn't everyone here studying to be a bunch of priests?" Alas, such ignorance. Yes, we are all -- from pre-med women to elementary-ed men, from chemists to philosophers, from poets to journalists -- studying to be a "bunch of priests." But the broader implication was comical: Real Christians don't play hockey roughly; they don't check or battle for the puck; they don't compete. (Oh, and don't let me forget: There was one time that a New Hampshire team left our ice because we played "too rough". No kidding, they actually went home after the second period.)

You know the implied line: Christians must always be meek. Sort of like St. Paul, when he wished aloud that the Judaizers in Galatia would cut off their own genitals.

Ann Coulter is playing a game, and she is competing. The left has its nasty pugilists, its bullies. Liberal pundits have said countless outrageous things; and they should not suddenly blush when a conservative says some pretty outrageous things in reply. The prophetic voice, in the truest sense of that descriptive and necessary voice, is often filled with hyperbole; with strong language that makes us blush, cringe, squirm. Often idolatrous excesses could only be staved off by prophetic excesses, by language and rebuke that stops listeners dead in their tracks. I am not suggesting that Ms. Coulter is a prophet, nor am I suggesting that she does not often (always?) go too far. What I am saying is that the Left is also filled with hypocrites, who suddenly act like a bunch of Puritans when listening to Coulter and yet giggle with delight at the offenses which pour forth from the "satirists" at the Daily Kos. Clearly, Ann Coulter (and one has to be blind not to see this) is having fun. And pointing that out is not to suggest that she is merely having fun; that this is all a wink-wink, nod-nod, flash-flirtatious-smile game she is doing for cash. She strikes me as sincere. But one thing I am saying: she is a formidable foe.

There is some passage in the New Testament suggesting that the Antichrist will deceive "even the elect." In other words, even the Christians will find the Antichrist desirable. Alas, Al Gore may indeed be the one bearing the numeric marks of darkness, but Ann Coulter, surely, strikes a confusing pose for many of us.

As I think about it, I never once expected the Antichrist to look quite like that. I mean, I am of the generation weaned on The Omen's black-clad Damien. I never could have guessed that the devil might really be a Dame in a blue dress. O, men! Beware!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Antichrist, 666, Al Gore, The Omen