The Problem Of Prophets: The Amazing Maze

Recently, prophecy has been wildly popular, or at least wildly prevalent. Pat Robertson suggested that Ariel Sharon was perhaps ill as a result of his misdeeds, with God protecting the land of Israel from being divided. Two days ago, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pronounced that God wanted New Orleans to be "chocolate", and that God was punishing America with hurricanes for its involvement in Iraq.

Following two posts on this topic (here and here), this post is an exploration of prophecy as it plays out in Protestant America, particularly in Protestant Evangelical America. If you are not religiously inclined and yet are interested in the problem - and I think there is a problem - then I welcome you to the discussion. But for the most part this post is written to and for Christians, particularly those who are Evangelical in doctrine, worship and identity.†

First, this observation. Prophecy is not confined to religious conservatives. Leftists augur all the time. Leftists offer dire predictions about the consequences of war, for example, particularly war in Iraq. Leftists deign that 9/11 occurred, not as retribution because of sexual immorality, like some conservatives suggested, but because of greed or imperialism or conservatism in general. Religious leftists, like Jimmy Creech or Gene Robinson, believe that certain leftist ideals are indeed God's ideals. And Karl Marx, the leftist par excellence, predicted with religious devotion that history must culminate in the socialist state.

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the problem facing the many churches in America who believe A) that the Bible is the final, authoritative revelation of God, and B) that the prophetic voice is alive in the Church.

To begin, let us look at the following articles from Statements of Faith accepted by four well-known Protestant denominations - the United Methodist (UM), The Church of the Nazarene (COTN), The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC). I have highlighted in bold the salient feature I wish to discuss:

UM (1992): The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

COTN: We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

EFCA: (We believe) The Scriptures, both Old & New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

CCCC: We believe the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testament, to be the only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written.

Each of these differs slightly from another, but there is one clear fact: The Bible is deemed final, not only in matters of authority, but in revelation. In short, what each of these hold in common is the belief that Christian revelation is closed, that the canon or scriptures are complete, and that nothing more can be added. In fact, as a warning against adding to the Christian revelation, particularly aimed at those intent on creating cults, this New Testament passage is often invoked by the Faith's defenders: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (Rev. 22:18)

For my purpose here, I want to solely focus on the CCCC statement that the Bible is the "only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written."

Now, what follows is an argument I presented (in a formal letter) to a CCCC church about 8 years ago. The reaction I received was interesting: I was called to a meeting with the Church's senior and associate pastors, and the chairman of the elders. It seemed I was a problem. Here is what I asked them, in part and essentially:

"If the canon of scripture is closed, as the CCCC statement of faith suggests, if it is the only inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God written, then why are men and women permitted, in this particular church, to exercise the 'gift of prophecy?'"

Perhaps a little background will help. I was attending a CCCC church wherein periodically a man would stand up in the middle of a church service, raising his voice, booming out something that always began like this: "Oh, my people! I have heard your cries, I have seen your ..." You get the picture. Needless to say, every time this happened, I was freaked out. It seemed so, well, confusing, disorienting, and, more pertinently, subjective. Was this man actually channeling the Spirit of God? Who could tell?

Well, I could, and he was not (and yet, confident as I was, doubts nonetheless assailed me). Most of this man's prophecies were cut-and-pasted regurgitations of well-known biblical passages, drawn largely from the Psalms and Minor Prophets. They were offered in stentorian voice, and were just dripping with emotions, some urgent, some maudlin, some dire and confrontational. My heart literally shook when this guy spoke, and it goes without exaggeration that he confused many people: Was God really speaking? Really?

But this man is not the only sort of prophet in churches. There are others, more subtle, less flamboyant. There's the praise leader that says that God has told her the praise band should do such and such. There's the man at the men's prayer breakfast who announces that God has told him to quit his job. There's the associate pastor that declares that God has told him what NOT to preach when he walks up to the pulpit, with a new, unplanned, extemporaneous message (or is he just concealing that he's unprepared?). There is the teenage convert proclaiming that God told him he would be an evangelist. Each of these people have had something revealed to them, by God, beyond the realm of rational scrutiny. It is all about faith.

Now, I hope you see the problem. For if the prophet, particularly the dramatic, public, flamboyant one who is deemed to be exercising his "spiritual gift", if that prophet is indeed speaking the truth, what is the nature of that truth? Assuming that the man has not just stood up and shouted forth some scripture verse (how is that prophetic?); assuming that God is indeed showing something not before seen, is what the prophet said inerrant? For surely it should be if it is coming from God, just as it should be infallible, authoritative and inspired. If it is not these things, then it can't be from God, for God is believed infallible and inerrant. (Or does God transmit information to us that is not inerrant and infallible through these prophets?)

Similarly, the man who was told by God to get a new job must not be wrong, if he was actually told something by God, right? Let us assume that the man was indeed told by God to take up his home and move; let us grant that the woman who stepped out of the path of a speeding car was in fact told so by God; where does that leave us regarding revelation? Does it not mean that revelation is not closed, it is not over? Indeed, it does.

But most importantly it means that the Bible is not complete. For if a man stands up and declares that "God is mad at America" or that "Prayer moved a hurricane" or that "God wants me to move to Dallas," and I write those things down, I now have another "inspired, infallible, inerrant and authoritative Word of God written." In other words, I now have, as a result of the prophets who have spoken, extra-biblical truth, extra-biblical revelation, which I cannot disregard if God DID in fact show these things to those who have uttered them. Either God spoke to these people or He did not. If He did, if I write their assertions down, then they must be infallible and authoritative, and should be part of the canon, to which I am ADDING something new. If He did not speak to them, then they are not prophets, and they are not hearing God.

This is the Protestant Problem of Prophecy: If anyone declares that God has revealed ANYTHING to him or her, and it is true that God has revealed that thing, if I jot that news down, then that must be an addition to the written word of God.

How does one get out of this maze? Am I wrong for thinking this a maze?

Sadly, when I asked the CCCC leaders these questions, no answer was ever given.

†I am a confirmed Episcopalian on the threshold of disillusionment.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Seek And Know Not What You'll Find: Publishing Subliminal Pornography

[Warning: This post is rated, well, sort of like a PG-13 film. I just thought you should know.]

Those readers who have come to know a bit what we stand for at Contratimes should get a good laugh at some recent web searches that led new visitors to this site. The stat counter I use yields some helpful information about visitors at Contratimes, not least of which is what search string led visitors here. Trust me when I say that the information provided is fairly harmless; I know mostly the times and lengths of visits, the pages viewed, and the entry and departure point on the WWW. I do not know who's been here, or where they live.

Two recent MSN searches that led people directly to Contratimes caused me to raise my eyebrows. The first search, "ejaculating penis photos," concerned me a bit, as I've got nothing so, well, clinical on this site. I do however have an essay where I mention "ejaculation" and "penis". But my inquisitive visitor must have been disappointed: There are no pictures like that here, I can assure you. The other search, "Mardi Gras breastflashing," also scored a hit on an essay I drafted right after the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Again, no prurient photos or links here, just a few well-intended words.

I am honored to see some eager literary people drop by, even though their searches suggested plagiarism. "Free essay on the Oppression of Women" led one reader directly to my series on that topic, and, while I hope no copyright infringement occurred, I pray that the crime, if it happened, at least resulted in the perpetrator getting a decent grade in his or her class. There have been several searches in that vein, and I truly hope that no one is indeed pushing my stuff onto various professors' desks.

But the best search thus far is this Yahoo search from today: "Women who have a fetish for being an amputee and like to smoke cigarettes during sex." Now that one you can't make up. Click on the link and see that it does list a Contratimes post. Of course, it all just proves one thing: If I stick with blogging long enough, someone, or perhaps some computer search algorithm, will prove that this blog says just about everything. (Of course, now that I've linked a link to this site, have I established an infinite loop? Let's hope so!) By the way, is that not just about the longest search query ever entered?

There is, of course, massive disappointment. Why? Because I see that no one has ever been directed here after searching for that "Handsome bald man with braces who skis wickedly fast and writes the best blog ever". Surely any decent algorithm will take that query and point people here (hopefully only those women people). Of course, now that I've posted that query, some lucky researcher with a "fetish" for that sort of man won't be disappointed.

And here I thought my readers visited solely to read the articles.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

More On Prophecy: Punishing America In New Orleans

Did you know that God is angry with America? That's why He's sending "hurricane after hurricane after hurricane." No, this is not my opinion, nor is it Pat Robertson's. And God is not angry with America for "homosexuality" or "abortion," as Reverend Jerry Falwell may put it. No, God is angry with America, punishing it with calamity after calamity, for being in Iraq on "false pretenses," (which are much worse than true pretenses, I can assure you).

Who made such a bold prophetic utterance yesterday during a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life? New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin did.

In his speech, Nagin also made this innocuous remark after suggesting God is "upset at black America also [my emphasis]":

"We (members of the African-American community) are not taking care of ourselves. We are not taking care of our women, and we are not taking care of our children when you have a community where 70 percent of its children are being born to one parent."

Last year, Bill Cosby got excoriated by critics for saying something very similar to Mr. Nagin's critique of his community. I wonder how Mr. Nagin will fair, in press and public, in the wake of his prophecies.

Also, before I forget, Mayor Nagin augurs that "God wants" New Orleans to be a "majority African-American" city; in short, God wants a "chocolate city" dominated by black Americans. I am sure that that "chocolate" line is going to go down real smooth, even if Nagin later described "chocolate" as a blend of black and white.

To think, Nagin, who appears to be hearing from God, hasn't even referenced the prophet Joel. At least Pat Robertson gave us that.

Contratimes

Celebrating The Forgotten Martin Luther King Jr.

I don't really care what anyone thinks about the following statement, so I say it without hesitation: The 1960s in America were pretty sick years. I have no nostalgia for them; no awe of their alleged liberation or romance for their upheaval, no glee over the sexual and drug revolutions. I stand in protest of the 1960s and their legacy.

And one salient feature of the illness of the 1960s was the shocking death of Martin Luther King Jr. It is not shocking in that it was unexpected, for even Dr. King anticipated it, I believe, in his very final speech. It was shocking in that it was emblematic of truly profound social conflicts that marred that decade, perhaps the most vulgar and violent one, in America's history. Dr. King, after all, was a pacifist in a tumultuous and vicious fight for equality among the races. That his death, his martyrdom, may have spurred Americans toward a more just and kind world is disconcerting, as death should not be required for what seems intuitively to be a simple lesson: All men are created equal.

Of course, as a man bent toward the philosophical, I ask myself whether it is indeed true that all men are created equal. Is it? If we are strict Darwinists, if we are secularists without appeal to God or some transcendent force responsible for mankind's existence and equality, then we must concede that equality is not an ontological (metaphysical) reality. Evolution, in its dynamic "natural selection" process, abhors equality, as disparate species fight and morph for dominance and survival, with nary a hint of egalitarianism. To the secular mind "equality" must be a religious fiction created by that secularism, for there is nothing in the entire cosmos that even resembles "equality." As I've stated elsewhere, including here at Contratimes, neither "equality" nor "rights" exist in any place other than the faith-based imagination of secularists.

Unless, of course, there really is a God. Then one can indeed talk, not only of "equality" but of "rights" as well, rights rooted in the imago dei, the image of God. And that is why the concepts of "rights" and "equality" are rooted in theological language in the founding documents of America. If there is no God, there is no equality and no rights, except in that fictive realm wherein the secular mind places them. If there is a God, there is at least the potential for there to be real qualities to equality and rights; a real, ontological quality.

Of course, the philosopher in me also sees this astounding problem: If there is indeed a God, then only humans are equal one to another, for God surely is not equal to His creation. In short, a world wherein God exists is hierarchical, with God sitting in the highest seat. With that said, it is no wonder secularists abhor a theological structure for social governance, as God confounds their love of absolute equality.

While today we celebrate the memory of Martin Luther King, I would like to celebrate what is absolutely forgotten about Martin Luther King. And what is forgotten is that Dr. King held no expertise in social or political scheming; he was not trained to be a rebel or a revolutionary. No, Dr. King was first and foremost a Christian theologian and ordained minister. Sadly, in most celebrations of his life, these seem to be the first things that are forgotten about him. I wonder, how would this make him feel?

Today is really a religious holiday, but you wouldn't know it. It is a holiday celebrating the liberating power of the Gospel, the very power that liberated a young Martin King when he first attended church, and when he first attended college. It is a day, not of civil rights, but of the power of love and justice and this wild notion that God loves ALL MEN EQUALLY, which manifests itself in justice and truth in the Christian Savior walking the streets offering a message of hope to the oppressed and harassed: those persecuted by the powerful; those harassed by the terrors of their own sins. It is right to be civil, and it is civil to be right; but neither truth means anything without the civilizing and righteous power of the Christian God who calls all men and women unto Him: that neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free; neither man nor woman nor black nor white, are to be excluded from His banquet hall. This is not unconditional universalism, but that universalism with a caveat: that all invited guests must first accept the invitation, shedding their filthy clothes for the formal clothes that come as a result of God's sacrifice, with all men and all women attired in the grace of God's forgiveness. Those who refuse the invitation, or the forgiveness, remain, freely, outside to dine alone. The maître d' bids them Bon appetit! if they would just humble themselves and accept their reservations.

But this great day is for me in many ways a day of sorrow, for the great man Dr. Martin Luther King is cheapened, gutted and reduced to something other than he was, for he was not a secular member of the vanguard; his power was not intrinsic to him; his cause was a cause that has nothing, ultimately, to do with him at all. For it is God's cause, and Dr. King knew that, and he embraced that powerful fact. How sorrowful that our schools and culture want to forget what ultimately made Dr. King a great man.†

For me, Dr. King represents the fight to keep the cardinal virtues together in harmonic balance. G. K. Chesterton argued that the Protestant Reformation smashed the union of the cardinal virtues, causing them to run amok, befouling the earth with their zeal. Just think of love, hope, faith, justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude helter-skelter on the earth, unbound from each other. Justice untethered becomes a church or legal fund or race riot insisting on its own verdicts, neglecting the temperance which is mercy. Temperance alone turns into flagellation and legalism. Prudence in isolation turns into the idolatry of caution, dreading the imperfect choice. Love runs to and fro without the truth of justice or the restraint of self-control, and blindly affirms acts and deeds that true love, in balance, would not countenance or so casually condone. Today, I can hear Dr. King call for the orthodoxy which holds all of these virtues together, the orthodoxy of Christ. It is this part of Dr. King's message that I remember today with sadness, for it is the part of his message and his life that is forgotten.

Contratimes

†There are those who don't think Dr. King was a great man, but I think otherwise. His peccadilloes, his sins, do indeed count against him. But all of us have these charges against us. What made him great is that he held to his convictions without being paralyzed by the fact that he was a man of imperfections. Too many of us permit our imperfections to sway us from our course. We fall prey to one of the greatest social evils, which is the fixation on the purity of the messenger rather than on the accuracy of the message. It is the "Who are you?" fallacy. It is the devil's line of discredit.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Sometimes There Is Something In A Number

It is just a number. It is not a number better than another. Strictly speaking, 1 is not better than 2, nor is 24 better than 25. But I must say that today's number, 4000, is a noteworthy one, not simply because it is such a tidy number, but because some visitor to Contratimes shall be the 4000th unique visitor since I began counting in July 2005 (and to think that I actually began this site last April). But 4000 is still something of an important summit, at least for me, and so, in honor of this day, I share another picture of myself that is not quite so, well, entrenched in the biker motif (I will soon be changing my profile photo for those of you intimidated by my mugshot).

No one need point out that other bloggers receive hundreds of thousands if not millions of visitors per month. I am aware of such vast numbers, and I pity those folks who tour the blogosphere in search of junk food. After all, junk food, like fast food, is wildly popular. There is clearly a McDonald's for the mind as well as the stomach. But I am a fussy eater, insofar as I like to take my time and fuss with silver and courses and sorbets. I enjoy lingering over dinner, swirling my wine glass (holding only the stem, mind you) with friends, letting things settle into the corners of the soul. I consider Contratimes a venue for that discerning palate which finds bliss in the mysteries of slow food. In fact, if I could, I'd even require reservations.

So, thanks for your patronage. I've been humbled 4000 times.

Peace.

Contratimes

Spanning The Globe ... Bringing You The Thrill Of Agony And Defeat

Perhaps you've debated with a friend whether certain films or TV programs, especially those which depict violence or gross sexual activity, have an adverse influence on people, primarily young people. Do horror films promote violence? Do bestial scenes inspire bestiality? Do vulgar TV shows affect behavior?

Now when I've engaged in such debates, my first step is to look at movies and programs (and books) which are deemed "good." Surely there is the assumption that "good" educational TV is aimed at influencing behavior, I might say. Surely a teacher choosing to show "Ghandi" in a World Civilization class is aiming at shaping behaviors, as would a teacher who supports Sesame Street. Surely PBS' Frontline and Nova are worthy of being deemed "good", and surely each program presented through PBS is produced for more than the tickling of the mind. Thus, if it is assumed that good programming influences good behaviors, why is it so often assumed that bad programming is naught more than "entertainment?"

All this is prelude to the tremendous story of an unspeakable crime, a crime which proves, I believe, that there indeed exists a moral and philosophical construct aptly called "the slippery slope." Perhaps you've already heard about the man in Germany on trial for murdering and subsequently eating his victim, a male victim who apparently volunteered for the fetishistic ritual. Please note that the murderer (41 years old) is claiming that this dining experience has long been a fantasy of his, fueled by horror films he had watched. He said the fantasy began as early as his 9th year of life. Combine a psychology replete with a feeling of paternal abandonment and a lust for a little "handsome" brother he never had, and you have a killer with a truly mindblowing story, one perfect for, well, an HBO movie. Truly, it gives a whole new meaning to "dinner companion."

Of course, the defendant's lawyers are to argue that since the victim allegedly volunteered, there was, in fact, no murder. Moreover, since cannibalism is not against German law (some things just don't need laws), the defense's client at least has a chance of setting some interesting legal precedent. But fear not. There is plenty of evidence, particularly the two-hour videotape of the entire murder, complete with audio, which should assist the prosecution in its case. As for this post, I will spare you the most scintillating details of the "crime." Suffice it to say that words like "perversion" and "demonic" and "abnormal" and "deviant" sadly have been purged from the Western lexicon, or have been made so anemic as to be rendered nearly lifeless. This is a story of hellishness, and yet there will be folks, the really smart ones whose fraternity I cannot join, who shall seriously consider, with empathy and "open minds", the social and moral implications of the case: Is cannibalism, at least voluntary and co-participatory cannibalism, REALLY bad? Is it "perverse" to eat another person? Is it really abnormal for a man to remove a part of another man, and the two eat it together? Or are we just bringing our prejudices to the event, seeing things from the provincialism of our own local perspective, refusing or unable to see an act from another person's paradigm? After all, from the perspective of the murderer and allegedly even the murdered, they could see not only nothing wrong with cannibalism, but perhaps they could see something approaching the numinous and transcendent. Perhaps we are the abnormal ones.

Perhaps indeed.

What Axis Of Evil?

And here's another mind-bender for those of you who, like me, possess inelastic minds, committed, like Philistines (how sad we are) to the idea that there are some perspectives, and some cultures, that are not worth understanding at all. I posit for your abbreviated brains the news out of Iran that a teenage girl, a victim of a vicious rape, has been sentenced to death by hanging for stabbing her attacker in the chest, killing him. Here, in the West, we would raise up this woman to sainthood, for surely she belongs in our pantheon of great souls. But in Iran, she will be raised up alright: by the neck, in a gallows, in a very sick world. And to think, part of her crime was that she was trying to protect her little niece, who was also assaulted.

Her name is Nazanin. Remember her.

All this proves that George W. Bush is the world's greatest terrorist. Of course, I jest. It is indeed likely, don't you think, that this story will change America? I mean, go visit your local town square this weekend and watch all the peaceniks wielding signs in a courageous defense of the life of an 18-year-old Iranian girl who's been condemned by madness. Look for the peace lovers to storm the Iranian embassies the world over. Look for Harry Belafonte and Michael Moore to come together to produce a film on the injustice befalling Iranian women. Just watch Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean dominate the media tonight in a noble effort to change Iran's policies. And, while your watching these heroes at work, look for news of hell freezing over in the next Frank Rich column, or that Maureen Dowd has finally found a clue.

I know, I know. The "axis" of evil really is America.

Contratimes

PS. At the very least, each of us should get on our knees right now and scream heavenward on behalf of Nazanin, our sister in the world, who is to be murdered for defending herself from rape. While I'm on my knees, I am going to ask God how it is that I am not more outraged.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Pat Robertson, Updated

Only moments ago, Reverend Pat Robertson, during a live video feed to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's son, read a letter of apology for comments he made last week regarding Sharon's recent stroke. Robinson had suggested that Sharon's stroke may have been divine retribution for Sharon's concessions of Israeli territory to the Palestinians.

As I said in my post, Pat Robertson, Prophecy And Partitioning, "Prophets must pay the price for their work." Robertson has paid a bitter price, I believe, and, as I heard on the news moments ago from a source close to the Reverend, Robertson has been in a profound state of reflection since making his initial remarks.

Related to this, it should be noted that yesterday, Israel, upset by Robertson's suggestions, announced that Robertson would not be involved in plans for a multimillion dollar Christian tourism center in Galilee. Robertson, and other evangelical leaders, have been raising at least $50 million for the development of the Christian Heritage Center.

Madeleine Albright, Diane Rehm, And Casual Sedition - Part I

NPR talk show host, Diane Rehm, interviewed former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Monday, January 9, during the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show. It was an enlightening, even disturbing, hour of airtime. I am not an Albright scholar, nor am I even a partially bright scholar (to some of you), so I stipulate that I am not qualified to pronounce judgment on Ms. Albright's role and position in American history and foreign affairs.

I have taken the time, a considerable amount really, to listen to that interview, transcribing it directly from audio (the interview can be listened to here). I beg your indulgence for the rather lengthy excerpt which follows, but it is important.

The topics discussed of interest to us were Iraq, the Iraq War, and the Bush Administration's handling of intelligence regarding Iraq. Leading up to the part of the interview excerpted below, which happened more than 13 minutes into the broadcast, were such comments as Ms. Albright's self-congratulatory and defining pronouncement––"I probably said more terrible things about Saddam Hussein than any other American official and I did it for eight years"––or that the Iraq invasion was a "war of choice" and not one "of necessity" (I digress, but is any war one of "necessity," or is there such a thing as a "choiceless" war?); or that the Clinton Administration would have chosen a "diplomatic course" rather than a military one with Iraq.

For purposes of my analysis (which will follow), I am highlighting in bold words and phrases throughout the excerpt. Please note them as you read along. Also, I have placed [sic] in those places where things that seem either odd or misstated are nonetheless directly quoted from the original conversation.

As a point of reference, Ms. Rehm's questions and Albright's answers followed this statement by Ms. Albright regarding the Clinton Administration's use of military force in Iraq and intelligence: "We were not adverse to using force. But we felt very strongly about using an international approach. I would have advised very strongly against going in [Iraq] in 2003. We had a very collegial approach to how we dealt with all of this, and a President who wanted to listen to a variety of advice." The phrase "collegial approach" is the keystone to my analysis.

Here is the excerpt:

(1)Diane Rehm: Had President Clinton decided to invade Iraq, put troops on the ground, with your strong feeling that that was not the way to go, what do you think your own action would have been?

Madeleine Albright: That is so hypothetical because, President Clinton, I know where he was on a variety of things, and I know where you are going with this, but I think that it’s very difficult to decide how one would act in a hypothetical situation like that, and I think we would not have been in this kind of position, and I have thought a lot about what would have happened with President Gore [sic]. I think what this was based on was faulty intelligence, or confusing intelligence, and one of the things that I think people need to understand what intelligence [sic] really means in terms of these terms [sic]. I would come into my office in the morning and read the State Department intelligence booklet for the day and then the CIA person would come in and give me the, now everybody knows, this PDB, the President’s Daily Brief, and then a longer version of it, and what would happen frankly, Diane, was that they never were flat out black-and-white so it was all speculative, and to a great extent it’s like a Rorschach test, the intelligence is a product and the decision-maker is the consumer and I think President Clinton and President Gore would have seen this intelligence in a different way.

(2)DR: And President Bush apparently chose not to take into account the intelligence coming from the State Department. How does that intelligence which comes from State Department researchers differ from that which comes from intelligence sources [sic]?

MA: First of all I do not know what it was like during the Bush Administration, but in our time, first of all, they operate off the same intelligence takes, but the thing that is very good about the State Department intelligence daily brief is that it’s within a diplomatic context, it has much more of a kind of a historical overlay and diplomatic overlay and how other countries might react to it. I know President Clinton very much appreciated the State Department take, um, but what I found interesting was the combination of all of these because they all said something slightly different and, um, it was very interesting to compare the different views, but mostly the State Department is known for putting the intelligence within a diplomatic context, but they’re operating off the same source material to a great extent though obviously sources also come from the ambassadors and people on the ground.

(3)DR: So the President, President Bush, chose to put aside that which was coming from the State Department as opposed to that flawed intelligence that was coming from the CIA, I mean can we divide those?

MA: I don’t think we know - I mean I think honestly at least I don’t know. All I know is the various books I’ve read and articles and things like that so I don’t know what the thought process was but there clearly were a variety of different views and I think even, as I understand it, even the CIA take on it or the Defense Intelligence take or whatever was not totally black-and-white. And I think -- that’s why I say Rorschach test, I think you see in it what you think you want to see or what you see [sic] -- but I can’t speak to how the decision making actually happened in the White House beyond the books that I’ve read.

Let us first note the evolution of Ms. Rehm's questions. Note question #2. She begins with "President Bush apparently chose not to take into account intelligence coming from the State Department." Ms. Albright, apparently giving only lip-service to what she claims she does not know, suggests that she in fact does know what the thought processes were in the White House, gleaned from the tea-leaves found in sundry books she's read. Then comes question #3: "So, the President, President Bush chose to set aside intelligence..." Please notice that Ms. Albright has not at all shown this to be the case in her answer to question #2. She has said that she is ignorant, she admits that the questions are "hypothetical", and yet she augurs an interpretation, posits a scenario, and casts a spell on listeners, leaving us with the impression that she knows what she cannot know.

But there is something even more telling here, and I hope you discerned it. Let's just look at the highlighted statements that Ms. Albright offers regarding intelligence sources coming before her in the Clinton Administration: "...the State Department intelligence booklet for the day and then the CIA person would come in and give me the, now everybody knows, this PDB, the President’s Daily Brief, and then a longer version of it and what would happen frankly, Diane, was that they never were flat out black-and-white" and, "so it was all speculative." Ms. Albright informs us that the intelligence reports sent up from the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA, "[all] operate off the same intelligence takes" and that "they all said something slightly different."

OK. Let's get our bearings for a second. Ms. Albright wants us to believe that Bill Clinton and his cabinet maintained a "collegial approach", that he was particularly fond of Ms. Albright's State Department contributions to intelligence briefings, that each brief submitted by each department was dependent on the same source material and were thus only "slightly" different and never black-and-white, and that the Clinton Administration would have interpreted the Rorschach inkblot (aren't they black and white?) differently. Perhaps she is right. And yet(!) we have to reconcile all that she has said with her unbelievable indictment of the Bush Administration:

"...but there clearly were a variety of different views [in the Bush White House] and I think even, as I understand it, even the CIA take on it or the Defense Intelligence take or whatever was not totally black-and-white. And I think -- that’s why I say Rorschach test, I think you see in it what you think you want to see or what you see [sic] -- but I can’t speak to how the decision making actually happened in the White House beyond the books that I’ve read."

An astute interviewer would have jumped all over Ms. Albright's absurdity, for it appears that Ms. Albright has actually said nothing intelligible. A variety, Ms. Albright? I thought you just said the various intelligence views were not really various. Of course, an astute interviewer would also have been more circumspect, maintaining some self-awareness that her questions were loaded and leading. But we must ask how Ms. Albright is not alarmed with herself, failing, as she did, to reconcile her assertions that intelligence reports come from the same source material and are only slightly different from brief to brief. And yet President Bush, by her insinuation, ignored a "variety" of intelligence, a "variety" Ms. Albright just admitted doesn't even exist.

A Collegial Myth

Of course, Ms. Albright and Ms. Rehm are parishioners in that church which holds to the political myth that President Bush is utterly incurious about a multiplicity of views (though Ms. Albright claims not to know what the "thought process" was); that the President listens only to what he wants to hear, that he heeded Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice and ignored Secretary Powell; that Bush is not at all "collegial." Of course, one might wonder why Mr. Bush would at all be collegial when the intelligences from these various representatives are based on the same bland sources and vary only slightly. But in the church of this myth, mysteries abound: To Albright, a singularity for her is a "variety" for President Bush.

But here's the rub, and let us shatter these religious delusions. In Ms. Rehm's interview with Ms. Albright in 2000 on the same NPR program, when Ms. Albright was still in the Clinton White House, Ms. Rehm confronted Ms. Albright (read transcript) with this truly curious question about a press speculation regarding the aforementioned collegiality (which is followed by Ms. Albright's curious answer):

DR: Why do you think the press has taken up this issue as to whether Madeleine Albright is making foreign policy or whether it's [National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger who has the President's ear?

MA: Well, I think it's one of those kind of who's up, who's down, who plays what game in Washington. And it changes all the time. Sandy and I have a lot of laughs over it, frankly.

And just before this exchange, Ms. Albright offered us this insight into the inner collegiality of the Clinton White House:

"...the President expects us to have differences. That's what we're paid for. If we all agreed, I think there would be something wrong. But, basically, when there is a disagreement, then it goes to the President, and he needs the benefit of a lot of different opinions.

"And partially also what happens is when we meet -- and we all meet constantly -- it is everybody's job to see a foreign policy perspective or a national security perspective from the perspective of the department that you represent. And if I didn't do that or Secretary Cohen didn't do that, we wouldn't be doing our jobs. So this is how foreign policy is made in the United States in terms of people looking at it from different vantage points, presenting their best judgment to the President of the United States."

Ahh. So the various voices in the White House were "paid" to "have differences." I see. So the Clinton White House was not singular in mind and purpose; it was not entirely collegial. And yet, alas, are you suggesting, Ms. Albright, that the Bush White House is too singular, and, simultaneously, that it also ignored a different viewpoint that, by your own admission, was only "slightly" different from the others? Or are you again only referencing what you know from "various books?" What books, Ms. Albright?

I am not overreaching when I say that Mss. Albright and Rehm have participated in passive sedition. This is not to pass judgment on them or their patriotism. I am judging their words, not their characters, hearts or souls. Of course, Jesus once said that "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But I will stick merely with the words. And the words are awful.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

Pat Robertson, Prophecy, And Partitioning

No one should be surprised when I confess I am no fan of Reverend Pat Robertson's. Perhaps my lack of respect for the man was borne when I first photographed him during his Presidential bid in 1987. His campaign stop was one of my first photojournalism assignments, perhaps my first candidate assignment, and I shot the whole event wonderfully, at least I thought so until, with about 5 minutes left to the gig, I discovered I had no film in my camera. I was eventually able to salvage something from the event, but I felt every bit the freshman. Admittedly Robertson had nothing to do with my mistake; he just reminds me of my own failures. But I've long held a suspicion, not of the man, but of the ambitious idea that God wants to establish something resembling a Christian state. God might indeed desire the melding of Church and State, but I have my doubts.

If there is one thing that can be said about the media, if you've said something unpopular, they will vigorously misquote you; or, at best, they will 'accurately misrepresent' you. Robertson found himself in the media spotlight last week for his alarming assertion that Ariel Sharon's recent stroke and brain hemorrhage were punishment meted out by the Almighty. That this may be in fact be the case eludes the best progressive minds of our young century, as only two weeks ago we were all handed a heavy dose of the limitations of science in the wake of a Pennsylvania Intelligent Design court decision: there are some things science can never know. But one thing science can know, infallibly, is that Pat Robertson is wrong. Or so it goes.

I believe Mr. Robertson is in fact guilty, but not of the intellectual crimes for which the media have indicted him. But before I journey into Mr. Robertson's mistakes, let us compare what Mr. Robinson actually said with what he reportedly said. This, I promise, will be fun. Here is what he said on his 700 Club program:

'Ladies and Gentlemen I said last year that Israel was entering into the most dangerous periods of its entire existence as a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of Sharon. Sharon was personally a very likeable person and I am sad to see him in this condition, but I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who “divide my land.” God considers this land to be His. You read the Bible and He says “this is my land” and for any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says “no, this is mine.” I had a wonderful meeting with Yitzhak Rabin in 1974. He was tragically assassinated, it was a terrible thing that happened but nevertheless he was dead. And now Ariel Sharon who again was a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with, I prayed with him personally, but here he’s at the point of death. He was dividing God’s land and I would say woe unto any Prime Minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says “this land belongs to me. You’d better leave it alone.”'

Please note that nowhere does Robertson actually state that Sharon is being punished. He may imply such a fact, but he does not say it outright. Robertson, long a zealous supporter of Israel's independence and legitimacy as a state, is merely warning that God allegedly does not take the partitioning of Israel lightly: Woe to those who parcel out My land. Robertson is quite clear, really, that he likes Sharon, has prayed with him, and is in fact sad to see him ill. Robertson is merely speculating that Sharon's illness might be a sign of God's wrath; how else to explain its timing and severity?

OK. You are now thinking I am some sort of shill for Mr. Robertson. I will defend myself in a moment. But let us look at what MSNBC has on its website regarding Mr. Robertson's remarks.

Here is the MSNBC headline:

White House blasts Robertson's Sharon remark: Christian broadcaster said stroke is God’s wrath for ‘dividing God’s land’

How about this at the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency) website:

"Robertson: Sharon punished for dividing Israel - -- The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel."

At least the LA Times, The New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post show some restraint, headlining their reports with the verb "Robertson suggests" Sharon's stroke an act of God.

That Mr. Robertson stands in a tradition which honors prophecy is not to go unnoticed. Evangelicalism is enamored of prophetic utterances, whether by such prophets as the aforementioned Joel, or those who might speak today from the pulpit. Sadly, this latter fascination with prophecy is one of evangelicalism's most pronounced weaknesses. Prophets abound in the fundamentalist and evangelical backwaters, and even, to be frank, in the highest courts of evangelical fervor. Such prophets compete, not so much one to another, but for spiritual supremacy in their respective milieus, often leaving their followers stymied as to how to respond to a decree uttered by God to the man in charge. That this leads to gross abuses of the mind, an unfettered subjectivism that is impossible to rebuff, is undeniable.

But it is not merely backwater conservative believers, or Robertson devotees, that turn to prophecy. The Reverend Gene Robinson, the gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, a true liberalizer and sturdy Democrat, believes that the liberalizing of sexual identities (homosexuality in particular) is a move of God, an act of the Holy Spirit. Of course, once Mr. Robinson so decreed his Great Awakening, silence becomes the masses: it is hard to argue with God.

Ostensibly, there are two types of prophecy: that which predicts or augurs the future, and that which discerns the lessons of God in what history presents. The former represents the popular definition of prophecy, with predictions channeled in Nostradamus-like clairvoyance. The other type of prophecy, hardly known and less appreciated because of its lack of gravitas, sees trends and signs and events and interprets a lesson, a warning, a shining message that God might want us to hear. To me, a modern example of this might be C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength," though less Christian minds, like George Orwell or Ayn Rand, strike me as tapping into a similar prophetic spirit.

Pat Robertson's mistake is that he blends this latter form of prophecy not with mystical clarity, not with pristine vision of God's dazzling decrees, but with judgmentalism. What do I mean? I mean that he comes dangerously close to suggesting that he knows that something is a punishment, when he means to say that one "might be" punished if God's will is forsaken. The former is a judgment; the latter a warning. Even Jesus's disciples fell into the same sort of trap, wondering whether a child was born blind as punishment for sins either he or his parents had committed. Jesus's answer was surprisingly Other.

To suggest that Ariel Sharon was struck by God is a bold one, and I am not fit to pronounce judgment on it. There seems to be plenty of materialistic explanations for Sharon's ill health; but the will of God eludes me in these deeper matters, as God may have, indeed, caused Sharon's illness. Who knows? I mean that, not in a cavalier way, but in an intellectually honest one. Who knows about the divine? Science doesn't, as we have so fully learned through the Intelligent Design debate: Science must be silent in the face of religious propositions. Of course, it never is, as doctors step to the microphone daily to demystify the world of mind and body, and the invisible world beyond them both.

For me, let Robertson be. Prophets must pay the price for their work. It is, I am sure, a horrid vocation. But prophecy is either true or it is not. Only time, study, and healthy interrogation can lead us toward the proper vantage point from which to judge such utterances. My only sorrow is that there is such a lust for prophetic dominance, on the left and right, much of which is harmful; much of which is ignored.

Do you hear the hue and cry? Outrage! Umbrage! Robertson is a fool! or so shout the pundits. But the President of Iran, who hopes that Sharon dies, gets a pass. Sad, really, that this is so. Equally sad is the energy expended in trying to connect Robertson's remarks to the viciousness of real terrorists, straining to find an Al Qaida connection between American fundamentalism and militant Islam, fudging each of our individual intelligences. Heard a fatwa issued by the 700 Club lately?

No. You haven't.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Ringing In (My Ears) The New Year: Miners And Letterman

It is the first post of 2006 here at Contratimes, and I am just oozing with contrition. Forgive my absence. It is rude of me to invite you here and not have something to offer.

In the What Was That? category, I am inclined to wonder, through my own personal sorrow, about the entire West Virginia mining tragedy. I have kept my distance, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually, from that event, rejecting any suggestion that I am obligated to respond to everything the media offers up; knowing, as I do quite well, that, if I was so obligated, I would instantly be rendered useless. For each news photo, each headline, requires a different intellectual and emotional response. To abuse oneself emotionally by submitting to a barrage of news images of any kind, like some sociopath in "A Clockwork Orange," is to abuse what should be hallowed: the individual's personal control over his or her own thoughts and feelings. So, for me to watch too closely the televised sorrow of inconsolable mining families is perhaps an exercise in voyeurism and masochism, for I can do nothing to help them.

But I must ask: How is it that anyone awaiting news of the fate of a group of loved ones would ring church bells, raise hands in the streets, and praise Jesus on high when learning that 12 of 13 miners survived? What about grief, and some restraint, over the one miner that was ostensibly lost? What about some circumspection, some reserve, some silent sorrow? Hailing God for miracles is fine, but not when God is only miraculous 12 of 13 times. Perhaps one's own loved one is the deceased victim; perhaps the person with whom you are jumping up and down is the one who has lost someone dear to them.

Forgive me for what must sound cold-hearted. It is not. I realize the stress of waiting; the burden of waning hope. I am intimate friends with dread and the fulfillment of rumors of bad news. So I chalk up the premature celebration as so much disorientation, a confusion brought on by stress, sleeplessness, hunger, cold, fear, and the omnipresent and insatiable lust for drama the very presence of the media incites. Cameras scream for drama, for melodrama, for illusion and theater and make-believe. Those of us seasoned in the news business know one adage well: the camera always lies.

*****

You've heard about it, I am sure. It has been played on Good Morning, America. It has been printed in the daily papers: Bill O'Reilly was trashed by David Letterman.

Permit me to reduce Mr. Letterman's comments to the most essential points: He described O'Reilly's pontifications as "60-percent crap." He dismissed O'Reilly as incapable, on moral grounds, of criticizing war-critic Cindy Sheehan because he, O'Reilly, had never lost a loved one on the battlefield. And he asked, rhetorically, why America was involved in Iraq at all.

Of course, Mr. O'Reilly never really stood a chance. Letterman was an ingracious host, interrupting O'Reilly at every turn (O'Reilly can do that on his own show, which is, after all, a debate-driven program).

But here is the problem (remember, I am no O'Reilly fan). To suggest that Mr. O'Reilly cannot criticize a vocal critic of the war merely because he himself has not suffered loss is fallacious. I've never lost a family member in an airplane crash. Does that fact disqualify me from criticizing those grieving parents who believe subsequently that no one should be permitted to fly? I've never lost a limb climbing moving trains. Should I not criticize the amputee encouraging my daughter to join him in adventure-sport's newest trend because I still have two legs and two arms? I've never killed anyone. Does that disqualify me from censuring those who have? You get the picture. David Letterman, and this is perhaps too kind, has offered an argument a child might construct. It is the "who are you?" argument. It is fatuous and forgettable. And yet the audience applauds!

And if Mr. Letterman truly does not understand why Iraq is central to the War on Terror, I must repeat the fact once again: Iraq is central because Osama bin Laden made it central in his fatwa against the US. If any reader refuses to embrace this fact as absolute, if any reader chooses to ignore Mr. bin Laden's fatwa of 1998 (see this essay, or this), that reader chooses to be a child. The only legitimate point of debate is not whether Iraq is central, but whether war was the proper response to that centrality. That is a point worth debating. But anyone who believes Iraq is an irrelevant distraction has chosen intellectual infantilism.

Lastly, by his own admission, Letterman does not watch "The O'Reilly Factor." And yet he receives plaudits from his audience and media colleagues for criticizing a man's performances he has never seen. Intellectual hypocrisy? Who cares. Junior-high school opining? Loud cheers!!

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

On The Third Day Of Christmas

In comparison to Holy Week–Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter–the commercialization of Christmas is easy to understand. It is a season filled with palatable symbols: a star in the darkness, a baby, a manger, a chorus of angels. It is a time of romance, of fireplaces and gifts, of dinner and wine and wassail and roasting chestnuts. It is a time of hope and even nostalgia, where peace on earth and good will toward men is most keenly felt in blessed assurances and gentle salutations. It is a season of beginnings, of birth and rebirth, of flocks of sheep and how a little child shall lead them.

It is easy to celebrate giving, sharing, getting. It is easy to pour forth money in celebration of the earth's rounding the corner of solstice, of humanity's hope for a better and brighter world, of the portents of spring. For the winter solstice, at least for much of the living earth, is in truth the first harbinger of spring, even of summer. Who doesn't want to celebrate the grand abundance the universe so generally offers her children? Who doesn't love the gifts of life symbolized in evergreen and lengthening days; in the stars mirrored in every drifting snowflake?

To Christendom, these glorious Twelve Days are a blessed, hallowed time, culminating, as they do, in the great Epiphany of Christ to the gentiles, those who heretofore had moved about in darkness. But to Christians attentive to the Faith, all this hoopla and pageantry, all this decking of halls is so much futility; it is just mere paganism and fertility cults wrapped in ribbon and mistletoe, if Christ is not Christ, if Easter is not Easter, if death is not overcome.

That is why Holy Week is so much more difficult to commercialize: It is too difficult to package the bloodied Christ heaving through the streets of sorrow; the scorned and rejected baby in the manger, his swaddling clothes shredded by thorns and whips, his ravaged body gulping bloody air, the sand of Jerusalem abrading his every wound. It is too difficult to sell toys around an arrest and a scourging; it is too difficult to herald like so many angels the coming of that Death which must come for life to be granted in abundance. No angels gather, no carollers either, on the trash heap upon which Christ's blood drains outside the most desirable neighborhoods. There is no star over the cross, no nebula over the tomb. There is just the quiet cry of a God forsaken before mocking crowds, with the message splashing from a pierced Savior that each of us must finally die alone.

Indeed it is too much to commercialize the mortality of God; and it is too morbid to remind ourselves of the mortality of men. A God whose goodness is honored with brutality penetrates too deep beneath the deceptions we tell ourselves that if we are just "good enough" no bad "shall ever on us befall." Christmas songs and sundry other charms tell us that we will be rewarded by a rotund saint who "knows whether [we've] been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake." We better not pout, better not cry. For pouting and crying are too much like Good Friday.

But just as it is too much to remind ourselves about the death of that Christmas baby, it is too much for even the greediest capitalist to exploit Easter's scandalous empty tomb. For the Easter story is all too rational, for Christ is either alive or he is dead. It is too if-then, lacking all the poetic imagery of Christmas angels and Advent wreaths. It is too clinical, with rigor mortis warmed and gravecloths emptied by the power of Hope. It is too scientific, with physics defied as stones roll about seemingly of their own accord (or they do not). Where is the little baby and the little lamb and the sweet little star of Christmas that we so adore? Alas, they are but quaint knick-knacks compared to the one awful act of God: He refused to stay dead to our schemes.

It is easy to be a Christmas person, even a Christmas Christian, enamored of beginnings and the pageant encircling the opening of a great drama. But it is hard to be an Easter Christian, reminded of the ending, the falling and rending of the curtain, the ending which we do not, and cannot, control. Christmas might indeed be the news that "God is with us", but Easter is the story of God without us, and of our own deprivation; and of the triumphant news that He cannot be destroyed. In short, Easter is about us pushing against that stone, digging in our heels, straining to keep God dead.

But His message remains: "I am still here, looking for you. Now what?"

Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will,

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Reason #3: Lazy Faire

Picking up where I left off last week, I continue my meager attempts at answering the question posed to me by a Boston radio-personality: "Why do you think this country is so divided today? Why is it that your neighbor–if you said you support the war in Iraq–why is it that your neighbor will call you a fascist or a warmongering pig?" I have already posited two reasons for consideration, the first being revenge for an alleged injustice against President Clinton; the second being the inherently fallacious and consequently divisive ideals of democracy. Today, I turn to the notion of laissez-fairism, that "policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering." (Oxford American Dictionary)

Typically, when people think or speak of laissez-faire, they usually do so in the context of economics. It is in the marketplace, in the economic engines of commerce, where the laissez-faire attitude is oft-assumed with an optimistic trust in natural market forces and a deep mistrust in human intrusion and control of those forces. "Do not meddle" might be the motto of many an economist.

Moreover, it is typical to associate laissez-faire economic policies with conservatism, with capitalists indignant of any state-controlled economies and sounding the alarms whenever socialists or some such opponents of private ownership approach a market's treasuries. For it is usually the leftists who want to control economies, redistributing property rights or ownership or production or income to the less fortunate; the proletariat. Liberals tend to oppose "multinatinonals"; they tend to oppose what appear to be monopolies of production. In short, liberals tend to distrust the laissez-faire market, convinced that money breeds greed, and a lust for power, which eventually trickles down to the lower classes, not as shared wealth, but as exploitation and alienation.

No doubt markets do need some controls placed upon them: monopolies do form and are perhaps harmful; and not all goods should be marketable, subject to mere market forces of supply, demand and competition; as there is a demand (for example) for child pornography and prostitution, though such "demand" hardly justifies the acceptability of that market.

But what is curious is that while conservatives are deemed too lenient on economic forces, and liberals too stringent, the opposite is true when it comes to, let's say, most sexual behaviors. Liberals tend to be very "hands off" when the topic of decency in art and speech and sexual mores is raised, while conservatives tend toward a fairly legalistic response to apparent licentiousness. Liberal pro-choice women shout out "Keep your hands off my body!" to any state suggestion that perhaps abortion rights have run amok; while conservatives would like to see the great monoliths of American permissiveness, from Howard Stern to Hugh Hefner, from Hollywood to Manhattan art galleries, be restrained by laws and regulations (or by cuts in federal grants) from producing alleged filth. Liberals want to control wealth, guns and conservative speech (the whole PC agenda); conservatives want to control certain sexual practices, the death penalty, and the definition of marriage. In other words, one group is no more or less laissez-faire than another. The sole difference between the liberal and conservative is over the proper objects of control.

Similarly, it is not really the case that liberals are relativists and conservatives are absolutists (though I think this is arguably true in many cases). For it is readily apparent that liberals do in fact believe in absolutes absolutely, with a tenacious dogmatism that smacks of the Inquisition. Considering homosexuality, for example, liberals are pellucid in their vision: homosexuality has always been intrinsically OK, it's just been absolutely misunderstood. Furthermore, what is absolutely and eternally wrong to a liberal is homophobia, which has never been either right or acceptable; and is anathema to a free and healthy human family. Abortion is also an absolute right of a woman's intrinsic freedom, composing the very fabric of what it means to be a mother, autonomous and independent.

In short, liberals and conservatives battle over what is inherently sinful in humanity. For both want to control behaviors. Liberals, it seems, aware of the good and bad in each person, nonetheless seem to believe that economic sins and temptations are the worst of evils; that "money is the root of all evil"; that greed and power always corrupt absolutely and are a threat to democracy. As for the good in humanity, liberals believe that self-expression, once unfettered from economic anxieties and lusts, is inherently wonderful, the guarantor of each person's glory. Conversely, it is conservatives who appear to deem self-expression, particularly that which expresses itself through carnality, as the bane of humanity; and that the production of wealth, unfettered by the state, creates "incentive" and "opportunity" for all, lifting humanity up from the state-controlled gutters and ghettoes of Stalinism and Maoism that destroy hopes and dreams. And it is the conservatives who recognize that St. Paul did not say that "money is the root of all evil," but that the"love of money" is evil's tenacious root. That is why conservatives tend to accept some market controls, combined with a healthy personal religious faith, knowing that greed is corrupt and corrupting, and an empty and deadly idol. But to the conservative, St. Paul's warnings are less dire than Jesus Christ's, who said that "It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man, but what comes out of him." In other words, unmitigated self-expression is not a good thing.

So, it appears that we can conclude that both liberals and conservatives believe humans are originally sinful; they just disagree over what are the most deadly sins, and what are the best solutions to alleviating the sufferings caused by those sins. But it would seem to me that if we could just come together and agree that both sides are right, that greed and sexual promiscuity are dangerous idols no one, apparently, wants to surrender to the fires; that economic and sexual prosperity are not anyone's salvation (more is rarely better, after all) in the cults of market and self-worship; if we could agree that we are all fallen, that all our ideas are imperfect; if we could begin to be more sentient of language and its abuse, assiduously fighting for linguistic clarity rather than derisively fighting through linguistic haziness; if we could, in short, be kind and patient one to another, guided by the power of love and reason, we might find a middle way, a via media, from whence we can move forward. Yes, perhaps the dialectic is good, where conflicts breed resolutions. But we would all have to agree that dialectic is in fact good. Sadly, we can't even agree to that.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

In Memoriam

In a Maine online newspaper I found this lovely obituary/tribute to my friend M., a 43-year-old neurologist and osteopathic doctor, who died on Thursday:

Because of his compassionate nature he often treated patients regardless of their ability to pay. M. was a sensitive and kind soul who took nothing at face value. He was intensely emotional and found deeper meaning in everything, expressing himself creatively through poetry. He boldly spoke of his Christian faith and God's "awesome" love. M. approached life fearlessly, didn't take no for an answer, and to his credit, he rarely had to. He was never intimidated or embarrassed to make waves or stand up for what he believed in. He embraced nature and all its elements. He loved to sleep under the stars, especially in Maine where he said the stars shine the brightest. Breathing in the fresh air of morning was a simple pleasure to him.

Odd where life leads us. Even odder is where we lead life.

Yesterday morning, while reading Oscar Wilde's De Profundis, a lengthy letter he drafted from prison, I found the following passage amid Wilde's struggles over Christ, suffering, and the consequences of being imprisoned:

"If ... a friend of mine gave a feast, and did not invite me to it, I shouldn't mind a bit. I can be perfectly happy by myself. With freedom, books, flowers, and the moon, who could not be happy? Besides, feasts are not for me any more. I have given too many to care about them. That side of life is over for me, very fortunately I dare say. But if ... a friend of mine had a sorrow, and refused to allow me to share it, I should feel it most bitterly. If he shut the doors of the house of mourning against me I would come back again and again and beg to be admitted, so that I might share in what I was entitled to share in. If he thought me unworthy, unfit to weep with him, I should feel it as the most poignant humiliation, as the most terrible mode in which disgrace could be inflicted on me. But that could not be. I have a right to share in Sorrow, and he who can look at the loveliness of the world, and share its sorrow, and realize something of the wonder of both, is in immediate contact with divine things, and has got as near to God's secret as anyone can get."

I want to know that secret. I know it stands at the crux of paradox. Perhaps a cheap adage, borne of M.'s favorite sport of body-building, speaks to Wilde's larger point: No pain, no gain. No doubt it might be better said as "Know pain, know gain." Forgive the diminution of a powerful paradox, but even small things can speak to the deep mysteries.

The flag flies half-staff here at Contratimes.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

When The Phone Rings Late At Night

It is rare that a ringing phone late at night, interrupting slumber, is a harbinger of glad tidings. Midday the sound of a ringing phone is more like laughter than the ominous alarm it becomes around midnight.

Last night, as I dangled over the abyss of deep sleep, I got such a phone call, which was intercepted by the answering machine. I could hear a muffled voice, shrouded by distance, time and my own fatigue. There was anxiety in the tone. Things were uttered hastily. Then, silence.

I can't remember how long I waited. I discerned that it was not a call made for fun; nor was it a wrong number or a call from a tipsy friend too many time zones away to know the difference between AM and PM. I took a deep breath. Finally, I slid downstairs so I could have my heart fall through my feet. I pushed the button, my heart fell.

The voice was a weaker version of an old friend, a college buddy, a tower of a man who was clearly reeling. He is now a family man, and the principal bassoonist for one of the grandest symphony orchestras in the world. We had not spoken in years. "Call me, please. Soon." There was no hiding the urgency, no doubting the anxiety.

Reluctantly, with a deep sigh and an even deeper prayer, I called him back. It was about M., another college buddy who was a neurologist and osteopath, a man of humble origins who had achieved great things, a former wrestling star in his home state, a handsome gem of a man. M. had killed himself.

I am no stranger to suicide. I am no stranger to death. Tragedy, for most of us, is found in our marrow. As Oscar Wilde wrote, life's lesson is that we each must come to terms with living in the Kingdom of Sorrow. But this news came as a shock; for much of M.'s life made associating suicide with his own fate impossible. He was out-going, personable, handsome, attractive, kind, sincere, sweet, brilliant, successful, and deep. He was self-reflective like few men are; he seemed to know himself and thus would seek help when needed. He was wise, and full of vigor. He had the soul of a counselor; the heart of a priest.

And yet, there was something else. I have scant details, but I know. I know the trials of life, what besets the soul, what pesters the heart and mind, what depresses the will to live. I am a friend with the cheerless face of futility; I know the haunting fear that things cannot and will not ever change. I know the demons, and they are legion.

The last time I saw M. was a few years ago at Acadia, the glorious national park on Maine's coast. We climbed a couple of mountains, swam in a mountaintop pond. We boiled lobster; we punched each other in the shoulders. We drank wine in Sorrento at the Gamble summer compound (of Proctor & Gamble fortunes) overlooking Frenchman's Bay and Mt. Desert Island, called to that cocktail party by Mrs. Gamble, a patient of M.'s osteopathy practice; and the sunset was beautiful.

It is hard for me to think of suicide against that backdrop. It's even harder to think of suicide and the Colorado Rockies, which is where M. was living when he divined that life was not worth living.

But it is even harder to conjure up the image of suicide as the end of M.'s life when I think of him, as a freshman, in his dorm room adjacent to mine in Byington Hall at Gordon College in 1980. It is hard to think of his playfulness, his intense interest in others; it is hard to think of his fervent, passionate prayers with me kneeling in our rooms, calling out to Christ for strength, guidance and, perhaps most of all, intervention; it is hard to think that for M. Christ's answers came and were unhelpful; or that Christ's answers never came at all; or that they came and none of us could hear them. It is hard to think that a man of such faith could become a man of such despair.

Yesterday, while riding the chairlift to the top of my local ski mountain, I shared with a friend that I was blessed to have been intimate with a crowd of college friends who were the brightest students in the school. All were over-achievers; all were brilliant and dynamic. And I, or so I said yesterday with all sincerity (and I will say it today), was the dumbest of the bunch. I remain the dumbest of the bunch, the underachiever par excellence. But somehow I am achieving something, in spite of myself, that M. could not. Perhaps it is that I am growing comfortable with my own lost dreams; and that I do not fear the inevitability of old age or that most of my pants no longer fit my waistline.

But I do know this: That I am comfortable with the silence of God, knowing that such silence is not proof of His voicelessness; rather it is proof of the din of my life, my interior life, the constant, deafening sounds of my demands, of my expectations ringing in my ears.

My dear M., you remain my brother. I have the broken, forever crooked nose to prove it, you having broken it for me, by accident, our freshman year. Each morning I look in the mirror I see my noseline turn a little more astray, my septum deviated to my right. You are part of me; last night my restless dreams saw how much of you is in me, and I am grateful. And, despite the naysayers who assert post-mortem futility, I know your baptism, and thus, I pray for you: Christ have mercy on us both. For my time will come when I too am a late-night phone call.

But I won't be dialing. My fate is in Someone else's hands.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Reason #2: We Are All Kings And Queens

Continuing yesterday's answer to the question posed to me by a Boston radio personality, I offer Reason #2. That question, in short, was why America is so thoroughly divided over the Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. Why the viciousness? Why the hate?

Part of me is tempted to reduce the issue solely to economics: never before have so many people had the means, power and opportunity to profit from political ax-grinding. Never before have there been so many pundits, so many critics, and so many customers willing to pay for punditry that tickles the ears. In the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, there were really only three sets of TV pundits, those on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Today we giggle at the old-fashioned thought of a few talking heads in pre-satellite quaintness; we've got instant news dished about the cosmos in instant fashion, with everyone serving as anchorman or anchorwoman. But with loads of markets and media through which those markets can be reached, money swirls around opinion, news and commentary like never before. There is a lot of action of which everyone wants a cut.

But it is about much more than money. It is about our being kings and queens.

Reason #2: Democracy is inherently divisive.

There are quotes we read every day that go in one eye and out the other. And then there are quotes that go in both eyes and clang around our heads for the rest of our lives. Here is one such mind-changing quote of Professor Raphael Demos' of Harvard University. Demos was describing Plato’s conflicts with his culture:

The Sophists gave rise to the prevailing tone of cynical disillusionment. They preached the relativity of all values. Private interpretation is the sole guide to conduct; right is nothing but power. What is good here or now, is bad elsewhere or at some other time. Man is the measure of all things - not collective man but the individual. Truth depends on one’s point of view; both virtue and belief are conventions; they have no basis in the nature of things. Plato took a determined stand against the Sophists... According to Plato there is a true right and wrong, which is a universal principle for all times. ... He objected to democracy, because a democratic society has no standards; the test is merely self-expression. The democratic life is one without a pattern, in which every desire is gratified because it is there, not because it is right. [emphasis added]

You need to read the quote again, then tape it to your bedroom ceiling. It is one of the most astute and prophetic statements ever made, astute in its trenchant insights, prophetic in what it says about today's culture wars (though Demos wrote this in 1937 about Plato's cultural battles 2,000 years earlier). What it suggests is that democracy is inherently divisive, where each voice is valid and each impulse is recognized by the chair. What it suggests is exactly what we each see in our workplaces everyday, where everyone knows more than the boss; it is what we hear on every op-ed page, where everyone is a better president or general; it is what we hear in our churches and synagogues, where everyone is a better pastor, priest, rabbi. We live in a culture where everyone could, in theory, run for president, or even be president. We live in a culture wherein we teach our children that there is no dream they should not dream; that they can be anything they want to be, even the CEO of America; or that they, as mere amateurs, can nonetheless critique with pride the performances of the best athletes, writers, philosophers, or religious leaders in the world.

Oscar Wilde wrote that even if his pursuit of Art was thwarted, he would nonetheless write on the lintel, if he could, scribbling there the word "Whim." If Art is Whim, democracy is whimsical. For it is inherently schizophrenic and moody, adapting to each powerful majority or protected minority with nary a thought. Its tastes are capricious; its thirst for change unslakeable. Everyone is right, even when they are wrong yesterday and perhaps wrong tomorrow. For even error is celebrated as "participation," or "openness," or as a vital part of "dialogue," provided, of course, that the object being discussed is not the anathema du jour. For to be wrong the wrong way is unforgivable.

There is a rarely mentioned fallacy called the fallacy consensus gentium. It is a relative (among others) of the fallacy argumentum ad populum. The latter is committed when one asserts that a thing must be true because it is popular; the former is committed when one asserts that a thing must be true (or false) because most people deem it so. The fallacy consensus gentium is the most democratic of all fallacies: voting and polling, the modus operandi of democracies, are used to determine the laws of the land. But to some of us, moral issues are not to be determined by a show of hands; we don't care what most people think about behaviors X and Y. We believe that unencumbered reason can determine truth, falsehood, and moral decency. But to submit moral and even political issues to a vote, at least to the logically minded, is to celebrate fallaciousness. Democratic rule is inherently irrational, built entirely on fallacy.

And democratic rule is hardly what most of us want when crisis hits the fan. I do not want a democratic fire department putting out a fire in my home; I do not want a democracy removing my gall bladder. I do not want a democracy running FEMA in the face of a Category 5 hurricane; and I do not want a democracy shaping the ecclesiastical and religious teachings necessary for the salvation of my soul. Democracy may be what is necessary for the governance of a country, but it need not permeate every aspect of life, particularly when we tout our society as based on reason. Democracy's inherent fallaciousness proves it to be full of wishful thinking. Forming committees may indeed build fraternity and community, but a committee is the last thing one wants protecting that fraternity and community from terrorism.

Granted, not every democratic decision is about morality. Historically, democratic decisions in this country addressed policy, how the body corporate should enforce laws, or recover taxes, or fund a military. But increasingly, or so I believe, we are voting on moral issues; we are polling on right and wrong, up and down. To extend democratic processes beyond their scope, to depend on them for guidance through moral and social issues, is to court disaster; for unreason is the fount of such dependence.

Thus, we can conclude two things. First, the divisiveness of American culture is native to democracy; democracy is built on the illogic of fallacy. Second, democracy is purposefully indifferent to any absolute that is not the absolute of majority opinion, particularly that majority which is won in the United States Supreme Court. For the attentive, that fact cannot be more ironic.

Tomorrow, reason #3.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Bill Clinton, Bushbashing And Impeccable Privacy

I was asked, "Why do you think this country is so divided today? Why is it that your neighbor–if you said you support the war in Iraq–why is it that your neighbor will call you a fascist or a warmongering pig? Why the over-the-top animosity, an almost visceral, irrational hatred like I've never seen before in this country?"

My answer was that I had no answer (which was shameful, since I was on talk-radio and had a large audience).

Does anybody else have an answer? I'd love to hear it. I have a few ideas of my own, particularly for the en vogue Bush hatred that permeates "blue state" life. But I'd love to know what you think: Why the animus toward Bush; and why the vitriol sputtered between liberal and conservative? Of course, as I've already noted in this blog, this sort of divisiveness and venom is not new; in 1968, Nathan Glazer wrote (as a liberal) that his cohorts were damaging their cause by calling Lyndon Baines Johnson "Hitler" and America the "Third Reich." Hate is old news.

I will however toss my 2 cents into the tin kettle, adding, for a moment, to the din that dulls the ears. And since 2 cents is pretty much all I have (it's true), some of you shall gleefully conclude that it is clear I no longer have any cents at all.

Reason #1: A person's private life is private, and is no one else's business at all.

This old argument should be at the tip of everyone's tongue, for it is the essential ingredient in the culture wars in America given to defend Bill Clinton during his first presidential campaign for office in 1991. Hampered by allegations that his personal peccadilloes might be cause for, well, pause, Mr. Clinton, his handlers, and the Democrats who endorsed him jammed in the American face the defense that "a person's private life need not affect that person's public role." Americans heard that "what goes on in a person's bedroom should be no concern of ours," especially if the person is competent and attentive in the duties assigned to him (or her). Quick thinkers immediately realized the fallaciousness and recklessness of this argument. For example, no American, I would think, would want to elect for president any man (for argument's sake) who was alleged to be going through marital troubles, particularly troubles incited by his roguish behavior. The consequences could be deadly. Could a president lead a country effectively if he were to be slapped with a declaration of divorce? Could a president attend to the country's needs while mired in a child-custody battle with an angry spouse? Could a president fulfill his duties to his nation while sued for sexual harassment; for abusing his powerful position to solicit sexual favors; for abusing executive privileges for procuring a mistress?

Alas, we all know what happened, at least, we all think we know. But there are some, many really, who believe that Bill Clinton was impeached for a trifle, for merely "lying about sex," which hardly matters in the grand scheme, or so it is alleged. Clinton's only offense was for lying about his private life before the prurient (and paradoxically puritan), probing eye of an overzealous right-wing conspiracy intent on dragging an impeccable (well, slightly peccable) president down.

But before we toss this aside as so much overwrought support of a tragic figure in some Greek play, it should be noted that the Clinton affair as defended from the start of his presidential career was utterly and dangerously packaged. You see, when the U.S. President assumes office, he is no longer his own. He is the incarnation of the body politic; the incarnation of the constitution. He is the electorate in the flesh; he is the uncommonly Common Man, the very body of every American. He is not his own even in his own rooms, surrounded as those rooms are by Secret Service agents intent on keeping the Incarnate Word (of the state) safe. He is surely least his own when he steps into the Oval Office (the office of sexual infamy in the Clinton years). Thus, the presidential member (so to speak) is also not his own to treat willy-nilly (forgive me). And it is worth pointing out (and no one else has done so, as far as I know) that the Secret Service is obsessively concerned about the details of any president's life, right down to the minute and the calorie (is the food poisoned?). One wonders then how it was that the Secret Service permitted Mr. Clinton to be so cavalier with the presidential phallus, placed as it was (many times?) between the jaws of a woman who, for all we know, could have been a particularly vicious biter. Had Ms. Lewinsky been the sort of assassin who enjoyed sabotaging presidential piece initiatives, perhaps we'd all now be reading the best-selling biography, "Re-membering Clinton."

No doubt, and here's the point, Mr. Clinton abused his power to ward off the protections of the Secret Service, telling them to turn a blind eye to his security, placing them in a position NO PRESIDENT has a right to demand. Mr. Clinton abused not merely his wife and Monica Lewinsky, he abused the Secret Service, and us.

In short, Mr. Clinton hardly lied merely about sex. He lied about his abuses which were not private at all, as he was not, as president, a private citizen. And of course he lied to protect the legacy of his notable political actions from wag-the-dog criticisms (but to no avail).

Hence, the Bush-bashing is all payback for the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Clinton. No, that's not it. It's really anger for having been wrong about privacy and its effect on national life. A man's private morality really does affect his public morality, which is a truth no one wants to hear.

Reason #2 tomorrow.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.