A Blog from David Crump
For those of you who are interested in following up on my last post discussing the Christian church’s relationship to Pride Month, I promised you that I would add a link to my pastor’s Sunday morning message covering this topic.
You can find that link here. I hope you enjoy it and find yourself challenged and encouraged.
Gay pride month, with its rumblings over pronouns, sexual identity, and LGBTQIA issues, has stirred me to share a few of thoughts about the subtleties involved in these gender conversations which are generally overlooked by many of those who argue over them.
Christians are no exception to this generalization. In fact, we are often the worst at neglecting the relevant nuances when we ought to be the most sensitive to them. For these subtleties are uniquely Christian contributions to the public discussion about gay marriage and sexual-gender identities. If we don’t offer them up, it’s unlikely that anyone else will.
Shame on us for not being more biblically and theologically astute.
[By the way, my pastor recently gave an excellent message on these issues. Here is the link if you want to listen. The entire message is well worth your time, but his discussion of Pride Month begins at the 20:10 mark.]
First, Christians must remember that sexual identity does not entail (much less require) sexual activity.
The secular world jettisoned this fact long ago. Society assumes that whatever you “are” – gay, straight, bi, trans, what-have-you – you will be engaging in that particular “mode” of sexual activity. To be a sexual person means to be sexually active. It is both natural and inevitable.
Tragically, the Christian church has fallen into the trap of sharing this assumption, not only concerning those outside of the church but for those within it, as well.
We assume that a sexual-gender identity will always entail sexual activity. This is why straight men can become particularly cruel and heartless when discussing gay men. They imagine the sex acts involved and are often repulsed. That sense of revulsion is then sanctioned by the demeaning attitudes too often shared by fellow Christians. Thus, base cruelty, born of presumption and self-righteousness, becomes acceptable among the “godly.” This ought not to be.
The fact that the New Testament does, in fact, prohibit gay sexual activity is beside the point for now. As a Christian I understand that scripture only approves of sexual activity within the confines of marriage – that is, a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. All other sexual practices, whatever they may be, with whomever they may happen, fall under the condemnation of that old fashioned word fornication.
Fornication is an equal opportunity sin. It does not discriminate between straight, gay, bi, or what have you.
Anyone engaging in sexual activity with anyone other than his/her heterosexual spouse is guilty of sin. The intimate, mechanical details of this activity are irrelevant. No one needs to imagine anything. The only relevant question is this: is it marital sex (biblically defined) or fornication? It’s really that simple.
We also see this confusion arise when conservative Christians insist that “gay people cannot hold positions of church leadership.”
This simply is not true.
Nowhere does scripture condemn people for being born with gay or lesbian inclinations. Same-sex attraction is no more sinful than heterosexual attraction. The restrictive question is not one of attraction or inclination but of activity (real or imagined) with a particular partner.
Of course, gay people can serve as church leaders, provided that they remain celibate. Just as straight people can serve in church leadership, provided they remain celibate if single and faithfully monogamous if married.
The Christian church has an ancient, venerable tradition of life-long celibacy among its leaders, notwithstanding the horrific legacy of sexual abuse now on display within the Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches. Sin needs to be corrected, not awarded the power to scuttle right practices. Vows of celibacy are as old and as respectable as the apostle Paul.
Christians who automatically reject the idea of accepting gay Christians into leadership roles reveal that they too are making false assumptions. Remember, sexual natures do not require sexual activity. Celibacy is possible, especially when that leader is surrounded by an understanding, compassionate community of faith.
The second neglected subtlety concerns the place of sin, specifically our understanding of the Fall described in Genesis 3, within the workings of creation.
Only last night I listened to an interview with one of the leaders of America’s largest Protestant denomination. He was discussing the current controversies surrounding the “treatment” of childhood transgenderism. With great authority he declared that God had created only two genders/sexes: male and female. Thus, according to him, there could be no such thing as a genuinely transgendered human being.
You’ve probably heard this kind of thing before.
Unfortunately, this Christian leader (and all those like him) are wrong on both their theology and biology.
For starters, the creation story is followed by a sequel – the horrific story of the Fall in Genesis 3. Satan successfully tempts the first man and woman to disobey their Creator, thereby throwing a monkey wrench into God’s original design. Original sin is all pervasive, creating brokenness, rifts, splinters, and unintended consequences all throughout God’s creation. Things are no longer the way they were supposed to be.
Every Christian ought to understand this.
Furthermore, as a result of the Fall, even though God may have originally created only male and female, the monkey wrench of sin has complicated the gender mix considerably.
Now precious human beings who bear the Image of God can also be born as “intersex” individuals, possessing some combination of both male and female sexual organs. In fact, some medical professionals estimate that intersex births may be as high as 2% of annual birth rates. [I recommend watching the touching documentary Some Body to begin your introduction to this issue.]
Gender dysphoria – where a person is convinced that their true gender is inhabiting the wrong sort of body – is a genuine psychological condition, I believe. The monkey wrench of sin has damaged human psychology and genetics as well the human will and imagination.
Though I suspect that gender dysphoria is much rarer than many activists would have us believe, the Christian church must be a place where people struggling with this type of gender confusion can find God’s grace and compassion extended to them through a flesh and blood community.
To insist that God only created male and female is wrongheaded because it tells only half the story.
The second half of God’s story reminds us that nothing today is that neat and clean. For Satan then stepped into God’s creation to make a mess of things. And, with our help, he succeeded royally. Today’s church is called to deal graciously with that mess, the mess we call real life, where very few things, including sexual identities, are as neat and clean as we might like.
To retreat behind bad theology or poor Bible reading; to neglect important subtleties due to thoughtlessness; to make unwarranted or false assumptions about others; to compromise with the secular norms around us; or to forget that Jesus loves broken, hurting people – including you and me – is to fail in our responsibilities as God’s people.
The beauty of the gospel is that God’s grace through Jesus Christ is extended to everyone without discrimination, whether gay, straight, LGBTQIA, or something else altogether.
If you are a sinner like me, then Jesus loves you.
The church needs to become more informed, less reactionary, more biblical, less susceptible to following in the steps of society, and more exemplary of God’s Amazing Grace extended to all.
[It’s been a while since my last post! I will tell you about some of the things I’ve been doing in a few of the upcoming posts. Here are a few stories about our recent trip to Israel-Palestine. It also gives me a chance to plug my latest book, Like Birds in a Cage, which describes life in Aida camp more extensively.]
It had been nearly 5 years since we last visited our friends and loved one’s in Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem. So, we planned a return visit in early May and spent the rest of the month in our home away from home. We returned to the USA on May 31st. (Whereupon I was struck down by a long-menacing sinus infection. Ugh. But I am much better now, thank you.)
We had returned to the embrace of our Aida Camp family for no more than 10 days when 3 teenage boys were shot by Israeli soldiers, which is the standard punishment for throwing rocks towards heavily outfitted, helmet-wearing soldiers in body armor. Five years’ absence had not changed anything about daily life in Aida camp.
Actually, one of the boys was not shot by a living, breathing soldier but by a Terminator-style, automated, robotic, high-powered rifle. Only the night before a deadly device had been installed on top of the Apartheid Wall segregating Aida from the encroaching Jewish-only neighborhoods of SE Jerusalem. This new, robotic, high-powered rifle now rules over the main entrance to the camp; its field of fire covers the main Aida thoroughfare, several community centers, 2 playgrounds, 1 soccer field, a cemetery, and scores of apartments.
No one knows when or why the new installation may fire again. But this is nothing new. Palestinians have always served as unwilling guinea pigs for Israel’s cutting-edge military gadgets, whether it’s new teargas formulas, other “non-lethal” munitions, or facial recognition technology at checkpoints. No one has yet to inform Aida’s community leaders about the military’s rules of engagement for the new Terminator gun. But this is to be expected. Did Custer ever explain his military tactics to Sitting Bull?
Going to Massafer Yatta
On the first Friday of the month, we traveled with about 100 members of the Aida Youth Center to help an aged farmer work his land in a highly contested area south of Hebron known as Masafer Yatta.
Last year this Palestinian farmer was attacked by Jewish settlers from a nearby Jews-only settlement encroaching on this man’s agricultural land. The settlers broke both of the farmer’s hands. He was then jailed for 10 days without medical attention. [Nope, none of the settlers were arrested. “Law enforcement” in the West Bank exists to serve the purposes of Zionist settlement not to safeguard the Palestinians being displaced.]
My friend, Munther, had been in contact with this farmer and made arrangements for the young people of Aida Camp to replant his fields and rebuild one of the boundary markers along the border of a dirt roadway.
As the Palestinian teenagers picked up their farming tools, the disabled farmer welcomed everyone to his village. With his black and white kufiya blowing in the wind, he gave us instructions about where to plant the hundreds of starter plants we had brought along with us: grape vines, olive trees, as well as peach and apricot seedlings.
After a hard day’s work, planting and watering hundreds of new seedlings, we moved across a large stretch of rocky ground in order to rebuild the small rock wall demarcating the side of a narrow dirt road, running parallel to the edge of the field.
Now for Some Politics
It did not take long for Jewish settlers to emerge from the nearby Jewish-only settlement. They immediately set about destroying our wall, taking down the rocks we had put into place. They were soon followed by Israeli soldiers determined to chase us out of the area.
You see, Masafer Yatta has been declared an Israeli “military firing zone” which means that civilian occupation and agricultural development are prohibited. Palestinian villages have all received demolition orders, their long-time residents told to evacuate the area. Expulsions and demolitions have been ongoing for a long time.
Israeli authorities insist that the Palestinian residents, most of whom have lived on this land for many generations, often going back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, do not have the proper building permits necessary for them to stay where they are.
It’s a perfect Catch-22. Israel refuses to issue the very permits it requires of Palestinian residents, while also refusing to recognize the Ottoman-era title deeds the people still possess. The Mad Hatter couldn’t have devised a more insanely oppressive system.
The height of Israeli hypocrisy appears in the growth of Zionist, Jewish-only settlements in the very areas from which Palestinians are now being expelled. Declaring regions like Masafer Yatta a “closed military firing zone” is an old tactic used by the Zionist state.
It provides a cover story for the expulsion of the indigenous people who have lived here for generations, while simultaneously making room for more and more Jewish settlers who are apparently immune to the dangers of military firing zones. (Because no firing takes place.)
So a Palestinian farmer is beaten, his hands broken, and his land pillaged, while white settlers descended from recent European immigrants take over the region, building their shiny colonial startup cities with the help of Israeli state funding.
Eventually, we were all forced to leave the area as the Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and a stun grenade into the group of panicking teenagers. Munther, the group’s leader, is committed to nonviolent resistance. He was hectically moving from one spot to another, grabbing stones out of boys’ hands, trying to prevent anyone from throwing rocks at the soldiers.
The young people quickly loaded onto the bus that would take them back to Aida camp. Terry and I rode with Munther who was happy to avoid arrest and Israeli detention.
I wondered how long our plantings would survive. Are any of them still growing? Or have they all been ripped out of the ground by settlers?
Twitter suspensions have been in the news lately. But I am sure that most people have never heard about the suspension of Said Arikat, a reporter for the Palestinian publication, Al-Quds newspaper.
Arikat is a veteran journalist who has covered the US State Department for the past 20-years.
He was suspended without explanation, but his removal is very much in keeping with the anti-Palestinian bias of US mainstream media.
I’d bet my bottom dollar that he is the latest victim of the pro-Zionist, Israel lobby in this country — a collection of organizations that work hard to hide Israel’s human rights abuses and silence Palestinian voices.
The story is by Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss. It’s titled “Twitter Suspends Palestinian Journalist Arikat, and media response — silence.”
Below is an excerpt:
In yet another demonstration of anti-Palestinianism in the U.S. mainstream, there is no outcry over Twitter’s arbitrary suspension of Said Arikat, longtime D.C. correspondent for Al-Quds newspaper.
It was big news when Elon Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of at least nine tech journalists last week (over alleged dox-ing) and then reinstated them this week after Twitter users demanded as much.
But in yet another demonstration of anti-Palestinianism in the U.S. mainstream, there has been scarcely any attention given to the arbitrary suspension of Said Arikat, a fixture at the State Department briefings as the longtime Washington correspondent for Al-Quds newspaper, a Palestinian publication.
Arikat said he woke up on December 3 to read a notice from Twitter that his account had been “permanently suspended after careful review”. No reason was given; and despite the assurance that he could appeal the suspension if he thought the decision was wrong, Twitter has not responded to numerous letters Arikat has sent the media giant.
The only reason for Arikat’s suspension would seem to be that he is Palestinian and speaks up for Palestinians. His case has elicited no concern in the press. Let alone efforts to discover the pretext for the action.
Al-Quds is clearly being targeted as a Palestinian source. Today there is news that Facebook has shut down the official page of the Al-Quds newspaper.
Read the entire article here.
My pastor recently asked me if I had read Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022; 475 pages, $24.99). I assume that he asked because of my book, I Pledge Allegiance (Eerdmans, 2018), where I not only criticize all forms of nationalism but strongly condemn Christian nationalism, in particular.
Dr. Wolfe’s book was sitting untouched on my bookcase. So, I returned home from my conversation with my pastor determined to read a volume that seemed to be “making the rounds” in certain circles.
Sparked by the January 6th assault on the US Congress, decorated as it was with Christian imagery like a large wooden cross and handmade signs declaring “Jesus Saves,” there has been a recent flurry of books about Christian nationalism.
Some are for it. Some are against it.
Wolfe is very much in favor of overhauling America in order to make Christianity the national religion, the norm for public behavior and civic engagement, thus producing a thoroughly “Christian nation.”
Let me begin by putting my cards on the table: this book has so many serious problems, it made my head hurt to read more than short snippets at a time. A thorough review would require more space that I can give to it here, so I will focus my attention on Wolfe’s methodology and his consequent justification for viewing nationalism, especially Christian nationalism, as God’s plan for humanity.
A major part of the problem with The Case for Christian Nationalism arises from the fact that the author does not see its problems as a problem. In fact, he almost immediately dismisses any challenges to his approach as irrelevant or misplaced.
From the outset, Wolfe immunizes himself against any scripturally-based criticism by announcing that he “make(s) little effort to exegete biblical text (sic)” (16). Confessing that he is “neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar” with “no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation,” Wolfe instead is content to draw from the work of 16th and 17th century, “very Thomistic” Reformed scholars such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and the English Puritans, trusting that their theologies have already told us everything we need to know about the New Testament, Christian theology and their intersection with political theory.
Consequently, Wolfe’s method also excludes any engagement with alternative political theologies and traditions. He regularly refers to “the” (Reformed) Christian tradition as if alternatives such as the Anabaptist heritage, an important political/theological strain that differs radically from that of his Reformed icons, never existed. Thus, Wolfe not only immunizes himself against any biblical analysis but also from any divergent theological debate, as well.
It all makes for a safe way to write an extremely odd book.
Having established his presuppositional background, Wolfe then proceeds along the lines of natural theology, building on “a foundation of natural principles” (18); a predictably scholastic move. Finding natural, universal, theological principles in our world today means that Wolfe sees substantial lines of behavioral and structural continuity between the contemporary world of human affairs, on the one hand, and the human situation prior to Adam and Eve’s Fall into sin in Genesis 3, on the other.
Hypothesizing backwards, from the way things are today to the way things would have been had sin never entered creation, Wolfe constructs his own imaginary picture of human development. He fantasizes about human society dividing itself as different family groups migrated, separated, and moved apart from each other. Different linguistic dialects would have evolved, creating numerous, distinct communities increasingly distinguished from each other by geography, language, and cultural evolution.
“It follows,” Wolfe declares, “that Adam’s progeny would have formed many nations on earth, and thus the formation of nations is part of God’s design and intention for man (emphasis mine). . . the formation of nations is not a product of the fall; it is natural to man as man. . . The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather, it is natural and good” (22-23).
Notice how the imaginary elements of Wolfe’s theoretical, pre-Fall reconstruction are elevated to the status of God’s original design and intention for humanity. Tribalism is not an unfortunate expression of human divisiveness, antagonism, competition, or prejudice. Rather, it is “natural and good,” according to Wolfe. More on this in a moment.
This is a very old line of political argument following the dictates of natural theology. It is an important feature of the Dutch Kuyperian theological tradition that prevails, for instance, at Calvin University, the place where I used to teach. I have encountered it many times. But before we decide to join in with this Reformed theological mind-game, let’s be sure we understand the kind of game we are being asked to play.
For, remember, it is a fictitious game that makes up its own rules, leading to highly questionable results. Looking at “natural” human behavior today, Wolfe assumes a wide swath of unbroken continuity. He assumes that the contemporary modes of behavior we witness now would be equally natural and good for perfected humanity as originally designed by the Creator. In fact, it is the very behavior God originally intended! Thus, “the natural inclination to dwell among similar people is good and necessary (emphasis mine). Grace does not destroy or ‘critique’ it” (24).
In other words, God’s grace would never work to overcome segregation, the separation of the races, class divisions, or ethnic antagonism? Really? Wolfe can try to sugar-coat his whole-hearted embrace of divisive tribalism all he wants, but no amount of hemming or hawing will hide the fact that he offers a far-reaching theological hypothesis that opens a very wide door to the worst sorts of prejudice and discrimination.
Wolfe also leaves us wondering how he happens to know these things? He obviously assumes that we will share his faith in the power of fallen human reason rightly to discern the divinely ordained, robust continuity between the way things are and the way things would have been.
However, I, for one, cannot share his faith . . . or his naivete. For the fact is that Wolfe does not, because he cannot, know any of these things.
He is making it all up on the fly.
And he is making it up while perching precariously on two erroneous assumptions. We’ve touched on them already, but let’s make them explicit: one, he assumes that his fallen human mind can accurately discern God’s original intent for humanity by observing human behavior today; and two, he assumes that he does not need to read scripture for himself; the Reformed scholastics have already done all the necessary work for him.
Of course, this is all standard fare for those who embrace natural theology and theological scholasticism. It also illustrates why I have always rejected both.
Now, let’s try a different thought experiment – and unlike Wolfe, I will not posit any divine authority or normativity to my “mind game.” I offer it merely as a hypothetical alternative scenario.
Let’s dial down the continuity switch on our imaginary thought experiment and turn up the discontinuity dial as we compare the way things are today with respect to the way things might have been before sin entered the world.
Perhaps human beings would have recognized that they were inextricably bound together by the image of God, the distinguishing component of humanity which they all held in common. Perhaps, they would have invested deliberate energy – or perhaps it would have come naturally without any special effort at all – in maintaining loving, hospitable connections, no matter how widely their different family groups ranged across the planet. Maybe they would have wanted to maintain their common language in order to secure tight lines of communication, mutual understanding and trust, no matter the physical distance between them. New discoveries and developments would be shared so that everyone enjoyed the benefits equally, and no one could slip into isolation. As a result, nationalism would never develop. In fact, it would be antithetical to the Creator’s intentions.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
There are no logical or theological reasons to prefer Wolfe’s reconstruction over mine. On the contrary, I would argue that the biblical doctrine of original sin demands a much greater emphasis on behavioral discontinuity than Wolfe’s reconstruction allows.
More than that, aside from the fact that I would prefer to live in my pre-Fall creation than in his, Wolfe’s reconstruction (for biblical reasons that Wolfe prefers to ignore and that I cannot go into here) strikes me as the least likely of all pre-Fall worlds. I cannot help but conclude that Wolfe employs natural theology to sanctify human sinfulness when he should be using biblical theology to critique our sinfulness while holding out the ideals of God’s redemption.
The fact that The Case for Christian Nationalism contains chapters that seriously defend both the “great man” theory of government (chapter seven) – what he calls “a measured and theocratic Caesarism” – and the legitimacy of violent revolution (chapter eight) provides further evidence of how far astray a rationalistic, naturalistic theology can wander when it deliberately severs itself from biblical constraints.
The many Anabaptist martyrs who died at the hands of Reformed, theocratic Caesars shout a loud, uniform condemnation of Wolfe’s brand of theocratic nationalism. It should never be resurrected.
And I pray that God, and liberal democracy, will save us from all those, like Dr. Wolfe, who disagree.
Jon Stewart recently had a joint interview with Hilary Clinton (former Democratic Secretary of State for the Obama administration) and Condoleezza Rice (former Republican Secretary of State for the Bush administration).
Below I have posted the full interview followed by two excellent analyses from a couple of my favorite news commentators: Kristal Ball (former journalist for MSNBC; currently cohost of the independent news program, Breaking Points) and Briahna Joy Gray (lawyer and political consultant with a profession pedigree too long to list here).
If you can’t watch the entire interview, I encourage you to check out both of the following commentaries. In addition to Ms. Gray’s and Ms. Ball’s excellent insights, I will add a few observations of my own:
Here is the Stewart interview:
Below is Briahna Joy Gray:
Here is Kristal Ball:
https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8p2CZ1Ox8
Medea Benjamin is a cofounder of the activist organization CODEPINK. She has recently published a good book investigating the various forces at work in the current war in Ukraine.
She has also released an excellent video covering in the same ground in under 19 minutes.
If you are still wondering how this war began; why the US continues to send billions of dollars in military support; what is motivating Vladimir Putin; and how this war came be brought to a peaceful end; then, by all means, you will find the answers to all your questions in Medea’s video.
David Corey is a professor at Baylor University. He has a fine article on the Comment website discussing the divisive role played by politics in the fractious life of the American church.
He does not address the spiritual disease at play when so-called Christians prioritize political agreement over and above shared devotion to Jesus Christ.
But he does offer an excellent analysis of the spiritual dimension of true friendship and what our divisive politics tells us about the absence of true friendship in American life.
The article is titled “Politics, Friendship, and the Search for Meaning.”
Below is an excerpt:
All around us, friendships old and new are coming to grief over politics. What is the cause of this? Part of the problem relates to how we practice politics today: we have become more warlike and tribal. Another part of the problem stems from our contemporary understanding of friendship. Genuine friendship places weighty demands on us, and most of us prefer relationships that are quicker and easier, and thus less enduring.
Politics and friendship are deeply connected. As strange as it sounds, how we understand what politics is has an effect on the kinds of friendships we are likely to enjoy. And, conversely, how we understand friendship will affect our practice of politics.
What exactly is the connection between politics and friendship, and how should we assess the relative value of each when they come into conflict?
Click here to read the entire piece.
In anticipation of tomorrow’s national elections, Chris Hedges’ most recent 
post is appropriately titled “Destroyers of Democracy.”
If you know anything about Hedges, then you already have guessed that his critique of our electoral system and the political options given to us includes a condemnation of both political parties.
Democrats and the Republicans are equally corrupt.
Neither party has the needs or the interests of working people on their lists of political, social priorities.
Though their styles are different, both parties are equally authoritarian. Biden’s recent speech about the preservation of American democracy was nothing more than a blatant attempt at fear-mongering undecided voters into casting their ballots for the do-nothing shills that march in lock-step behind Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer.
Don’t fall for it.
Though I will vote tomorrow, I have no expectation that my vote — nor your vote, nor anyone else’s who doesn’t make enough money to be listed among the Fortune 500 — will make any difference in the state of my country or its future.
Am I too gloomy? No. I am old, experienced and thus realistic.
Thankfully, I know that my true citizenship is in the kingdom of God. I know that God’s kingdom will one day make all things right, as they should be.
I eagerly anticipate that day and pray for its speedy arrival. With all the saints from the past, all Christians can pray, “Come Lord Jesus. Come!”
In the meantime, I do the best I can to live out a kingdom lifestyle pleasing to my Lord; to explain Jesus’ kingdom values to others; to work, agitate, and yes to vote in ways that may help to spread the benefits of Jesus’ kingdom values to others.
But I place no hope in any political party or its candidates.
I have no expectations that any candidate will remain true to his/her campaign promises — unless, of course, those promises offer more money, influence and power to the wealthy.
I am too old to naively imagine that our current, corrupt political system will ever change for the better — though I am certain it will continue to deteriorate and become worse.
Don’t listen to the mindless muttering of the feckless false prophets, the modern-day soothsayers of evangelical idolatry, men and women who have sold their souls to the godless architects of Republican political power.
You know their names…
These blind guides have betrayed the kingdom of God in exchange for a lukewarm bowl of tasteless political porridge.
Thus they have already earned their only reward: a millisecond of Twitter fame that will one day condemn them as wasteful servants who failed to prepare for eternity.
Their anti-Christ foolishness seems to know no bounds while they feverishly expand the selfish boundaries of their own ministry domains filled to the brim with thoughtless flocks of misguided followers.
No. Instead, do this: Memorize the Sermon on the Mount.
Give great thought to how your political commitments ought to be molded by Jesus’ own ethical priorities and instructions.
Plant yourself on the side of the poor and the needy.
Speak up for the voiceless. Labor for those who lack the resources needed to improve their lives by themselves. Give yourself away to those who have nothing left to give back to you.
Remember that money is not speech, its power.
Remember that power ALWAYS corrupts.
Remember that every government lies.
All politicians, but especially winning politicians, are compromised by their largest donors.
No interest is as powerful as self-interest.
In this world, money will always rule the roost.
Remember the social commentary of Thucydides who lamented the fact that “The rich always do as they choose, while the poor suffer as they must.”
Then decide to spend your life working to overturn the status quo, for the rules of wealth and power are as true today as they were in the days of Thucydides.
Obediently following hard after Jesus is the only way to get this right.
Remember, the ends never justify the means. In fact, corrupted means only lead to corrupted ends. Sure, compromise may win you a seat at the table, but you’ll find yourself dining with the devil rather than serving with Jesus.
Our only hope is found in the Jesus prayer: Father in heaven, cause your kingdom to come and your will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Amen
And now for an excerpt from Chris Hedges’ prophetic article:
With the U.S. midterm elections on Tuesday, Biden and other establishment politicians hope to paper over the rot and pain of the system they created with the same decorum they used to sell the country the con of neoliberalism.
The bipartisan project of dismantling U.S. democracy, which took place over the last few decades on behalf of corporations and the rich, has left only the outward shell of democracy.
The courts, legislative bodies, the executive branch and the media, including public broadcasting, are captive to corporate power. There is no institution left that can be considered authentically democratic. The corporate coup d’état is over. They won. Americans lost.
The wreckage of this neoliberal project is appalling: endless and futile wars to enrich a military-industrial-complex that bleeds the U.S. Treasury of half of all discretionary spending; deindustrialization that has turned U.S. cities into decayed ruins; the slashing and privatization of social programs, including education, utility services and health care — which saw over one million Americans account for one-fifth of global deaths from Covid, although the U.S. has 4 percent of the world’s population; draconian forms of social control embodied in militarized police, functioning as lethal armies of occupation in poor urban areas; the largest prison system in the world; a virtual tax boycott by the richest individuals and corporations; money-saturated elections that perpetuate our system of legalized bribery; and the most intrusive state surveillance of the citizenry in U.S. history. . .
. . . Biden, morally vacuous and of limited intelligence, is responsible for more suffering and death at home and abroad than Donald Trump. But the victims in the U.S. Punch-and-Judy media shows are rendered invisible. And that is why the victims despise the whole superstructure and want to tear it down.
These establishment politicians and their appointed judges promulgated laws that permitted the top 1 percent to loot $54 trillion from the bottom 90 percent, from 1975 to 2022, at a rate of $2.5 trillion a year, according to a study by the RAND corporation.
The fertile ground of our political, economic, cultural and social wreckage spawned an array of neo-fascists, con artists, racists, criminals, charlatans, conspiracy theorists, right-wing militias and demagogues that will soon take power. . .
To read the entire essay, click here.
How would you react if you discovered that the Russian government had a plan for controlling the US and dividing the country into smaller regional units, with the goal of limiting American influence in the rest of the world?
I suspect that we all would be outraged. Anti-Russian sentiment would surge.
Well, guess what. Many American foreign policy experts in Washington DC
have long had exactly such plans for Russia!
And, of course, Russian leaders have always known about these plans, even if they have never been adopted “officially” as US policy towards Russia.
Knowing these facts should help everyone understand — and sympathize with — Putin’s aggression sparked by NATO’s expansion to Russia’s western border.
This does not excuse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But sympathetic understanding is essential to successful negotiations for anyone hoping to end a war.
Mike Whitney’s article, “Washington’s Plan to Break Up Russian,” explains the problems well at The Greenville Post.
Click on the title above to read the entire piece. Here is an excerpt:
Washington’s animus towards Russia has a long history dating back to 1918 when Woodrow Wilson deployed over 7,000 troops to Siberia as part of an Allied effort to roll back the gains of the Bolshevik Revolution. The activities of the American Expeditionary Force, which remained in the country for 18 months, have long vanished from history books in the US, but Russians still point to the incident as yet another example of America’s relentless intervention in the affairs of its neighbors. The fact is, Washington elites have always meddled in Russia’s business despite Moscow’s strong objections. In fact, a great number of western elites not only think that Russia should be split-up into smaller geographical units, but that the Russian people should welcome such an outcome. Western leaders in the Anglosphere are so consumed by hubris and their own blinkered sense of entitlement, they honestly believe that ordinary Russians would like to see their country splintered into bite-sized statelets that remain open to the voracious exploitation of the western oil giants, mining corporations and, of course, the Pentagon. Here’s how Washington’s geopolitical mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski summed it up an article in Foreign Affairs:
“Given (Russia’s) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.”
