Thoughts and Ruminations

I was driving up to Eastern Mennonite Seminary yesterday morning to participate in chapel when I heard on National Public Radio that April 7 is a national day of remembrance in Rwanda. For those not familiar with world events, in the year 1994 ethnic and tribal tensions in the central African country of Rwanda spilled over into a horrendous systematic genocide perpetrated by the majority tribe (the Hutus) mainly against another tribe (Tutsi), though other minority tribes (like the Twa) and Hutu moderates were killed as well. Over the span of approximately 100 days, about 1,000,000 (yes, six zeroes) people were killed, largely by the Hutu militias hacking them apart with machetes.

This was a sad, horrendous time in Rwanda, but it was also a sad, horrendous time in the world. The U.S. called Rwanda a “local conflict” and refused to use the word “genocide” because it may invoke moral responsibility on their part. President Bill Clinton later publicly expressed contrition for standing idly by during this time. In addition to U.S. non-action, significant charges have been made that the French government supported the Hutu perpetrators by both encouraging the Hutu death squads and turning a “blind eye” to the systematic killings when their troops were the only foreign forces in the country in June 1994. A damning report was released in August 2008 by a Rwandan commission of inquiry. According to journalist Linda Malvern,

The report – the fruit of two years’ work that includes the testimony of 638 witnesses, including survivors and perpetrators of genocide – is damning. It says that certain French politicians, diplomats and military leaders – including President FranÁois Mitterrand – were complicit in genocide. The French authorities knowingly aided and abetted what happened by training Hutu militia and devising strategy for Rwanda’s armed forces. Training and funding was also given to Rwandan intelligence services on how to establish a database later used to draw up a ìkill listî of Tutsi.

The most shocking allegations come from survivors who allege that French soldiers participated in the massacres of Tutsi. These soldiers were a part of Operation Turquoise, a French military intervention in June 1994, an ostensibly humanitarian mission that had the backing of the UN Security Council.

So from a world that uttered the phrase “never again” following the Holocaust in the 1940′s, passive ignoring and active assisting were the policy in the Rwandan “Holocaust.” This is one horrendous perspective of reflection on Genocide Remembrance Day. But I’d like to offer another that the typical journalist wouldn’t offer.

We Christians like to talk about “missions” a whole lot, and we like to talk about Matthew 28, Jesus’ “Great Commission,” where he said to “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Many Christians have left the comforts and relationships of home to go to foreign lands, spurred on by this call to proclaim the name and mission of Jesus to the world. And when they have done so, they’ve met mixed results. In Africa, specifically, Christians often lament the big obstacles that meet them there; extreme poverty, tribal religions that maintain holds on the people, and other religions (especially Islam).

But with all of the struggles of Western mission in Africa, Rwanda was considered one shining example of success. Of all the nations in Africa, Rwanda had the highest conversion rate, and eventually the country could claim about 80-90% of its citizens as confessing Christians. Yet in 1994, in the most “Christian” country of Africa, one tribe of Rwandans slaughtered one million of their own people. For persons who care about the gospel (which should be all Christians), that leads to a big question,

“What in the world happened here? How can such a success story become such a tragic story of hatred and murder?“

And what investigators have suggested is that the gospel that was preached to Rwandans by Western missions groups was one that focused salvation on life after death, essentially, “Jesus died for your sins so you could be forgiven and go to heaven and not go to hell when you die.” This gospel, because of its focus on the afterlife, didn’t address its hearers’ (and eventual converters) everyday existence. Specifically, it had very little to say about social class, tribal, ethnic, racial, and familial relationships other than sexual behavior and marital boundaries. As a result, when a powerful racial hatred story came along (Hutu power), there was no counter-story in the “Christian” people of Rwanda to nullify the Hutu power story. To make this message come a little closer to home, this Rwandan gospel is the gospel most American Christians proclaim, which makes this more than a Rwandan problem; it makes it a global-church-wide problem.

To state this situation differently, it raises another important question. Is what the Rwandans received “the gospel”? And if it is, does this gospel have anything substantial to say about distinctions between people that lead to bloodshed? And specifically for the readers of this post, Does what you believe is the gospel only focus on the death of Jesus and its forgiveness of sins for eternal life, which means only heaven and hell after natural death?

If that is your gospel (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, because most of the Western world believes it is), I contend, Biblically, you’re missing the point of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus. And when you proclaim such a gospel in the world, it has disastrous results on the people hearing such a message.

I’m literally saying here that the Western church bears significant responsibility for the genocide in Rwanda. I’m not saying this to say the church is completely twisted and never has done anything good. I’m simply saying that when we miss the point of the gospel, and preach our missing-the-point as “the gospel,” it has consequences. Sometimes disastrous ones.

I saw the most recent example of the “gospel” we believe in when watching a video of a panel ostensibly put on to make Tony Jones look like a heretic (judging from the other panelmates) that ended up with statements from Tony, his “more orthodox” friend Scot McKnight, and his “definitely orthodox” (by American evangelical standards) panel-member Kevin DeYoung making statements about the gospel. I quote their three statements in full. In light of Rwanda, tell me which “gospel” wouldn’t significantly challenge the way of life of the Rwandan people and which ones would present to them a transformative message.

Jones: “The gospel is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. That none of us should be lost. He’s given us the ministry of reconciliation, therefore we are ambassadors for Christ. That’s the gospel. God is the protagonist. God does the work. We put our faith in God through Jesus Christ and that our job then is to take the message of reconciliation out to the world.”

DeYoung: “The most important thing is…to be absolutely solid on what the gospel is. The gospel is not first of all what we need to do for God, to go out and change the world or bring about shalom. The gospel is first of all about what God has done for us…The beginning point, the ending point, the thing that holds it all together is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again on the third day and without that we are lost in our sins and we are facing eternal punishment.”

McKnight: “Here’s how I define the gospel… I think it’s the work of the Triune God (Father, Son, Spirit) through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit to restore cracked eikons (which is what I call human beings) to union with God, union with others, for the good of others and the world. And the same apostle Paul called the gospel “the gospel of peace.” Shalom is the word he would have used there.”

What do you think?  Regardless of the way you may respond to each statement, which one do you think most Western Christians would say is the gospel?  And how might the story of Rwanda change the way you think about the gospel?

When our “gospel” is primarily focused on life after death, something powerful will occupy that vacuum of how to find meaning in this life.  I saw another example of how that something powerful co-opts and changes Christian symbols on the back of a Ford Explorer today too.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the gospel that we preach must be Biblically-rooted, must never take away from God’s dream for the world, and must lead to transformed patterns of living in this world that extend out through eternity. the world must see a visibly distinct group of people in the world to have something either to hate or model their lives after.  A people pursuing God’s justice and God’s shalom.  Anything less than that and we are setting our sights far too low.  

Rwanda reminds us that lives hang in the balance.

Watch the video here.

And to guide the direction of your reactions a bit I would suggest several things.

1)  If this video makes you guilty or uncomfortable, don’t run from it, but don’t let it destroy you either. Though wealth and poverty ARE relative (a dollar has less purchasing power in America than in, say, Bangladesh), yet generally those who read this blog could stand to significantly alter their spending habits and lifestyle (myself included).  

As an example, consider a man I respect named Cliff Kindy.  Cliff serves in Christian Peacemaker Teams, has served several tours of duty in Iraq for CPT, is an organic farmer in Indiana, and committed to non-violence as a disciple of Jesus.  In other words, Cliff sees the destructive violence of this world, puts himself in dangerous situations for the love of Christ and peace, and backs up his words with action at home too, by giving away every cent he makes over the poverty line so he doesn’t have to pay taxes because the bulk of them go to the military.

Kindy believes in the God beyond the chaos who calls us to witness to another way, and that leads to courageous statements like this;

“We didn’t come into Iraq with armed guards, we don’t wear flak jackets, we don’t ride in Humvees or tanks. And I think we’re alive today because that’s how we operated in Iraq. There’s no way anybody who is armed could have done the things we’ve done. We’ve been in the razor-wire cities. We’ve been in the homes of Iraqi families in Fallujah, Ramadi, Karbala. Abu Hishma village that was razor-wired for eight months, we slept overnight in that city. People would say, ‘Well, that’s naive.’ In fact, it’s realistic. If you’re going to run around with guns, you’re going to get killed.”

Do you see how Kindy, once confronted with the violence of this world, did not run away from the discomfort of the truth nor become paralyzed by the problem? He’s working proactively in all areas of his life to bring it into line with the peace of God and the selfless giving of one’s life for others.  And in so doing, Cliff  has become an example of courage to look up to.

In a society of passive people who live their lives vicariously through the success and failures of athletes and reality TV stars, we need people whose examples stick like a thorn in our sides.  People who inspire us, frustrate us, and remind us that all is not lost yet, people who inspire us to “be the change we wish to see in the world.”

All this to say; if this video makes you guilty, consider how to reject cowardice and passivism to put that guilt to work in proactive ways.

On this the sixth anniversary of the beginning of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, in the spirit of Lent I write this prayer of confession. It is a lament written on behalf of my people the church.

Merciful yet holy and just God,

We confess as your followers who reside in the United States that we are deeply affected by our upbringing and culture in what things we think are “normal” and “good” and “healthy.” We confess we are limited in our understanding and our cultural surroundings can lead us down both wise and sinful pathways.

God, in the patriotic fervor in the wake of September 11th, we confess we often lacked the courage to stand up and confront that patriotism when it transitioned to dehumanizing others. We often justified or stood idly by as the American president embarked on a twisted crusade of propaganda that led to eventual military conquest.

We didn’t want to seem strange to others. We didn’t want to seem different. We didn’t want to lose friendships. We didn’t want to risk our reputations, our jobs, our comfort, and the stability of the life we have come to desire above many other things.

We come to you, the God who is eager to forgive and set our feet on a righteous path, with heavy hearts.

When we refused to speak up, to confess, and to lead, your hand was heavy on us.

We were defacing the truth of Christ and the call to righteousness by either joining the chorus of hatred or standing idly by. We forsook our role in the world as a “kingdom of priests” to lead our world back to our created purpose.

God, we come before you with deep contrition and brokenness today.

God, may you inspire tears of the pain experienced by those who suffered violence following 2003 at American hands to well up within us; to overflow in our hearts and our eyes as we share in their pain and intercede on their behalf. God, may you inspire tears of the pain experienced by families and servicemembers of the United States to well up within us; to overflow in our hearts and eyes as we share in their pain and intercede on their behalf.

God, cleanse us and transform our vision of who we are intended to be as your disciples. Renew our vision to be courageous people of hope and unconditional, sacrificial love for all of your people.

May every other priority in our life fall far short of seeking your kingdom and your righteousness, Lord. Jesus, you are our King. Remind us of the power of the resurrection that sets us free from fear and the ultimate power of death. Remind us that our reputation and our very lives are worth far less than the command of obedience to you alone.

Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, Lord of all your creation.

I commented in my prior post a couple days ago the thought that we need to make

A commitment to finding sources of information that inform rather than entertain, educate rather than play with our emotions, and give us complexity rather than black-and-white generalizations. In other words, turn Fox News and MSNBC and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Air America and Huffington Post off and choose to direct our attention to reputable sources like National Public Radio and Public Television and (gasp) BBC.

I happen to respect Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio more than nearly any governmental leader.  In fact, I’m a Facebook fan of his, which I guess cements my status in a really cool, hip way or really dorky way, whichever way you look at it. Anyways, if you’re a “fan” of a group on Facebook, from time to time you get sent updates from whoever they are.  On Tuesday, I received an update from Dennis of an interview of him by MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell that underscores how ridiculous our news shows have gotten and how relentlessly they seek ratings. 

The video interview, embedded below, came about as a result of President Obama’s announcement that the military would be drawing down troops in Iraq to between 35,000 to 50,000 troops by 2010.  This is good news, but as Dennis Kucinich mentioned almost immediately, is not excellent news because tens of thousands of troops remain, risking American life and infringing on Iraqi sovereignty.  His comment upon hearing the annoucement was 

I support President Obama for taking a step in the right direction in Iraq, but I do not think that his plan goes far enough. You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can’t be in and out at the same time…America must determine at some point to end the occupation, close the bases and bring the troops home. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.

Sound reasonable to you? Well, how do you think the media spun this statement? From this interview, you can see a bit of where they went with it, making it sound like Kucinich is being insubordinate and trying to start a firefight with Obama and his leadership…but Kucinich repeatedly elevates the level of discourse from playground to civilized discussion.

Norah:  ”President Obama is trying to end the war.  Why are you criticizing him?”

Kucinich: “Well, I’m not criticizing him for trying to end the war. I’m saying that he has made a step in the right direction..He’s taken a step in the right direction, but I don’t think you can call this a withdrawal. It’s a phase-down, but it’s not a phase-out. You’re either in our you’re out, and right now we’re still in.”

Norah: “You’re either in our your out…it’s not a withdrawal…this plan doesn’t go far enough…these are all your words, and you’re saying that’s not criticizing the President? It sounds like you’re criticizing the man who won this election on ending the war in Iraq, and you’re saying, “not good enough.”

Kucinich: “Well, you know, again, I think we have to credit the President for taking a step in the right direction.”

Watch the video and tell me if you see what I’m seeing.  Because I see a black-and-white, snide, “gotcha,” ratings hound anchor and a reasoned, wise man who brings in historical knowledge to bear (in Afghanistan), refuses the definition of support he’s confronted with (as if he should wave an Obama flag and cheer every time the President opens his mouth), and offers a genuine different perspective.

I wanted to take some time on the blog here to offer some belated birthday wishes to my grandmother (a woman of great integrity and love who has set a great example of discipleship over the years) and to a man whose writings and leadership have begun to edge into a prominent place in my life over the past year. As of last Friday, Elaine Fike turned 80 years old and Ralph Nader turned 75 years old.  

While the focus of this post is on Ralph Nader, please don’t interpret that as me being more in awe of someone “famous” than someone “regular,” because I reject those distinctions.  But I want to spend some time expressing my thanks to Ralph because of his impact on my life especially centered on this year.  I personally hope both of these great people will be alive, active, and sharing their passion and wisdom for many more years.

Now, moving to Ralph, If you had asked me a shade over eight months ago how I felt about Ralph Nader, I would have had to take the wise path and throw up my hands and say, “I really don’t know enough to comment on that.” Personally, with the density and general ignorance of the American public, I wish more people would take the path of refraining from comment when they know little to nothing about persons, their positions, and their visions for the future.

Political campaigns have become an exercise in futility in our society, and this most recent presidential campaign especially. I honestly could not even guess how many chain emails of wide variety (though all centered on one individual, coincidentally, and not the other) I received that nearly all carried some sort of closeted fear about politicians whose skin color and policies are different and thus fear-inducing just because they are different.

But I digress…kind of.

Because Ralph Nader has changed a whole lot of things in me, and to honor him I’d like to make a short list of some of those changes.  It all started for me on July 12th, 2008 not only when Ralph’s speech inspired me, but also when he answered my nervous and rambling question with a thoughtful reply.

1)  Ralph has taught me not to accept the typical answer in our society, because the typical answer is most often one provided by powerful multinational corporations that pump us with their propaganda on a daily basis.

Exhibit A: Remember the story of the woman who dumped McDonald’s coffee on her lap and sued them and won? You know, the story that proves we are a nation of frivolous people who sue for anything and everything, bringing these helpless companies down and ruining our society? That’s been the propaganda fed to us by corporate PR firms and the mainstream media. Listen to the other side of the story that Nader awoke me to;

First, McDonald’s coffee was far hotter than normal coffee, causing a greatly accelerated burn rather.
Second, McDonalds had received 700 complaints of burns prior to this incident, but stubbornly refused to lower the temperature or place a clearer warning on coffee cups.
Third, the 79-year-old victim, Stella Liebeck, suffered third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and genitals, requiring a week of hospitalization and subsequent skin grafts.
Fourth, shortly after the incident she wrote a letter explaining that she had no intention of suing and requested only that McDonald’s cover her medical and recuperation costs and look into its coffee-making process to avoid future injuries.
Fifth, McDonald’s declined to change its policies and offered Liebeck an insulting $800.
Sixth, only $160,000 of the $2.9 million verdict went to compensate Liebeck. (The jury arrived at $200,000 for compensatory damages, including pain and suffering, then knocked off 20% because Liebeck’s negligence contributed to her injury.) The rest was for punitive damages.
Seventh, a major goal of punitive damages is to deter future misconduct, and in this case it worked- McDonald’s in Albuquerque, NM cooled its coffee after the verdict.
And eighth, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages by 82% to $480,000, bringing the overall liability down to $640,000. To avoid the expense and uncertainty of an appeal, the parties reached a settlement for less still.

In Nader’s words,

“In sum, an arrogant, megabillion dollar corporation, indifferent to numerous injuries caused by its scalding product, was brought to heel by a jury of ordinary citizens. The verdict compensated an elderly woman for severe suffering and forced the company (and perhaps other companies) to take action that spared future victims. To the extent the verdict was excessive, a built-in corrective mechanism in the court reduced it.

In other words, the system worked.

But why let the facts interfere with a perfect propaganda opportunity? Similar distortions and dishonesty are seen across the board. Company spokesmen and CEOS insist that lawsuits and insurance premiums are financially devastating. Yet, the very companies most loudly proclaiming hardship…report megaprofits on an annual basis! Moreover, according to Ernst and Young and the Insurance Risk Management Society, in 1999 the total of all business liability costs combined were $5.20 for every $1,000 in revenue.

2)  Ralph has taught me that the only reason most things seem impossible in our society is because we’re cynical, lazy, selfish people more interested in watching flickering images on screens than working to make our society (and by extension, our world) better.

We haven’t always been this kind of people, so don’t think I’m pulling the Debbie Downer card here; but the evidence is there that our society is deep in the midst of a consumerist, individualist, passive funk.  Depending on who you ask, when that funk started is up in the air, but most sane observers track the passive slide at about the time cable television became widespread; with the Internet and its entertainment options only widening the access to entertainment.  Combine this with basic human selfish tendencies that we’ve inherited from ancestors for millenia, and the average citizen would rather watch COPS than be involved in the messy process of bettering life in our society.  In fact, this funk is so deep that most persons would suggest it’s impossible to effect positive, systematic change in our society.  As recently as a year ago, I agreed.  Then I got to know Nader’s story.  Needless to say, things changed.  

If you’re interested in following the road I’ve traveled down, read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon by Justin Martin.  Forgive me for being blunt, but if you’re not a reader, start.  There’s too much at stake for us to continue sitting slack-jawed with voyeuristic pleasure at who “The Bachelor” is going to pick.  The great news about a book is that you can read it while in the bathroom instead of watching Fox News and you might actually learn something.  If you watch Fox News, you might as well flip the TV off and eat what goes into the toilet; it might be better for you.  I emphasize might be.

3)  Ralph has helped me to uncover the truth that anger isn’t bad; in fact, because of the great abuses of the powerful in our world, we all should be hopping mad.

And because things are this screwed up, what most people consider “balanced” and “even-keel” answers aren’t good enough. The scale of destruction in our society requires committed citizens who have ceased passively waiting for the system to work and who demand and cajole and leverage and castigate and rip-publicity-and-money-hounds-posing-as-societal-leaders-a-new-one…but in a wise way. And when we commit to do this, we should expect to be vilified, because the pursuit of justice and truth is a polarizing quest.

4)  Ralph has reinstilled in me through his consistent commitment to working to empower the common citizen in our society a hope and belief that things can be better; we just need to carve out the time to work together for common goals.

And make no mistake, though it is true that the average American is working more hours for less real wage than they were in 1979, and it is true that there are more activities that keep people hopping, the “I’m too busy” excuse is exactly that, an excuse. Two main commitments would restore hope that the common person can affect change;

a.  Some simple prioritization of civic activity over other activities, which includes informing our kids that they will pick one sport a year and telling them to suck it up when they get angry (they’ll thank us for it a decade later), and involves us detoxing from our addiction to television, video games, and the Internet, and

b.  A commitment to finding sources of information that inform rather than entertain, educate rather than play with our emotions, and give us complexity rather than black-and-white generalizations. In other words, turn Fox News and MSNBC and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Air America and Huffington Post off and choose to direct our attention to reputable sources like National Public Radio and Public Television and (gasp) BBC.

Specifically, in my opinion, everyone must listen to On Point with Tom Ashbrook daily. DAILY. An “On Point” at day keeps the ignorance at bay. Yeah, I said it. And once you and I have gained an ear for real news and anchors who really offered wise guidance, we’ll see how absurd and disgusting and childish the Limbaughs and Savages and Frankens are, and we will never go back.  And if we do go back, we shouldn’t.  Rush Limbaugh is single-handedly causing my more conservative friends to lose brain cells and hate and mistreat people who disagree with them.

I think I could talk for a long long time about how Ralph Nader has changed my perspectives, but you’ll see more emerge over time, whether I specifically say “Nader says” or I just come out and say something. The latter, to me, is the important second stage of choosing to submit to wise leaders; that their guidance and shaping influence would empower us to find wise avenues to walk down in life that ultimately end in us oozing their approach from the pores of who we are. In this process, their habits and disciplines would move from feeling “unnatural” to very “natural” and become second-nature to us.

But first, we need to unhook from the toxic way of living we pursue in this society today.

Maybe the recession can help in this regard by forcing us to pay attention to issues of greater importance when we can no longer afford to pay for cell phones for each member of the family, 2500 TV channels, high-speed internet, our Ford Expedition SUV, and our $500,000 house from the mortgage officer without assets all at once.

Eric Holder, Feb 18, 2009 in a speech to Justice Department employees commemorating Black History Month;

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe continue to be in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Holder said Americans often “retreat to our race-protected cocoons,” a tendency that inhibits fruitful discussion that might lead to racial progress.

“This nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate in a truly meaningful way the diverse future it is fated to have,” he said. “To our detriment this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race.”

Holder said Black History Month itself “is given a separate and unequal treatment by our society” and suggested that February should offer a chance not just for commemoration, but also for frank dialogue between races.

We need a good strong dose of truth that makes us shift in our seats from time to time.  Let’s work together to judge each other “by the content of our character, and not by the color of our skin.”  Strong leadership exhibited here by Attorney General Holder.

“The Sabbath was made for people,” said Jesus.

Sabbath?

I’m not sure I know what that means…yet.

As a child, I knew of Sunday.  Church day, a day where my dad didn’t mow the lawn, even if it was getting long and unruly.  Then, two hours of napping, followed by popcorn and apples with peanut butter for dinner.  Yum!  But then, before the last dregs of the peanut butter taste had left my mouth, it came.

Dread.  Dark, bleak dread.

The sudden knowledge that time marched on, whether I wanted it to or not.  Monday was waiting around the corner.  School day. Shivers.

But Sabbath?

When I became a pastor, people assumed that I would know what it was.  Christians believe in magic just like the next Joe, you know.  But for me, the dread just moved up about twenty-four hours.  On Saturday night, the bleakness would set in.  Anticipation.  Was I ready?  Could I ever be really ready?  All the faces of the congregation would stare at me in my dreams, mystified, accusing me, saying;

“How dare you speak of such matters beyond your years!“

Nightmares of the responsibility, I guess.  Sunday morning a question would arise again and again, “Should I drive north to Tarshish or south to church?”

This dread has been shifting, though.  Is it possible for Sabbath to sneak up on a person?  Can God use dread, the quest for approval that dominates all else, and turn it into rest?

Rest seems to use the same techniques as dread, but with a disquieting gentleness, like the first breeze that smells of spring in March.  Stealthy, but faintly whispering hope.

Here might be an example of Driscoll being more honest and vulnerable than I’ve seen him in the past.  Especially when he remarks that the use of harsh language should be infrequent and confesses that he’s over-used it to compensate for the pastors who are too cowardly to speak strongly.

And for the record, I think Driscoll’s right on when he suggests that much of Christianity is captivated by what he calls “Dearly-belovedism”; sappy, touchy-feely pastoring that IS cowardly and unBiblical.  

I appreciate these Driscoll thoughts as a marker of his growing.  If I could be permitted to wish out loud here,

1)  I wish that he would recognize his method (preaching for an extended time with 30 min or so of free-flowing filler) contributes to his old, unwise, unloving ways because it encourages a “Shooting-off-at-the-mouth-while-claiming-it’s-the-Spirit-ism.”  
2)  I also wish that he would be ruthlessly honest that much of his persona up to this point has been built on what he’s repenting for, and that in order to grow as a leader and prove his integrity in others’ eyes, he may need to err on the less controversial side, consider his more controversial phrases that keep coming up and expunge some of them from his vocabulary, and maybe write more of his sermons out to guard his tongue.

*update*
Ok, I’m done with critiques of Driscoll for a little while.  I’m starting to feel a little dirty spending this much time on it, some of which I’m sure is conviction of the Spirit.
 *update*

Guest blogger:  Dennis Kucinich   (ok, he doesn’t know he’s the guest blogger here at oh-so-famous anothernathanmyers, but this article of his is really really important and instructive).  I’m on Kucinich’s mailing list, and this came two days ago.

Among other things, this article illustrates several important issues.

1) That unlike other politicians suddenly with an opinion with this bailout mess, Kucinich has street cred when it comes to standing up for common citizens when profit-obsessed corporations try to impose their will.
2) That standing up to corporations can be dangerous to your health (the insanity and, frankly, demonic justifications that follow from singular pursuit of profit leads companies to try to knock off persons they consider to be a threat).  What does Proverbs 21:15 say?  ”When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”  That’s always been true, and is part of the reason why most Christians are momma’s boys and girls today; we find out the cost of truth, and choose cowardice over God’s kingdom.  Kucinich isn’t a Christian, so his example should convict Christians even more, which leads to my next thought, that…
3) Christians shouldn’t stand apart from others’ good deeds and justify our inaction by quoting Scripture  like “our righteousness is like filthy rags” to relativize others’ incredible work and justify our passivity. Kucinich is one example of millions of folks who have a strong understanding of justice in some sense and who make the important next step to pursue it no matter the cost.  I’m not quite there yet, but I aspire to be soon.
4) This article is an example that what seems to be impossible to passive people becomes very possible to motivated, persistent, courageous people.  So often we settle for “the way things are in our world,” often hiding behind statements like “things will never change” or “things will only get worse.”  Kucinich stands as a clarion call to another way for me; he is a hero of mine in this regard.

Without further ado, I bring you;

Battle with the Banks

Once they were as gods, but the deities of the American banking system are now in ruins, plunged from their pedestals into the maw of taxpayer largesse. Congress voted to give the banks $700 billion, lifting them temporarily out of their sepulcher of debt, while revealing a deep truth about the condition of America’s financial powers:

They never had the money they said they had as they constructed their debt-based monetary system which now lies in ruins. Their decisions on behalf of depositors, shareholders and investors were lacking in basic integrity and common sense. Green gods bailing out with their golden parachutes. 

There was a time when their power was real. Come with me to Cleveland 30 years ago today.

Dec. 15, 1978, Cleveland, Ohio

I awoke to find a curt payment demand that was dropped on my front step by a grandfatherly man who supplemented his Social Security delivering the morning newspaper. The headline plastered across the front page:

“Cleveland Trust: Pay Up. Bank would relent if Muny Light were sold, Forbes believes.”

One of America’s largest banks, Cleveland Trust, led local banks in demanding immediate payment from the city by midnight, Dec. 15, of $14.5 million in short-term loans.

I regarded the headline skeptically. Having lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including a couple of cars, I had come to an encyclopedic knowledge of dun letters, sent to my parents by battalions of bill collectors seeking immediate payment for televisions, cars and a variety of household appliances that never seemed to work. I first came to regard these credit alarms with trepidation, later with impassiveness, with the expectation that as our family grew to two adults and seven children it would soon be on the move again, incurring new delinquencies with each new address. Lack of access to money, housing and credit seemed to be a permanent condition.

Now, having fought through a thicket of consequence to become America’s youngest mayor, elected on a promise to stop the privatization of the city’s electric system, I was faced with paying off loans taken out by the previous mayor, for the financing of municipal projects of dubious value.

The banks refused to extend terms of payment and connived with City Council members to block alternative payment plans, such as the sale of city land or tax revenues. The banks knew the city couldn’t otherwise pay. They demanded instead the sale of the city’s electric system, Muny Light, to an investor-owned electric company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI).  The president of the Cleveland Council, George Forbes, had met with the head of Cleveland Trust bank, who insisted on the sale of Muny Light as a precondition for extending the city credit. This was a case of the bank blackmailing the city, pure and simple.

The alternative to accepting the bank’s blackmail was default. Cleveland could become the first city since the Depression to default on its financial obligations. Cities rely on credit for everyday operations and for meeting long-term financial obligations, such as infrastructure improvements. If banks called in their loans, the city would head toward dire straits. No one knew that better than the law firm of Squire Sanders and Dempsey, which had served as bond counsel for the city of Cleveland while the city entered fiscal peril and was simultaneously, though not coincidentally, the principal law firm for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Through Squire Sanders and Dempsey, CEI had access to the intricacies of the city of Cleveland’s financial records.

Under the previous administration, the city began using bond funds for general operating purposes. As mayor, I inherited $40 million worth of debt that had to be refinanced before the end of my first year in office. Under my predecessor, the city had illegally spent money it did not have, and yet it had the key to every bank in town and the confidence of the bond rating houses, at precisely the same time it was preparing for the sale of the municipal electric system to CEI.

 

---

Cleveland Trust and another bank demanding the sale of Muny Light, National City, were principal stock owners in CEI. Several members of CEI’s board sat on the boards of local banks as interlocking directorates. There was a myriad of bank-utility business relations. Cleveland Trust bank, which handled CEI’s demand deposits, pension funds and other assets, would directly profit from the sale of Muny Light. In a way, the banks were the private utility. With the sale, CEI would have an electricity monopoly in Cleveland and would be able to name its price for electricity and get it. Everyone in the Muny Light territory would receive at least a 20 percent rate increase as the rates would be raised to CEI’s levels.

 

The city was self-sufficient with Muny Light for many years. Muny provided power to 46,000 homes with low electric rates, which contributed to the economic growth of the city. That was until the late 1960s and early ’70s, when a series of suspicious mechanical failures and power outages diminished the system’s reliability. At that time, under heavy lobbying from CEI, the Cleveland City Council delayed the passage of legislation for $9.8 million in repairs to Muny Light’s generators, thereby forcing the city to purchase power at a premium from its competitor, CEI. The city became increasingly dependent on an interconnection between CEI and Muny Light, a high-voltage line over which power could be transferred from CEI to the city, to ensure reliability. The city’s power system began to experience more unexplained power failures. CEI began to make public overtures to purchase Muny Light. The sale of Muny Light to CEI was soon supported by most of Cleveland’s media, business, political and labor interests. 

In November 1976, the City Council passed legislation authorizing the sale of Muny Light for a fraction of its value. I was clerk of Cleveland’s Municipal Court at the time and I objected to the sale. I was advised that there was no way to stop the sale, but I saw it differently. Cleveland had a long history of municipal power. I could sense a terrible injustice was being visited upon the people of the city by its leading institutions, which were conspiring to deprive the city of its public power system.

I organized a petition drive that attracted support from city neighborhoods served by Muny Light. A full civic campaign was born with an intense effort made under brutal weather conditions to gather the signatures necessary to put the issue on the ballot. There was much at stake besides the monetary value of the system: The people’s right to own an electric system. And the historic position of Muny Light, one of America’s first municipal electric utilities, founded 70 years earlier by Cleveland Mayor Tom Johnson. Muny Light provided electricity to about one-third of the homes and businesses in the city at a peak savings of 20-30 percent over the rates charged by CEI. Additionally, Muny Light provided millions of dollars annually in savings to taxpayers by serving 76 city facilities. It also provided Cleveland’s street lighting. High electric rates and higher taxes would follow if Muny were sold. The private sector was forcing the sale for its own profit at the expense of the community.

On Jan. 4, 1977, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), in an antitrust review required of any company applying to operate a nuclear power plant, ruled that CEI had conspired to put Muny Light out of business. CEI tried to force Muny Light into price-fixing and blocked Muny expansion, stopped the installation of Muny Light pollution-abatement equipment and forced the city to buy power it didn’t need. In addition, the ASLB uncovered a CEI budget planning report for 1971 that spoke of a five-year plan “to reduce and ultimately eliminate” Muny Light.

The ASLB determined that CEI deliberately caused a Christmas-season blackout on the Muny Light system and sent salesmen into Muny Light territory offering “reliable CEI service.” The private utility illegally tripled the cost of purchased power, thereby driving up Muny Light’s operating costs. CEI illegally blocked Muny Light’s access to power from other companies, all in violation of federal antitrust law. As a condition of receiving its license to operate a nuclear power plant, CEI had to provide Muny Light with access to cheap power. Documents showed that CEI executives believed the purchase of Muny Light would increase CEI’s earnings by $2.732 a share, eliminate a competitive threat, and push the company’s growth rate to 10 percent, further enhancing investment.

Documents in the case also demonstrated CEI’s successful attempts to subvert media editorial policy through cunning use of the company’s large advertising budget. Over the years, several local reporters lost their jobs after writing reports unfavorable to CEI, and CEI bragged internally about placing verbatim company-written propaganda as general media editorial content.

Confronted with the federal finding that bolstered a previously filed $330 million antitrust damage suit, the Cleveland city administration’s response was incredible: “Now CEI has to buy Muny Light!”

At the same time the campaign to sell Muny Light accelerated, a high-powered rifle shot ripped through my house, just missing my head.

A cavalcade of media editorials commenced favoring the transfer of Muny Light to CEI. 

During an ensuing legal battle over the validity of the referendum petitions, I became a candidate for mayor. I promised that if elected I would save the system. I won the election. My first act in office was to cancel the sale of Muny Light. I next had to pay off a $14 million CEI electricity bill that the previous administration owed and wanted to satisfy through the sale of the light system.

I had been in the mayor’s office barely a year, facing a municipal horror story of huge snow storms, massive water main breaks and a police strike. I had cut city spending by 10 percent through eliminating corrupt contracts, payroll padding and attritional cutbacks. Through the year, I struggled with a recall attempt for firing a police chief. The recall was backed by banks, utility and real estate interests with a last-minute appeal printed by the Plain Dealer to sell Muny Light. Credit rating agencies, which had looked the other way while CEI was attempting to gain Muny Light in the previous administration, downgraded the city’s finances.

Another Muny Light-related attempted assassination was averted when I was rushed to a hospital vomiting blood from a profusely bleeding ulcer. Some years later, a congressional investigation produced information from an undercover agent of the Maryland State Police that the assassination attempt was to occur while I was the grand marshal in a local parade. A local television investigative report claimed the assassin’s services were purchased because I refused to sell the electric system.

One month later, I was back at work trying to find a way to save Muny Light. The utility’s financial difficulties, though contrived largely through interference with the system by CEI, were depicted as so overwhelming that only the sale of the electric system itself would save the city from financial catastrophe. I held several meetings with bank officials. and it became clear we were heading for trouble on the question of refinancing. The banks were going to try to force me to sell the electric system. I went public with a plea for an income tax increase to protect the city’s solvency.

On Dec. 15, I made a last-minute appeal to Cleveland Trust. It was 8 o’clock in the morning. I met with Brock Weir, the chairman of Cleveland Trust, Council President Forbes and our host, a local businessman. I had the intention of protecting Muny Light and avoiding a default.

“There’s just one thing you’ve got to do,” said the Council president, who strongly favored the sale.

Weir, the bank CEO with the stern visage: “If you sell Muny Light, we’ll roll over the notes. I can get you $50 million in new financing. We’d get other banks to participate.” It was a bribe.

My thoughts went to the street just outside the boardroom. Some 20 years earlier, a few blocks from where this meeting was taking place, I slept with my brothers and sister and parents in a car, homeless. I remembered an apartment where my parents sat underneath the pale yellow light of a kitchen wall lamp, counting their pennies on an old porcelain-topped table. The pennies dropped, click, click, click. Pennies to pay the utility bills.

It matters how much people pay for electricity. It matters if the public owns its own system and has political and financial control over rates. I could hear the pennies dropping, click, click, click, as Mr. Weir insisted on the sale of Muny Light. I remembered my family and the struggles of people like them. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t sell. Not for $50 million, not for anything.

“I’m not going to sell, even if it means my career,” I said, as Council President Forbes looked on in surprise.

“Why do you want to end your career? Sell the system. Get rid of it!” he said.

“Is there some other way we can work this out?” I asked Brock Weir.

He shook his head “No.”

Throughout that day, every media outlet in Cleveland echoed the sentiment of Cleveland Trust’s chairman, including the morning newspaper headline, with such depth of coverage and intensity that it seemed the city itself would crumble unless I agreed to the sale, which also included a provision dropping the $330 million antitrust damage suit. 

The objective condition of the city’s finances received no honest review. The sale of Muny Light was depicted as the only way the city could avoid fiscal disaster. The majority leader of the City Council held a news conference live on the 6 o’clock news. He declared that if I sold Muny Light, “the chairman of the Cleveland Trust bank has informed the council that his bank will purchase $50 million worth of city bonds. So, in effect, we have a plan sitting on the mayor’s desk that will absolutely end the city’s financial problems, if he will put his signature on it.”

The $50 million bribe had been brought out into the open in a manner that now suggested it was a legitimate offer, a fake solution to a fake crisis. I refused to sell.

As Cleveland television stations covered the event live, with a countdown clock that looked like a twisted version of New Year’s Eve, midnight struck. Television networks of several countries recorded the grim event: The city of Cleveland became the first American city to go into default since the Great Depression. The default was over just $14.5 million dollars in credit.

When I called for a congressional investigation a few days later, Cleveland Trust denied it wanted Muny Light, CEI denied it wanted Muny Light, the council president denied the chairman of Cleveland Trust wanted Muny Light, and the majority leader said he was mistaken when he said live on the 6 o’clock news that the bank chairman offered $50 million in credit for Muny Light. Muny Light was no longer the issue. It was the mayor and his obstinacy that caused the crisis. So went the waltz into a netherworld devoid of truth, justice, reality or morality.

Though the people of Cleveland supported keeping Muny Light by a margin of 2 to 1 in a referendum a few months later, and passed an income tax increase by the same margin in order for the city to pay off the defaulted bond anticipation notes, the state of Ohio intervened and put the city into fiscal receivership. I lost the mayor’s race in 1979. The banks renegotiated the defaulted notes, at a profit. The city lost its antitrust suit against CEI in 1981, in a hung jury. An appeal failed.

I was out of major public office for almost 15 years until, in 1993, Cleveland announced an expansion of Muny Light (now called Cleveland Public Power). At that time, the City Council and others decided that I had made the right decision in refusing to sell Muny Light. The city and its residents had saved hundreds of millions of dollars through Muny Light’s reduced electric rates and the savings the taxpayers enjoyed from Muny’s lower-cost power for street lighting and city buildings.

I attempted another political comeback and this time succeeded, getting elected to the state Senate with the motto: “Because he was right.” My campaign literature showed a radiant light bulb behind my name. Two years later, I was elected to Congress, with the slogan “Light up Congress.” Today I am the chairman of the House Government Oversight Domestic Policy Subcommittee, which has broad jurisdiction over most government departments and agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and electric utility matters generally.

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. is now a subsidiary of First Energy Co., which was fined by the NRC for various safety violations and, a few years ago, was found to have primary responsibility for the 2003 blackout that left 50 million people throughout the northeastern United States without electricity.

Cleveland Trust no longer exists. No other bank involved in the default survives, except for National City, which next week faces extinction through shareholder approval of a takeover by PNC bank. I have spent much time trying to save National City. 

One newspaper, the Cleveland Press, which advocated that CEI be Cleveland’s sole electricity provider, ceased publication. The other strong proponent of the sale of Muny Light, the Plain Dealer, struggles to survive.

The city’s electric system endures and this past year celebrated its 100th anniversary.