Anarchy and Christ/ianity (Bones to pick with Church and State)

This long post will be split up into two parts:
1) Focus on my evolving beliefs regarding God's alternative to political solutions to societal problems that arose out of conversation with an atheist anarchist
2) Focus on intentional communities as a result of a conversation with Willamette Professor Jade Aguilar

Lastly I will try to bring about some appropriate reconciliation of both parts.

I am increasingly finding myself in the company of folks who identify under the broad category of Christian Anarchists. This broad group includes individuals from Catholicism (such as the Catholic Worker), Mennonites and Quakers in addition to numerous other traditions and denominations. From my limited but growing experience, Christian anarchist can be found across the political spectrum (here's a link for you folks who like a visual modelsh=) from left (Anarcho-socialist) to right (Anarcho-capitalist) but they are united in entirety against Authoritarianism, or in its extreme: Fascism (on the right) and Communism (on the left).

Wikipedia's definition of Anarchism is: a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy.

I dislike Wikipedia's definition of Christian Anarchy so I'll give my own definition. From what reading I've done I would define Christian anarchy as: The belief that the state is both corrupt and harmful and that it has been made redundant by God's historical and continuing dominion and sovereignty as manifested in His spiritual grace in addition to His words and commandments to love and care for each other freely and abundantly. Here's an alternative definition that's not too different: Christian & State blog's definition

There seems to be a very slow but growing movement in support of Christian Anarchy, one which I would credit partially to the Internet. There exists now numerous blogs that I check up on from time to time such as A pinch of Salt, The Christian Radical (Written by a Canadian Catholic Worker), Young Anabaptist Radical. These are just some. I've also come across numerous Christian anarchist websites that are in swedish, and greek I think...and other languages I can't read (sad day :( )

Then there are Christian anarchist websites that I visit from time to time, such as The Jesus Radicalsand the amusing titled God Hates Flags.

So that's enough background.
The following question was asked
"Doesn't the christ-god explicitly condone the state multiple times, even going so far as to intervene because the wrong person is controlling the state?"

I'd like to share my answer with you all:

The book "Anarchy and Christianity" by Jacques Ellul discusses and reconciles several points between anarchy and christianity. Ellul was a very knowledgeable professor of (philosophy?) at the university of bordeaux and wrote 50+ books. Excerpts from his book give insight to some answers to the above question.

In the Old Testament, Ellul writes, after the Hebrews were liberated from Egypt their society was made up of tribes and, "The God of Israel declared that he and he alone would be Israel's head. Yet this was not a theocracy, for God had no representative on earth and tribal assemblies made decisions." When disasters, social disorder, famine and defeats were suffered the people (usually brought on by themselves such as one dude decided he wanted to be King and people agreed cuz and then three years later they rebelled cuz he was tyrannical and he was killed) would regularly turn to ordained prophets and judges (who "were not judges in our sense but leaders of the people who also showed where justice resides and what it is" such as obeying the commandments--which are more like promises of blessings). Ellul adds that there is a "significant phrase" at the end of the book of Judges that says "the people did what was right in their own eyes."

Ellul then reminds Christians, how in 1 Samuel 8 the elders of Israel gathered together and demanded that Samuel anoint a King for them since they saw the nations around them doing this, they too wanted a King. Samuel didn't like the idea so he went and prayed to God replied that he should say to the people of Israel (1 Samuel 8:7-9:

"Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

1 Samuel 8:10-18 is really remarkable because it involves Samuel describing what will happen if they chose a human king over their God-King: taxation, standing military and guards and subjugation and servitude to said King. This is one surprising attribute of God that I think is too often neglected/ignored both by folks, He has a certain respect our decisions and choices. One that I don't fully understand but I know is a big part of who He is.

The first King Saul, chosen by Samuel, ended up being a huge mistake. In fact every King after Saul made mistakes in some way or another--when the government/King changed it was either because 1) the old King died naturally or 2) the people revolted or 3) because another individual wished the throne for himself and fought for it or 4) Israel/Judah was conquered. In the instances of the 2-4 it was always because the government created injustice/corruption.

This answers part of the second part of the question.

Jesus was quite different. All those Kings of Israel eventually led to the land of Israel being conquered by numerous Kingdoms up until the Roman Empire. During the time of Jesus then, there were many people who were expecting a "Messiah" as prophesied by in Isaiah. The Messiah was thought to be a military liberator specifically chosen by God who would defeat their occupiers (The Romans). This is a huge reason why Jesus was rejected as a Messiah. Because He preached that He was the embodiment of God's spiritual Kingdom. He was the herald and the arrival of God's spiritual Kingdom on Earth. A Kingdom that needed no earthy Kings and whose justice involved loving your enemy, being kind and hospitable and servile to all. A very upside down Kingdom in other words, not unlike how Anarchy would work.
In Matthew 12 Jesus is asked "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Ceaser". Ellul writes:

"The question itself is illuminating. As the text tells us, they were trying to use Jesus' own words to trap him. If they put this question, then , it was because it was already being debated. Jesus had the reputation of being hostile to Caesar. If they could raise this question with a view of being able to accuse Jesus to the Romans, stories must have been circulating that he was telling people not to pay taxes. AS he often does, Jesus avoids the trap by making an ironical reply: 'Bring me a coin, and let me look at it.' When this is done, he himself puts a question: 'Whose likeness and inscription is this?' It was evidently a Roman coin. One of the skillful means of integration used by the Romans was to circulate their own money throughout the empire. This became the basic coinage against which all others were measured. The Herodians [the guys who asked the question] replied to Jesus: 'Caesar's'. Now we need to realize that in the Roman world an individual mark on an object denoted ownership, like cattle brands in the American West in the 19th century...the head of Caesar on this coin was more than a decoration or a mark of honor. It signified that all the money in circulation in the empire belonged to Caesar. Those who held the coins were very precarious owners. They never really owned the bronze or silver pieces [sounds awfully like our monetary system].

Whenever an emperor died, the likeness was changed. Jesus then had a very simple answer: 'Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.' You find his likeness on the coin. The coin, then, belongs to him. Give it back to him when he demands it. With this answer Jesus does not say that taxes are lawful. He does not counsel obedience to the Romans. He simply faces up to the evidence. But what really belongs to Caesar?

The excellent example used by Jesus makes this plain: Whatever bears his mark! Here is the basis and limit of his power. But where is this mark? On coins, on public monuments, and on certain altars. That is all. Render to Caesar. You can pay the tax. Doing so is without importance or significance, for all money belongs to Caesar, and if he wanted he could simply confiscate it. Paying or not paying taxes is not basic question; it is not even a true political question. (at the time)"
Ellul continues to describe how Jesus was emphasizing that Caesar can have his taxes...and that he has no right whatever to the rest. "He doesn't have the right to life or death, no right to plunge people into war, no right to devastate and ruin a country. Caesar's domain is very limited."

This is about where I ended in my reply, I wrote that the response above was a big reason why I think Christianity and anarchism is compatible. Christ doesn't condone the state, such a reading is actually quite easily misunderstood, and the Old Testament history of God intervening in the state is entirely because He desired a return to Him being at the state but respected the wills of the people of Israel who desired for themselves corrupt Kings.

However, for you all, I'd like to add a bit more.

In Matthew 17, Jesus is asked if He will be paying the temple tax. His response is as follows:

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Jesus accuses those who levy their taxes as being blatantly unjust, but instead of not paying the tax or even paying the tax in normal fashion—he produces twice the amount of the tax in the mouth of a fish. I'd like to think this is Jesus' way of shrugging and saying, "The taxes are unjust, but follow me and we can do so much more."

Moving on from Jesus, there is a whole book that is anti-government: it's called The Book of Revelation.

This bring us to Romans 13:1-7

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I would like to say here that the rough reconciliation between Romans 13 and the average Anarchist world view exemplifies and brings into focus the differences between Christian anarchism and secular anarchism.

It is valuable to interpret Romans 13 not only with Jesus' actions & words in mind but also with other verses such as: 2 Peter 2:10 which denounces individuals who "despite authority" and 1 Timothy 2:1-2 which calls for Christians to "make prayers, supplications, petitions and thanksgivings for all humans, for kings, and for all who are in high positions, that we may lead a [peaceable and quiet life in all reverence and honesty."

As with all scripture it is valuable to remember the context of Romans 13. The verses immediately prior to Romans 13, Romans 12--is entirely focused on love and loving, of being a living sacrifice and loving our enemies, being set a part from the world:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." (here's a link instead of a huge quote).


And then the rest of Romans 13, verse 8-10 repeats and re-emphasizes the importance of love:
"Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

It is also important to remember that Christians, at the time Paul is writing here, were enemies of the state. They were being persecuted and killed, and I don't think it's a stretch to think that Christians didn't admire the Romans (or the Jewish authorities for that matter either).

This passage has been wrestled with for hundreds of our two thousand of years. It has been ignored and interpreted very differently by individuals to justify their rebellion (such as by Martin Luther against the Catholic Church or perhaps Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement and vietnam demonstrations) and then interpreted differently again to justify the squashing of rebellions (again used by Martin Luther in justifying the powers of the princes (who had protected him) during thePeasant War where up to 100,000 were killed).

Then, when one looks throughout the Old Testament and one reads about Daniel, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego and Jeremiah all directly disobeying authorities. In the New Testament we read about Peter fleeing from prison, Paul urging Philemon to welcome back his former slave (which was against the law, the penalty was death for the slave), the "Wise Men" are generally respected for lying about Jesus' existence so to prevent His death.

One wrestles it when one remembers the direct, deliberate disobedience of laws which eventually led to the abolishment of slavery (abolitionist Quakers, Anabaptists and some Methodist), the overturning of Jim Crow laws due to sit-ins led by a variety of Christian ministers, reverends and leaders, when one remembers the priests who protested against the Viet Nam war or individuals like Corrie Ten Boom who housed fleeing Jews.

Were all of these God fearing people disobeying God, by obeying Him?

I will add here, that I don't believe so...that God's law trumps man's law. That His commandments supersede our own own.

I'll add a quote from Ellul here:
"...we must love our enemies and therefore we must even respect the authorities"

I think we are called to submit, just as Jesus submit himself to the Jewish authorities and to Pilate. He allowed Himself to be processed by the system, he did not excuse Himself from the experience. He also wasn't exactly the most cooperative individual in custody we might picture, like those who might be arrested in an episode of Law and Order.

I know this sounds a little bit of a contradiction then, to ignore and work outside of a corrupt and destructive system we are called to submit and respect. But I believe it can be done and that it should be done.

How?

Matthew 20:20-25

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Those verses I think point out how we can respect and love authorities--because we are called to love and serve them. But I think Christ calls us to more, to love and serve everyone. When everyone loves and serves everyone else, what use is government? In such a situation, authorities then become administrators who, with their wisdom, lead and guide others into loving and serving. Such promise is indeed good news.

So, when I say I am a Christian anarchist. It does not mean that I plot to violently overthrow the government. It does not mean that I hate President Obama, or that I hate President George W. Bush. It does not mean that I will try to escape punishment for disobeying a law—however small it is.

What it means is that I will pray for my government and my Presidents. It means that I will attempt to live and show a different way of life—a life of incarnation that desires and exemplifies the implementation of God's living law. It means that I will gladly suffer unjust laws that demand I kill or perhaps pay someone else to kill an innocent man, woman, child. It means I will gladly suffer the consequences for serving a homeless person food (as it's illegal in some American cities). To do so, would be to walk in the shoes of Jesus who in dying on the cross (as written in Colossians 2:15) "canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

Please know that I'm very much in the throes of trying to live like this, I'm a very bad anarchist and a very bad Christian

So what does it mean to be a Christian anarchist? It actually doesn't mean anything different from what I think Christians are called to be: living, breathing examples of a different world, a different society of friends, brothers and sisters, servants to one another whom are a voice for the voiceless and a solemn stand against injustice. Citizens of a different Kingdom.

This was supposed to be just the first part: but I think I shall retired and write the second part at a later date.
God bless, and please air your comments.

Should Clergy be paid? Should Christians Vote?

For today, I would ask that you read:

This blog post, written by Jason Coker (no relation or idea who the fellow is except that I believe he's a pastor connected to both Anabaptist and Vineyard churches) on his blog called Pastorlia

The post explores the idea of whether Clergy should be paid. I wanted to share it with you folks because it is thought provoking, pretty Biblically sound (if not, please do point it out), and (again) difficult to chew.

And yet, it also points towards some options for change.

Also, if you find you have the time I'd suggest you read:

This post, titled: Real Political Reform Doesn't Bother With Elections which made me grin from ear to ear. It's a passionate subject I'm working on out in my head. If you'd like to see the beginnings of this thought process, please refer to my blog post written during last year's elections: on why I didn't vote.

Grace and Peace.

What does it mean to be a "Boobus Americanus"?

I'm writing very late, and I fear that I will not get to sleep 'till even later.

My dear readers, I feel that I must write even though there are a mere four to eight of you (?).

In my Dissent in American Political Thought class today, we reviewed our reading homework. The reading was an chapter excerpt from one of H.L. Menken's books titled On Being American. I am compelled to say that we Americans are very unique, or that our Land is unique, or that the whole here (whatever that encompasses) is original to us.

My opinion of Menken from that one excerpt was that he was a pretentious elitist who analyzed and diagnosed problems from his narrow view his high perch over the masses (he's writing in 1922 I believe). Yet he still makes some good points.

On happiness, which he credits to be the driving force behind both his actions and others, he says:

To me, at least (and I can only follow my own nose), happiness (reducing the things to its elementals) I must be:

a. Well-fed, unhounded by sordid cares, at ease in Zion.
b. Full of comfortable feeling of superiority to the masses of my fellow-men.
c. Delicately unceasingly amused according to my taste.

It is my contention that, if this definition be accepted, there is no country on the face of the earth wherein a man roughly constituted as I am—a man of my general weaknesses, vanities, appetites, prejudices, and aversions—can be so happy, or even one-half so happy, as he can be in these free and independent states [United States].

The discussion in class went several directions as Menken is quite adept at packing the words into the sentences and the thoughts into the paragraphs (as you can assess for yourself above). When we did get to the point that America is very much "incomparably the greatest show on earth", "the land of mirth" where "politics is purged of all menace, all sinister quality, all genuine significance, and stuffed with such gorgeous humors" —the very "citadel of democracy...a clown dynasty!" everyone by default agreed. In fact it was I who unfortunately pointed this out to the rest of the class, and while they agreed, they later turned around and exclaimed that such cynicism and criticism is shameful without action. One classmate pointed out that Menken may, or may not, be making this very point in his mocking and lighthearted gallows critique of America. An example of this was his claim that he had discovered a new species and desired to make us aware of its nature, it's name Menken writes is the Boobus Americanus. For all his faults, anyone who reads Menken cannot help but laugh.

If you have any doubts about the Americanness of ridiculous, entertaining and foolish cynism—I would invite you to just take a meander down to The Onion where you can read such jarring articles titled Massive Earthquake Reveals Entire Island Civilization Called 'Haiti' and Increasingly Horrified Man Listens To Self Explain What He Does For A Living. These articles have exceptional (and sometimes vulgar), and I would add, profound insights into our culture, society and nation—but it's done all under the guise of degrading superiority humor or release humor (something I learned about in my Political Humor class last semester).

So what happened after that flinching moment of humility where my classmates took my cynical agreement with his diagnosis of rampant fool-like cynicism in America? Well, the conversation led to how if one is critiquing their environment for entertainment, or for self gain, then one is no better than those being critiqued. Struck dumb with such humbling statements began to think of my blog posting just yesterday. My professor (please have no disillusions 99% of my class are liberal, my professor certainly included) then pointed out to our class that our generation enshrines people on the Daily Show like Colbert and Jon Stewart and these men profit greatly from this American tendency to viciously criticize for the sake of entertainment. My professor said something along the lines of, "When we see something wrong, do we Americans tend to laugh in order deal with our anger...instead of channeling it towards change?"

Now besides my personal moral qualms with channeling anger à la Dark Jedi, and besides the fact that I think that many may laugh out of personal methods of coping, I think there is something to the question.

Is it appropriate to laugh in the face of wrongs or in the face of injustice? Obviously I think you would all agree with me that laughing at wrongdoings for entertainment reasons is immoral...but if it's not for entertainment for coping—is there a better way to cope?

Or what about this, should we merely be coping with offense/tyranny/injustice/corruption/wrong/evil?
After all, coping implies a certain amount of inability to change one's situation.

Perhaps therein lies the problem, by laughing we confirm our own idle attitudes shrug our shoulders and become part of the problem.

I read this article titled The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

It's written by a conservative leaning columnist Charley Reese...I think a couple years ago in 2007 or early 2008. He makes some very valid points, and the article is a lot longer. The reason I cut it short is because I don't full agree with him.

As citizens who live in the land of the United States we are political system. As members of the human race we are collectively responsible for such great interconnected and complicated spiritual and physical webs of destructions so great that I think many of us (me included) get bogged down trying to figure out just the immediate background and story.

This prevents me from living in the present and from remembering that I am redeemed: going back to the good news again.
I don't have to merely cope with the evil I see in the world. These following words from Paul and Timothy are just pure gold to me right now:

Phillipians 4:4-13

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty an hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

First Weekend (Frid/Sat/Sun/day)

Hi everyone, I kind of was on a hiatus for the weekend. The whole time I was gathering my thoughts for what to write about, so this should be a good chunky post.

My interpretation of Jesus' commandments make living very tricky. The whole turn the other cheek thing for example.

Is so hard.

Feeding, clothing, caring, sheltering my neighbor is hard. It is extraordinarily difficult if they aren't my friend but are either poor, homeless, addicts, criminal or my enemy. But because Jesus commands me to treat everyone as if they were my brother (Matthew 5:43-48 & Luke 6:27-36) I am moved to think creatively about how I can change and what I can do differently to obey.

In those verses we are called to be different: to be perfect (holy), to be merciful, to lend without expectation of return, to treat as we would like to be treated (I would discern this to mean more simply: treat others humanely or fairly), to be prepared to bless and pray for anyone, to give to any who asks, to greet and welcome everyone (which I would also discern to mean: be hospitable to all, noting the context of the culture). That's a fairly heavy list.

In fact, when I read it over, I feel like we are supposed to the doormats and servants of the Earth. I like servants a bit better than doormats, but I know that the "doormats" probably embodies what the more prideful among us might feel like.

So, in view of this, what do we do when--say a person robs our convenience store like in this video: click here for youtube video

What transpires in the video, is a man comes in demanding money and the owner pulls out a shotgun. The robber immediately apologizes and claims to have no money to feed his family. The owner is sympathetic since the robber is now on his knees and crying, so he gives the robber $40 and a loaf of bread. The robber then announces his wishes to become a muslim, so the owner has him lift his arm and recite a muslim prayer.

I think you might agree with me when I say that the owner was pretty fair to this man, especially considering that the guy got away afterwards. What would you or I do? Would we pull out a shotgun? Would we give over all our money? Would we call the police afterwards and seek to put him in jail? What do you think Jesus' views on prison are? (Considering the jailbreaking theme in the New Testament with Paul, "set the captive free" dealio and what have you.) Would it have been Christlike for us to use a gun to protect ourselves? What about just to scare him off?

Or, more radically, would you offer to give him not just the register--but perhaps more?
You: "Sir, would you like any snacks or beverages? Can I carry this to your car? Is there an address where I can send you money after you leave, so that you don't have to put your life in danger like this in the future?"

Believe it or not I think this is a pretty simple scenario considering humanity's affinity for chaotic messes. Take this video for example (I'm gonna embed this one, so you don't have to go to youtube).



In this video, some Israeli soldiers appear to be patrolling through a Palestinian village. It's been edited so we don't have the story, but despite our ignorance surrounding the context, the last couple minutes involve the blatant harassing/hitting/shoving of elderly women (some men too, but I'm focusing on the elderly women here--in turkish we say "Teyze". Someone you respect because they are your elder). I don't want to get into the Israeli-Palestinian exhausting quagmire except to say that both sides have deep issues. This is the more complicated scenario.

What, as Christians, could we do here? If we were there, what should we do? How can we love both sides?
How can we begin to sow the seeds of reconciliation and shalom/salaam as outsiders?
As members of a religious group that has historically persecuted both Jews and Muslims?
As members of country that continues to support Israel's persecution of Palestinians, and whose presence in the Middle East provides incentive and support for militant groups intent on destroying Israel?

Some people throw up their hands...but here is one idea.
In 2008 roughly 617,000 American tourists visited came to Israel. Roughly 587,000 of those were not Jewish. I don't think it'd be too out of line to say that many of those people were Christian (Israel's Center Bureau for Statistics). Christianity Today claims that 1.8 million Christians visited Israel in 2008 (obviously of all nationalities). Considering that Israel has a population of 7.3 million people, and considering that Israel is very much dependent on tourism ($3-4 billion industry). Even a fraction of those visiting Christians showing a Christlike attitude and service I think would make a very big difference.

If a fraction of those Christians visiting Israel should, instead of going on tours, buying souvenirs and staying in cush hotels, seek and begin to take care of the poor. Seek and rebuild the homes of those who've had their homes damaged by rockets. Seek and care for those who've been injured by bombs. Seek and live among the Palestinians, repairing their homes and villages. To seek out the military individuals responsible for violence, on both sides, and offering to provide food, companionship and physical assistance (carry the load an extra mile). To mourn their dead. To credit God and extol His name throughout the entire time. How incredibly dangerous this would. Who will dare do this? Is it unbiblical? Would such actions be pleasing to God?




I'd like to quote some words of Shane Claiborne now from the book I'm still reading:

One of the shortcomings of the Reformation was that the Reformers knew what was wrong (After all, half of the word "Protestant" is "protest"). But once they were in charge, they didn't know what do. And I think most people want to do what's right. They just don't know the alternatives. For instance, people don't want to buy clothes that are built on the backs of sweatshop labor. But a lot of the times they don't know where else to buy or how to sew. And part of the marketing job is to insulate people from the injustice, from the invisible people behind the way of life that we have. So you see the celebrity, buy you don't see any of the 14-year-old girls making that celebrity's brand of shoes. So the job with all the advertising and commercials is to keep us away from the pain. I think the job of leaders is truth-telling...unveiling. Like revelation, which means to "reveal" or disclose or unveil, it is our job to disclose what lies underneath the surface. Then we are compelled, not just to sweep something under the ruh but to get our hands dirty and do something about the problem.

There are a lot of people that can identify problems. A lot of people say "Amen!" when John [Perkins) preaches abou the systemic injustices like those in the prison industry--folks respond when John says that 70 percent of folks in prison are people of color, or 97 percent of them don't have fathers. But then he sas, "So what are we going to do about it" And there is silence...just crickets. But if the only message is what's wrong with the "system," then it doesn't lead you anywhere. You are just a victim or something to be pitied, or powerless under "the Man." As leaders, we have to have the ability to say, "So here's what's wrong and now here's what's right." We have to have some good news.

E. V. Hills, the late, great preacher, used to talk about a woman who would sit on the front row of his church in Los Angeles. He would be talking about all the things that were wrong and she would say, "Get to the good news. Get to the good news, pastor. Get to the good news." A lot of people never get to the good news. Certainly we have to start with the bad news, with the problems, the pain...but we also have to get to the good news. That's what Jesus brought. There had been plenty of prophets and zealots that knew everything that was wrong--just read the Old Testament and weep. People need good news. And the good news is that we have a God who so loved the world that He sent His Son, not to condemn it, or to leave it floundering in sin and injustice, but to save it. (pages 78-79)

I like that a lot. In a moment of honesty here, I'm really bad at sharing my faith. I'm really bad at "evangelizing"--at spreading the good news with my words. Part the reason, and this is being honest still, is because I don't feel like that I can spread good news when my actions aren't spreading the good news. I'm stuck in paralyzing hypocrisy and within that vicious circle, in inaction as a result of such (something you can earnestly pray for, for me). When I read of Jesus and the Apostles and Paul--one thing I noticed is that they're words of good news is accompanied with actions.
Their actions provide the foundation and proof of the good news of their lips.
Good news has come! How can we say this? Because the lame walk, the hungry eat, the poor are rich and the captives have been set free. It's, like, anarchy...all topsy turvy.




Now, please don't think that solving the Israel-Palestine problem is as easy as I've written. I don't think so. I don't know exactly what it should or would look like. I want to know, and I would ask that you think and ask God with me.

I think I shall end here, I haven't written about Jeani as I promised-- but I will later (more promises).

Another thing you can pray for me, is my struggle with the truth and relativity in its midst. I'm trying to remain humble, to learn, to observe, to understand. The allure of pride, and the feeling of self-importance when it comes to truth is very seductive to me and I would ask that you pray for me as I resist the temptation to give into such thoughts and emotions.

I have so much to talk, say and write about. Pray that I take my time and go slow, that I don't stop learning and stop growing and don't stop dreaming.

Thursday (Fourth Day)

I took a break from writing yesterday--I'll probably take a break every now and then. There is something about learning too much and not dwelling enough on what you already know.

Reading over my posts too I frequently notice awkward phrasings and grammatically incorrect words yada yada. Part of it is my chronic tendency to write how I talk and part it has to do with writing late at night.

I woke up early this morning (having gone to be surprisingly early at 12:30) and immediately jumped up, started to make myself coffee and then jumped in the shower. Right before I turned on the hot water though I paused, got out, got dressed, turned off the coffee machine. It was the strangest thing. I looked at the clock, sure enough, it was 2:50 a.m. I subsequently went back to bed and woke up at 6:30.

I had gotten up (I normally get up around 10-11) so to accompany Jeanie Bockleman to a meeting of Recovery and Restoration church groups. There was eight (I think...) or so groups with one to two people from each group...for a total of fifteen people I think. I was by far the youngest person in the room and I was kind of humbled by all the individuals of great age and experience. One person was a Viet Nam veteran with a history of drug abuse, some other women worked with women and men (never had thought that men suffered too) who were affected by abortion, along with a couple who head up Salem's main soup kitchen and shelter. The meeting started at 7:30 and was surprisingly brief. I did feel though, that the organizers had reached their goal of connecting existing groups and resources. Apparently the group will be meeting regularly too in a few months and is expected to grow.

I was much more of an outlier in the meeting and said the least out of anybody. In my silence, two nuanced observations struck me.

First, one individual remarked jokingly that the issue central to everyone's ministry in the room was one that required great coordination and cooperation and in which Churches weren't competing.

Granted the man was joking, there was a token of seriousness and cynical reality to the remark on competition.
Churches compete over congregation sizes (and I'm sure much more that I'm unaware of.
Christian companies compete against one another for similar business.
Christian schools and colleges compete for students.
Christian bands compete for sales of CD's.

Undoubtedly I could do a whole post on the value of competition. It fosters learning and growth--two incredibly valuable characteristics for any entity invested in becoming richer, bigger and lasting longer. It also weeds out the weak, the incompetent, the unpopular and the unsuccessful. While this ensures that the "best" churches, colleges, charities bands, companies remain...my worry is that we've let Capitalism define what "best" is. One thing that I've been learning is that God chooses the most absurdly small things of this world to show His goodness. After all He did send His son as a baby, to a poor immigrant family targeted by the Government of the time, did He not?

By the way, I HIGHLY recommend you watch this 30 minute sermon by man named Oscar Muriu on the seeming nonsensical logical of our God, King of the Upside down world. Like, "Why didn't God come to Earth like the Aliens in the movie Independence Day?" kind of upside down.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love diversity, I love differences and disagreements. I even like arguments and confrontations. I love how different ministries are differently suited to reach different audiences (notice how that lingo makes you think of a advertising agency though? that's what gives me uncertainty). I also know that these Christian organizations may be significantly more involved and compassionate and much less cut-throaty than their secular counterparts...but again, with the advertising bit. I don't know. Would Jesus have had PR guy? (For now I'd say the answer is yes, and it's us. Hence feeling a little liberated to critique the methods of my colleagues, a little cut-throatish of me perhaps but purely for reasons concerning God. Which justifies and absolves me completely I'm sure.)

The other part about the competition part, is that at some point you have a bunch of choices who are all good at what they do: catching people up in what they do. Just like the material culture of America, when this happens, identities are created around these hallmark brands/organizations. People become identified by the type of Bibles they have, by the type of Church building style, worship style, preaching style etc. etc. that these identities become their own little world. People selfishly hole themselves up in what they are comfortable with.

Yes, you are reading correctly, I just pinned a huge part of the issues in the American church on American financial greed and government (the two are very hard to separate in this country). This is why I'm a politics major.

Of course it's a theory I'm still in the throes of airing out.

That's enough of the first "nuanced observations".

The second thing I noticed, concerns Jeanie and a comment she made during her turn to talk (at the very beginning everyone went around introduced themselves, their ministry and their goals for the year). She expressed a yearning to see more folks open their homes to the poor and homeless to live in (I'll write a post about her later...what she does and has done and how our lives crossed. I'm going to go hang out with her more tomorrow evening, so maybe tomorrow!).

No one really said anything. I still don't understand why the idea of bringing people into your homes is so strange and taboo. I mean, aside from the obvious fact that it's incredibly difficult--isn't that one of the biggest and best ways to show someone you care and love them? That Christ's love is so powerful that you're willing to open your own special space in this world, to a stranger? Maybe if we became friends with the poor and the homeless, it won't be so hard to invite them into our homes.

Why can't there be members of the Church competing to invite others into their homes? Such an action I feel, speaks volumes more and resonates deeper than most sermons I've ever heard in Church.




I'm ending my post now. But before I do, I'd like to remind everyone who is reading of one tragedy perpetrated by our country: the My Lai Massacre (quoted from Wikipedia source:

...was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.
Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated...While 26 US soldiers were initially charged with criminal offenses for their actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. He served only three years of an original life sentence, while on house arrest.

On a very different note, today the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the rights of corporations as a person. It abolished many of the restrictions placed on corporations in areas such as lobbying and campaign donations. I'm too tired to go into the ripples of this, except to say that it will significantly change the way campaigns are run and laws. Money and wealth are increasingly becoming the centerpiece of our society.

Goodnight and blessings.

Second Day (Tuesday)

I forgot to mention my class last night, Screenplay writing. It looks very promising, apparently everyone in the class will have written half of a legitimate screenplay by the end of the semester. Having taken both fiction and poetry creative writing classes, this will be pushing me in a more challenging and (hopefully) structured direction. We learned about the formula that is used for writing plays and movies, I was pretty surprised to hear how the skeleton and planned out (almost every single one!) movies are.

Today, at 12:50 I had my Literature of War class. I originally signed up for this class because I am interested in war and because I miss taking english classes. I figured out that this will be my ninth english class, about four classes over the minimum required for a minor and one thesis away from an extra major. Unfortunately Willamette University would not recognize them for either since they don't fit their recipe. I don't mind so much; I've enjoyed learning to read, understand and write reasonably well. That's good enough for me. It turns out the class is going to be on the Vietnam war and our books will involve different perspectives on the conflict. The essay and homework load seems to be fairly easy and the books (thought there are 7 of them) should be pretty easy reads. Overall I feel pretty good about the class. Unfortunately I didn't learn anything since we haven't really begun getting into any of the material.

What have I learned today then? Well, I'd like to start with something that caught my eye while I was using the restroom, and that I'd like to remember. I'm currently reading Follow Me to Freedom by John Perkins and Shane Claiborne.




The book is written in the form of dialogue (and I highly recommend it). The bit I'll be quoting is Shane speaking, and then Shane quoting another guy (let me know if you want to borrow mine after I'm done).

Shane writes:

Not only are we to be in touch with the pain and brokeness of others, but we also have to face our own brokenness. It is through the cracks that the light comes in. It is knowing our wounds that helps prepare us to lead. THat's why God prefers the weak over the strong and uses the foolish to confound the weak. For this reason, He can make something beautiful of a mess. The best leaders have battles scars. Jesus Himself was a wounded healer. And it is our wounds that empower us to healers of others. The best domestic abuse counselors are women who have been in domestic abuse. THe best teachers in recovery are addicts themselves. And the most powerful voices for grace are those who have experienced tremendous violence and still been able to forgive.
Henri Nouwen cointed the term "wounded healer." He put it like this:

Compassion grows with the inner recognition that your neighbor shares your humanity with you. This partnership cuts through walls which might have kept you separate. Across all barriers of land and language, wealth and poverty, knowledge and ignorance, we are one, created from the same dust, subject to the same laws, and destined for the same end. With this compassion you can say, "In the face of the oppressed I recognize my own face and in the hands of the oppressor I recognize my own hand. Their flesh is my flesh, their blood is my blood, their pain is my pain, their smile is my smile. Their ability to torture is in me, too; their capacity to forgive I find also in myself. There is nothing in me that does not belong to them too; nothing in them that does not belong to me. In my heart, I know their yearning for love, and doen to my entrails I can feel their cruelty. In another's eyes I see my plea for forgiveness, and in the hardened from I see my refusal. When someone murders, I know that I too could have done that, and when someone gives birth, I know that I am capable of that as well. In the depths of my being, I meet my fellow humans with whom I share love and have life and death."

These words of truth gave me great hope and convicted me too. Too often I partake (or...instigate) in the condemnation, ridiculing and scoffing of people I do not understand or who I disagree with (too put it lightly). I didn't just realize this about myself, it's actually something I've tried to tone down and figure out how to approach differently...over the past year or so. But I know I need to work on it more...as words have so much power and my harsh judgement is harsh hypocrisy. At the same time, I know that what is wrong needs to be denounced and rejected. The difficult trick is finding how to be firm and still maintain that cool, aloof attitude of compassion. These two paragraphs helped with the knowledge that the pain I've been through can be used for good (it's not new, but reminders are always so uplifting).

Today in Massachusetts, Scott Brown won a seat for the Senate. A major reason why he won is because there was so much anger against the current Health Care bill. As a Republican, Brown would be a crucial vote in blocking the bill from passing the Senate. Government healthcare plan or no government healthcare plan I like what John Perkins writes about responding to the pains and longings of the people around us:

Not long ago, I stood outside the Family Health Care Clinic in Mendenhall, Mississippi—about 35 miles southeast of Jackson. We had purchased the building and integrated it more than 30 years ago, and Dennis Adams—a brilliant, kind brother in Christ from New York—has been the resident doctor there for the past 30 years. In the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a longing in the hearts of the people to have good health care. As leaders, we listened and found a way to answer that longing—together. That longing is still being answered today with the clinic.
That's the good news! Good news is the answer to people's longing. What are your longings? What are your greatest pains? What do your followers long for? Beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news. How can our longing become good news? And remember, all our longings can only be met in Jesus and His Church—His people in the Body of Christ.

The beautiful feet part--I think that is what I long to do:

I do not long merely for the truth, for example, of whether Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by government agents, but I long for the public forgiveness of these individuals or departments and their reconciliation with his family, friends and community. I long for a mass outpouring of education, compassion, physical and financial assistance, and active support by members of the Church for the sick, the elderly, the chronically ill and dying because it is righteous and pleasing to God.

Isaiah 52:7

How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who brings good news,
who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
who publishes salvation,
who says to Zion, "Your God reigns."

First Day of Classes (Monday)

I'm listening to "Let your Glory Fall" by Vineyard right now. All the of the familiar Vineyard praise music is very nostalgic to me. Makes me feel at home both psychologically and spiritually. I'm sure it has something to do with having good parents.

My first class, Dissent in American Political Thought, turned out to be quite something. It was very full and by looking at the syllabus, I could tell that the class is going to be positively exciting.

We weren't able to go over a lot in the class, but my Professor did mention one shocking news development that led me to my own online confirmation.

An article in Harper's Magazine titled The Guantánamo “Suicides”: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle by Scott Horton reports on three inmates who committed "suicide" at Guantanamo. Confirming the suicide deaths, the Commander of the base is reported as saying,

"used the announcement to attack the dead men. “I believe this was not an act of desperation,” he said, “but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”

When the story of the suicides broke back in the U.S>,

Lieutenant Commander Jeffrey Gordon, the Pentagon’s chief press officer, went still further, telling the Guardian’s David Rose, “These guys were fanatics like the Nazis, Hitlerites, or the Ku Klux Klan, the people they tried at Nuremberg.”

However the story was about to get both weirder and darker. The U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), released a report on the incident two years later which described the suicides has having taken place so:

"each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously...the NCIS report claims that an unnamed medical officer attempted to resuscitate one of the men, and, in attempting to pry open his jaw, broke his teeth

To top it off, "at least two of the prisoners also had cloth masks affixed to their faces, presumably to prevent the expulsion of the rags from their mouths". The total absurdity of the report is more fully appreciated in reading the article. The deaths of the three men, terrorist or not, were probably tortured and then murdered in violation of innumerable laws both legal, moral and spiritual.

The last two paragraphs are chilling.

Nearly 200 men remain imprisoned at Guantánamo. In June 2009, six months after Barack Obama took office, one of them, a thirty-one-year-old Yemeni named Muhammed Abdallah Salih, was found dead in his cell. The exact circumstances of his death, like those of the deaths of the three men from Alpha Block, remain uncertain. Those charged with accounting for what happened—the prison command, the civilian and military investigative agencies, the Justice Department, and ultimately the attorney general himself—all face a choice between the rule of law and the expedience of political silence. Thus far, their choice has been unanimous.

Not everyone who is involved in this matter views it from a political perspective, of course. General Al-Zahrani grieves for his son, but at the end of a lengthy interview he paused and his thoughts turned elsewhere. “The truth is what matters,” he said. “They practiced every form of torture on my son and on many others as well. What was the result? What facts did they find? They found nothing. They learned nothing. They accomplished nothing.”

I posted the link on my facebook too. Acts like these both sicken me and dishearten me. It is hard for me to accept the depravity people will sink to for their beliefs, for their passion (misguided or not). To see the full extent of covering up and lying that has gone on, says something about our pride--that even though we make ourselves to be great and strong, we are still a slave to shame. We fear shame and the result of shame--dejection and isolation. It is because of acts like this that I cannot bear to actively support and participate in our government. I feel that we Americans have made government our Idol.

Government has become something which can save and protect us from people we fear (when we should fear no one but our God). Government has become something that can save us from the Redcoats, Slavery, Nazis, Communist and Terrorists. For Conservatives, a Government controlled by them will save us from Liberals. For Democrats, a government controlled by them will save us from Republicans. Government will feed the poor, will be a hand of justice, deliver our mail, make us rich, and protect us at night. Christians have endorsed this false idol. One very recent example of this support can be seen in how the "sights" on high powered rifles used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with condensed citations of verses such as 2 Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12. What twisted mysticism is it that we Christians have the audacity to attach God's truth to tools that aid in the killing of God's children.

I don't like labels, because they come with connotations and implications that I'm not even fully aware of let alone endorse. But it is because Americans, including Christian Americans, have bought into the Government Idol that we have failed to see, envision and bring about creative solutions for the problems in our world. All creative solutions that I have so far involve at the very least the rejection of this Idol and a return to a very basic trust in God. Going back to what I said about labels, the idea of rejecting such an idol is rooted (some argue) in God's theocracy before King Saul --or more modern--in anarchist thought cultivated by Anabaptists, Tolstoy and Dorothy Day. They do not wage war against government but merely passively resist when cruelty is required of them (such as the draft) and otherwise ignore it. They come up with solutions to violence and poverty without ever venturing into legal and political ground. Such creative ideas still retain their originality because full trust in God contains eternal promise and possibility.

So, from this one class I've learned a lot and clarified a lot for myself (in just writing this out).

Question for tonight:
If our government is treated as an Idol, how appropriate is it for us to ask God to bless it?
Might it be better for us to repeat the 1st Commandment and to ask for mercy, forgiveness and grace, for guidance and humility, in our constant search for a better way to choose our actions as an individual, a family, a community, a nation, a world?

First Assignment

I had to read this for class tomorrow. My first homework assignment is a speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

How fitting.

"To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men--for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?"

Dr. King's ministry here is the "ministry of of Jesus Christ" and the war is the Vietnam war. He continues--

"...as I try to explain for you for myself the the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, the victims of our nation, for those it calls 'enemy', for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers."

-excerpts from "Beyond Vietnam" addressed to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church April 4, 1967

Dr. King then proceeds to give voice to the voiceless. He gives a voice to those who don't have a voice, in the spirit of Proverbs 31:8-9:

"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."

He denounces the many lies told the U.S. government in support of their war and against the Vietcong. Things that I actually had not known until I had read them from himself, even though the speech is forty three years old. . How strange it is that Vietnam seems to have been glossed over and forgotten.

How strange that we haven't...we have not apologized for that great and horrible, atrocious mistake we committed in Vietnam.

How strange is it that the truth and passion of Dr. King finds and expounds upon comes from scripture, the same scripture we use today to affirm our political structure, materialism and indulgent indifference.

Leaders and Geniuses

I experimented today and while browsing through four or five recipes online, I made myself some delicious (and certainly healthy) Vegetable Pasties! The filling included garlic cloves, onions, carrots, broccoli, mozzarella cheese, mushrooms, pine nuts and broccoli. I also added half of a delicious turnip (which looked a bit sketch in the store) having learned that it's quite healthy for the body. Despite having some trouble with making the dough and using my water bottle as a rolling pin, they turned out perfect. Even better with yogurt. Best part of it was that I enjoyed the making and experimenting...something I will get to at the end of this post.


Two things I learned today, one is a fact about our Congressional leaders and the other is about a certain man.


I was watching a clip of CNN's Jack Cafferty calling Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a "horrible woman". The insult was related to how she refused to disclose exactly how much money hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on governmental employees and family to go to the Copenhagen Summit and then stay in nice hotels (such as the Marriott). In the clip, Cafferty is outraged at the amount spent while Americans are suffering from the continuing recession. A sentiment that I can understand, especially considering how little was achieved at the Summit. This bit of information about Cafferty and Pelosi however wasn't really what struck me today. It was the information I learned when I stopped the video to google the number of millionaires in Congress.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as reported by the Wall Street Journal Post, there are 237 millionaires in Congress--roughly 45% of them. That says something about us as voters, about our system, about our leaders and even about the policy that is made. Here are some questions to mull over:
How representative are these representatives?
Is it good to have a political system that overwhelmingly prefers the wealthy?
Is it good to have politicians who are so heavily vested and interested in being wealthy, as leaders?



This last question may seem confusing to some of you. You might think: "Doesn't everyone want to be wealthy?"
I think many if not most of us wouldn't mind having money and definitely wouldn't mind having a lot of it. But there are some of us who do things and are motivated in life by things totally unrelated to wealth. Many doctors, I'm sure, become doctors to help cure diseases and save lives. Some are motivated by the promises of huge salaries but I would wager that a good deal of them are in it to help others and not themselves. And that's just one profession. There are millions of people involved in the healthcare industry that are motivated by a desire to help the sick--nurses and researchers for example. Healthcare isn't the only industry that you can find people with this foremost sentiment and desire to help people. It is a profession that is identified here in the states as decidedly American: the Inventor.

When one thinks of "inventors" our minds jump to several different places--Edison, the Wright Brothers or George Washington Carver. We hardly ever think of the man Nikola Tesla. Unfortunately for Tesla he was unlike Edison. Tesla was not particularly concerned with patenting his ideas and inventions, he wasn't that all interested in making money. The man undersold the royalties for what patents he patented (which weren't even close to the great number of things on his mind) and was way ahead of his time. Tesla invented and contributed to such modern fields of robotics, remote control, radar, computer science (for those of you who didn't read the wikipedia article, I'm borrowing text at the moment), ballistics, theoretical and nuclear physics, vacuum tube, x-ray. Many of his inventions are still in use (compared to those of Edison's who have become outdated) such as the alternating current "AC" electrical power and the Radio and something even more modern Wireless Energy. Tesla unsuccessfully sought to build theWardenclyffe Tower that would essentially guarantee instant communication and free wireless electricity. These two products combined with a number of Tesla's other inventions would bring about something Tesla called, "The World System". The World System would be essentially something like the Internet, except better. It would be able to provide wireless electricity to your lights in your house, to allowing the flight and remote controlling of a blimp, to the transmission of morse, audio and television. What stopped Tesla? Investors and money. The main financial supporter of the construction of the Wardenclyffe Tower was the renown J. P. Morgan. who pulled out of the project (and encouraged others to do so as well) upon learning that electricity would be provided to everyone for free.




So what's my point?

Greed has and will only gets mankind so far. Benevolent, voluntary work, I believe, is what really drives progress and what can continue to drive progress into the future.

If we required all elected Congressmembers to give up 90% of their savings, how many individuals would run for office? Would that actually weed out the individuals who are in it for the power and wealth? Would that drive down the costs of campaigns and make politicians more honest?

What about the private sector? Who are the Nikola Tesla's of our time? What developmental organizations are there out there that are devoted primarily to advancing mankind over the next shareholder's meeting? Is such an organization possible?

Always more questions.
Sincerely,

Intro to Spring Semester 2010

I have found to my great horror that I am nearing the end of my college education and that there is a great deal that I cannot remember. To ensure that this does not become a permanent issue, and that all information that enters my head does not merely dissipate into a black hole of blasé, nonexistent emptiness...I have resolved to write about the highlighted points of what I learn. However, having lived with my body and mind with its psychological and confusing quirks I know that it will take a lot more for me to remember–-AND because I know that merely knowing knowledge is not enough, I will be trying to connect the different pieces of information I learn, to each other in a way that helps me better understand the world I live inhabit.

For the sake of fun too, I may post an extra piece of thought provoking fact that I did not learn in class but still has a profound affect on the way I perceive my surroundings.